ARichTeaBiscuit: the LPUK's Fair Playing Field Bill could prevent the government from saving jobs

It doesn't seem that long ago when those on the benches of the Libertarian Party were seething at the Labour Party for the work that we did to ensure that the cuts that the Libertarians (with help from the Conservative Party) tried to implement against NIT and housing benefits were never implemented, and I am particularly proud of the fact that the LPUK's proposals to kick those on housing benefits from wealthy neighbourhoods, forced gentrification so to speak was never brought into fruition.

If you don't remember that period then I honestly don't blame you since it was also the era of the back and forth press war between the Libertarian Party and their previous coalition allies in the Conservative Party over the so-called poison pill, known in common circles as the Universal Childcare Act or Ambercare.

Yet, as the Libertarians were openly seething at the fact that their regressive attitude towards NIT and housing benefits claimants had been foiled they were also openly upset over the fact that the budget included provisions to support the development and growth of cooperative businesses in the country, and more recently they have submitted a bill designed to repeal that measure and prevent future parliaments from passing similar measures in the future.

I could end this article now rather simply by declaring that the legislation is invalid because it tries to tie the hands of future legislatures, but instead of doing that I want to dive into some of the other flaws that I noticed while reading this particular piece of legislation, but by doing so I wish to draw your mind back to the '60s and early '70s.

In that time despite significant advancements in technology, the aviation sector was still quite young, and this was especially true regarding the development of commercial jet airlines, even today the costs of developing new technology for this sector is quite high and that was even more of an acute factor several decades ago. So when Rolls Royce ran into technical problems developing a new engine platform for the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar they also ran into severe financial problems and as a result, the government at Westminster at the time took the decision to nationalise the firm to rescue it.

While the Lockheed L-1011 wasn't a commercial success of its own, the Rolls Royce RB211 went on to be utilised by several aircraft including the Boeing 747, 768 and the Tupolev Tu-204 and transformed the company into a world leader in engine development, a position that it maintains to this day.

It is perhaps one of the most successful examples of nationalisation in recent history as it didn't just save the immediate jobs that would've resulted from the dissolution of the company but it allowed the company in question to become a world-leader in its sector, and now the aviation sector remains quite an important part of our economy.

If the LPUK get their way and implement the provisions of B999 then a similar nationalisation could be prevented, as one could argue under the terms of the legislation that the rescue of one company, for example, Rolls Royce constitutes undue support for one member of the aviation sector above all the others.

In the course of the parliamentary debate, I also noted with some concern that a future government could also be prevented from awarding a contract to a firm for the construction of new rolling stuck under the condition that the stock would be constructed in the United Kingdom, as a competing company could challenge that under the basis that it wasn't awarded on merit which would quite clearly harm this sector heading into the future.

It would be incredibly unwise for members of parliament to restrict themselves from enacting an emergency nationalisation of a company that is vital to our economy, such as the example of Rolls Royce which was nationalised under a Conservative government that understood the value of its continued existence but due to the rather poor wording of B999 that would be the case if it passed, and for those reasons even those in parliament that ideologically oppose support for cooperatives should vote against B999.

ARichTeaBiscuit is the Leader of the Opposition.