Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by malg, 15 Jul 2019.
What of? If they are the top ten or who owns them?
AirlineRatings.com has the latest list of top airlines and is respected as acurate, the ownership is public knowledge easily found.
Did I say the current lot are any better? I would take the whole thing away from politics completely if it was possible to do so.
You are expressing the typical response to everything I said which contains no answers, just a regurgitation of identity politics.
I never advocated for any particular model.
I prefer reality and the reality is Labour have yet to post a single document or credible plan as to how nationalisation will work or be funded.
I would fully support a funded and credible plan to implement all of these things but it doesn't exist and never will because like I said their plan is not a functioning rail service. Their plan is only an ideological soviet style implementation of state control and ownership of services.
I'm sorry but this is all wrong. The only wholly state owned airlines on there are the Middle Eastern airlines but try looking up their profit and loss accounts and have you ever priced up a flight with those airlines??
The UK does not have an endless oil supply in any event to back up its losses which is why for years prior to now City never made a profit but didn't go bust.
Either way the fact there is a mix just proves that there is absolutely zero correlation between a quality service and state or private ownership. For every private airline I can name a badly run state owned airline, lookup Air India or Aeroflot.
A good and a bad service is differentiated by how it is run, not who owns it.
Why is Virgin not in the top ten airlines?
Because the last list didn't have them there
Singapore Airlines is 56% owned by the state. Thai Airways is more than 50% owned by the Thai Ministry of Finance. In other words, the state has a controlling stake in each case. Lufthansa and Qantas are basically private companies now. But the point about the Middle Eastern airlines and their profit and loss accounts is another example of missing the point of state ownership. The whole point of state ownership of key infrastructure is that they are able to be operated with the bigger picture in mind. It's possible (though not necessary) to operate public services at a loss, temporarily or permanently, in the hope of increased investment in other areas of the economy. I doubt Dubai or Abu Dhabi would be what they are today if they hadn't investing shitloads of public money into making them attractive transport hubs between Asia and Europe. And just for the record, I regularly fly between Asia and Europe, and Emirates, Qatar and to a lesser extent Etihad are regularly amongst the most affordable options (just had a quick look for August and a flight from where I am to Manchester is cheapest on Emirates followed by KLM and Oman Air, with basically naff all between them).
It's worth mentioning that nationalisation always becomes an option during a catastrophic fuck up. Northern Rock was nationalised when it threatened the economy. When the private company that ran the Fukushima power plant ignored two of their own safety reports leading to a triple nuclear meltdown, they were effectively nationalised to deal with the massive compensation payouts. We're always ready to jump in and spend government money cleaning up after private company failures, yet the idea of a government owning it before it fucks up is a complete non-starter for some people. As I said earlier, it's the dogma surrounding this issue that's ridiculous. As is the characterisation that if we had for example a publicly-owned nuclear power plant, then Boris Johnson would be personally managing the reactor.
Exactly. Not sure how people think it’ll be paid for. Energy is expensive. To subsidise it would mean paying more tax. And shareholders would not accept less than market value. Sounds like another clueless Corbyn policy.
Make your mind up.
You say there is no plan and then say what the plan is.
Its the plan of the big bad bogey man the USSR, that is some assumption because you automatically associate it with failure. That's classical Cold War propaganda, which confirms that you think Socialism = bad, Capitalism = good, which totally ignores of course that even Lenin was an advocate of some small scale free marketisation until Stalin put a stop to it. It also ignores Social Democratic public ownership models, you go straight to worst case scenario in your mind.
You may pay more tax, yet may save more on your energy bills than you pay in tax. If you take away the need for profit and run it for the public good then then the money paid to a limited number of shareholders can be spread to everyone, which will mean everybody saves instead of the few profiting.
It is plain ridiculous that your tax money was used to build infrastructure and then it was sold to a few who could profit from your tax.