Your political inclinations - who do you vote for?

[EuroTroll]

Let's all come out of the closet and learn more about one another, why don't we? ;)

Who do you vote for, generally? What are your political views?

Me, I see my political views two-dimensionally: there's the social dimension and the economic dimension. I'm very much a social liberal. I'm pro-euthanasia, pro-gay marriage and adoption, pro-abortion - basically pro-choice in all respects. The economic dimension is more complicated. I've voted for right-wing parties all my life, but at the next general election, I think I will vote for a left-wing party. Why? Because I've changed my mind about what the right path to prosperity is. I think right-wing economics eventually lead to prosperity for the very few - the too few. Society as a whole is better off IMO if there is more redistribution of wealth than there currently is in my country.

Luckily, I have four serious parliamentary parties to choose from. Isn't it a pity that in America, you only have a choice between two parties?

[gadjo_dilo]

I don’t have political views. All politicians are the same and all they do is for their own interest. In the past I was so naïve to vote for personalities that I liked. Now I understand that even if the bulletin of vote is as thick as Yellow Pages the battle is between 2 or 3 main parties. It was a time when I gave up voting because nothing would be changed. These days I always vote and always my vote is a negative one. I mean I don’t vote for X because I like him and have any expectation from him. I vote him because I can’t stand those who have the power.
Ironically, as I work for a governmental institution all these changes affect my work

[henners88]

I have to confess I don't really follow politics as much as I should. I usually ask my Dad who he votes for and I do the same :p

[EuroTroll]

I have to confess I don't really follow politics as much as I should. I usually ask my Dad who he votes for and I do the same :p

So, what are your Dad's political views? :D Do you both vote Conservative, Labour, or Lib Dem? :)

[henners88]

So, what are your Dad's political views? :D Do you both vote Conservative, Labour, or Lib Dem? :)
My father votes Conservative. :)

[Dave B]

At the moment in the UK it comes down to a choice of the Liars, the Complete & Utter Liars, and the Promise Breakers. There's also the Delusional Fantasists creeping up on the outside. It's frankly rather depressing.

[EuroTroll]

At the moment in the UK it comes down to a choice of the Liars, the Complete & Utter Liars, and the Promise Breakers. There's also the Delusional Fantasists creeping up on the outside. It's frankly rather depressing.

And which do you prefer, Dave? :)

[Mark]

The Conservative Party are detestable and always have been. They are a hangover from the past when the UK was ruled by the aristocracy and their sole aim is maintain and increase the wealth of the wealthy, the only conessions they make are as to not hurt those lower down the food chain just in case they lose votes, not that anyone other than well off would ever vote Tory, but the press have been known to turn on them.

The Liberal Democrats used to be they were the middle way party giving a sensible mix of both Labour and Tory policies, if a little over emphasising the green aspect for my tastes. But it turns out they are just as slimey as the Tories, perhaps more so are they are prepared to abandon their principles in order to get a little bit of power, promises made before the election dropped like hot bricks.

Labour - overall their intentions are in the right direction. A sensible amount of tax together with spending to make the country a better place for the majority. Unfortunately Gordon Brown did a lot of damage to the Labour party, firstly and most seriously he stood back and let the housing bubble and the banks spiral completely out of control, with the resultant crash we are paying a heavy price for now and will do for at least a decade more. Secondly he was disasterous as Prime Minister. If he'd let Blair continue to 2010 or called a snap election we wouldn't have a Tory government now - but then we'd still have him so... :s

The current leadership is no better, no matter how many rousing speaches Ed Milliband does he still looks like a 12 year old shouting his lines out in a school panto. They had an excellent candidate in David Milliband, who had the stature to be seen as potential Prime Minister from the start, instead they went for the idiot brother - as a result cripping the Labour party and most likely keeping them out of office for the remainder of the decade.

[Dave B]

And which do you prefer, Dave? :)
I actually agree with pretty much everything Mark wrote between our posts. I'm generally liberal (with a small "l") but have never voted for them because it's always seemed like a waste, and certainly wouldn't vote for them all the time Clegg the Liar is in charge; so I vote Labour on the grounds that they're the least worst, but I agree that Ed Milliband is a weak leader who constantly misses the gaping open goal that the coalition's steams of hopelessness leaves.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I believe the currently political system based on electoral competition between political parties representing right-wing and left-wing ideologies is getting increasingly irrelevant. It was good enough for 19th and 20th centuries but it no longer does the business. The society at large went far ahead in its development while politicians remain stuck in the past. Their parties no longer represent their constituencies. They only use the old rallying cries like 'freedom', 'equality' etc. but largely exist to cater to their establishment.

The new political paradigm is shaping up, but it is not yet evident. I think it will be less ideological, more personalized and increasingly technocratic. People will care more about the quality of performance of a given office or an official than about the ideology that they swear by. It means that the erosion of parliamentary democracy will continue and the real power will drift towards the executive and maybe judicial branches.

In base my actions on this reasoning. Belarus is not really a democratic country and I quit voting years ago. I am perfectly capable of holding most government officials I deal with accountable for their actions using existing opportunities and referring to all the right laws and bylaws. I'm trying not to be mean, though, and resort to legal proceedings when everything else has failed. I also try to rely on my own resources more than hope for the government to address my issues. That's my personal politics of sorts. It may sound unilateral and isolationist, but that's what it is. :wave:

[airshifter]

At the moment in the UK it comes down to a choice of the Liars, the Complete & Utter Liars, and the Promise Breakers. There's also the Delusional Fantasists creeping up on the outside. It's frankly rather depressing.

That certainly doesn't just apply to the UK. It's getting harder and harder to find any honest politicians.

I tend to vote towards the middle ground of radical conservative or liberal views. I've never voted for a Democratic President, but have voted for quite a few Democrats on a more local level. I have voted for Independents as well. I refuse to vote down any party line, ever.

[BDunnell]

They had an excellent candidate in David Milliband, who had the stature to be seen as potential Prime Minister from the start, instead they went for the idiot brother - as a result cripping the Labour party and most likely keeping them out of office for the remainder of the decade.

Really? I don't agree at all. I too think Ed Miliband is a fairly useless, ineffectual figure, but I believe he is likely to win the next election and become PM. When he was elected Labour leader I considered this fanciful, but — through few, or no, actions of his own — now my view has changed. Would he be a good PM? I very much doubt it, but nor do I believe his brother would have been as impressive a leader as many seem to.

[Mark]

Really? I don't agree at all. I too think Ed Miliband is a fairly useless, ineffectual figure, but I believe he is likely to win the next election and become PM. When he was elected Labour leader I considered this fanciful, but — through few, or no, actions of his own — now my view has changed. Would he be a good PM? I very much doubt it, but nor do I believe his brother would have been as impressive a leader as many seem to.

Well I hope that you are correct. As the Labour party under Ed Milliband has got to be better than the bunch we have in at the moment.

[BDunnell]

At present, I have no-one for whom to vote. Previously I always voted Liberal Democrat, because I found myself more in agreement with the party's policies than those of any other party, and we had an excellent local candidate in my home constituency; I worked in the constituency and Parliament for him when he was first elected, and on a personal level it pains me to find myself now so vehemently opposed to his, and the party's, role in government. I believe the Lib Dems have been utterly ruined by their involvement in this administration, and that their future now lies as something along the lines of the FDP in Germany, namely as a coalition partner party rather than as an independent political force. I never once as a supporter wanted the Lib Dems to be in government, partly because it was clearly never a likely proposition but largely because I thought it would mean the abandonment of important principles, and also because I view being an effective opposition as an honourable function which would thus have to be discarded. The party has ditched the policies — commitment to free higher education, higher top rate of tax — with which I most closely identified, so there is no option for me but no longer to support them.

The Conservatives I would never, under any circumstances, vote for; it is good, I feel, that a social liberal now leads the Tory party, and on those grounds I hope he remains in that post, if not as Prime Minister. Labour I will not support, as a point of principle following the Iraq war. And the other parties — UKIP, the Greens? No way. One seldom comes across sensible independent candidates either. So, at present there is no reason for me to go to the ballot box in 2015 other than to exercise my democratic right, and that I will not do merely for the sake of it. Why should I, when I find myself vehemently opposed to all three main parties?

[BDunnell]

Well I hope that you are correct. As the Labour party under Ed Milliband has got to be better than the bunch we have in at the moment.

Of that I'm not sure. The Labour front bench is deeply unimpressive, with perhaps one or two exceptions. In fact, there is a real dearth of talent in all the parties. I cannot imagine the Tories being able to find a leader superior to Cameron; Alan Johnson would undoubtedly have made a better Labour leader than Ed Miliband, but has effectively ruled himself out; and only Vince Cable would be a serious alternative contender for the Lib Dem leadership.

[Mintexmemory]

I have long left the idealism of youth behind. I was a left wing voter in the 70s and 80s and was vehemently opposed to the ideology of Thatcherites. As a result of the Labour Party being hi-jacked by career politicians, who have never done a day's real work in their lives, I now feel disenfranchised. Blair is the template for the 'no convictions' politics that seem to pervade the LP currently. Until they get back to be truly representative of the average joe they will struggle to become a credible alternative in the minds of the increasingly apathetic UK electorate - even then they'd be permanently scuppered if the Scottish vote is lost to the independence cause.

[BDunnell]

I have long left the idealism of youth behind. I was a left wing voter in the 70s and 80s and was vehemently opposed to the ideology of Thatcherites. As a result of the Labour Party being hi-jacked by career politicians, who have never done a day's real work in their lives, I now feel disenfranchised. Blair is the template for the 'no convictions' politics that seem to pervade the LP currently. Until they get back to be truly representative of the average joe they will struggle to become a credible alternative in the minds of the increasingly apathetic UK electorate - even then they'd be permanently scuppered if the Scottish vote is lost to the independence cause.

There is a difficulty in this, however: what constitutes the 'average Joe' today is very different from the definition of 20, let alone 30, years ago. Working-class solidarity is largely a thing of the past. No party can hope to win an election these days on the basis of its core vote.

[Dave B]

Labour I will not support, as a point of principle following the Iraq war.
I live in hope that this was more down to the misguided evangelical zeal of their leader at the time, rather than indicative of their general policy.

[Starter]

I vote for the person whom I perceive as being the best proponent of what I think government should do. Best among those running that is. Sometimes that person is a republican, sometimes a democrat, sometimes an independent and sometimes a libertarian.

[Mintexmemory]

There is a difficulty in this, however: what constitutes the 'average Joe' today is very different from the definition of 20, let alone 30, years ago. Working-class solidarity is largely a thing of the past. No party can hope to win an election these days on the basis of its core vote.

Agree entirely, and therin lies the problem. I wouldn't claim to be prolier than thou, I certainly don't have a traditional 'working class' job although my background is very much one of working class Londoners. However the constituency that the cyphers in charge of the LP is reaching out to in order to widen their appeal is just that which will disenchant the traditionalist wing. Labour can't win another election in the UK, the Tories can only lose them. All I pray is that UK dislike of extremes will continue to leave the fascists as a fringe as opposed to the mainstream evident in France and Italy

[BDunnell]

I live in hope that this was more down to the misguided evangelical zeal of their leader at the time, rather than indicative of their general policy.

You can bet your life that most of the current Labour front bench would have backed Blair to the hilt had they been in Parliament at the time, or that, if they were, they did just that. (Of course, the record of the Tories regarding Iraq is shameful too, not that many remember this.)

[BDunnell]

However the constituency that the cyphers in charge of the LP is reaching out to in order to widen their appeal is just that which will disenchant the traditionalist wing.

Well, this is a process that's been going on for more than 20 years, and it allowed Labour to win three consecutive General Elections. I'm not saying I like the trend; rather, that it has done the desired job. It's much the same as the debate currently going on in Conservative circles. Traditionalists are wary of what they perceive to be a threat from UKIP and don't like Cameron's social liberalism, but steering away from that course would be disastrous for the future of the party, and thus completely counter-intuitive. Those calling for his removal are in effect calling for the Tories to be defeated at the next election, given that recent history shows us the unpopularity of swinging to the right (as per Hague in 2001, Howard in 2005).


Labour can't win another election in the UK, the Tories can only lose them.

This is the case at the moment, but it won't be forever. And don't forget that the Tories haven't won a General Election outright since 1992.

[edv]

I typically vote for the party with the most sound economic policy.
To me, that is usually a conservative policy (hard work, American Dream, smaller gov't etc)
But I am not a big fan of conservative social issues regarding gays, religion, etc.
I suppose, then, that I might be considered a Libertarian.

[Starter]

I typically vote for the party with the most sound economic policy.
To me, that is usually a conservative policy (hard work, American Dream, smaller gov't etc)
But I am not a big fan of conservative social issues regarding gays, religion, etc.
I suppose, then, that I might be considered a Libertarian.
Welcome. :p

[donKey jote]

I'd vote if I could but as I've always been technically a migrant wherever I've lived (Spain, UK, Austria, Germany) I never have done.... on second thoughts, I could have voted in the UK (being an Irish citizen :crazy: ), but I didn't register to avoid Maggie's Poll Tax :p

If I had to vote for a party it would have to be a center-left (in the European sense), secular one.

[edv]

As an aside...I recall that one of the items on my bucket list was to cast a democratic vote from within a totalitarian country...which I accomplished in 2008 (Voted in the Canadian federal election at the consulate in Tripoli, Libya)

[TheFamousEccles]

This is an interesting thread - I will add my 2c worth at a latter stage as I have to go out but suffice to say - I am a Lefty ****er of long standing :vader:

[anthonyvop]

I vote pro-choice.....In everything.

[call_me_andrew]

I'm conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues. I think that makes me some kind of authoritarian.

[EuroTroll]

I vote pro-choice.....In everything.

That's a surprise, I must say. I had you down as a social conservative.

[Rollo]

I belong to the economic left but the social conservative side of politics. I firmly believe that infrastructure such as water, gas, electric, rail, roads, schools, hospitals, fire services, judiciary, telecoms etc. should be run by the state with no private ownership whatsoever. They're run semi-inefficiently by the state but the lack of a profit motive, tends to mean that services actually work better.


If I was in the US, neither the Republicans or the Deomcrats comes close to this, so I'd vote for a third party, out of spite.
If I was in the UK, neither the Tories, Labour or the Lib Dems comes close to this, so I'd vote for a minor party, out of spite.
Living in Australia though, neither Labor or the Liberals or Nationals comes close to this, so I vote for a minor parties, out of spite.

The big difference in Australia to both the UK and the US being that because the Senate in Australia has proportional representation, more than just the majors are often represented; sometimes they even hold the balance of power. And in the case of the House of Reps, the indies and the Greens became kingmakers in 2010.

[keysersoze]

[quote="Rollo"]I belong to the economic left but the social conservative side of politics. I firmly believe that infrastructure such as water, gas, electric, rail, roads, schools, hospitals, fire services, judiciary, telecoms etc. should be run by the state with no private ownership whatsoever. They're run semi-inefficiently by the state but the lack of a profit motive, tends to mean that services actually work better. [quote]

The profit motive you seem to detest would very likely lead to a more efficient system. In the U.S. there are obviously a few outstanding public schools (they would be considered private in the U.K.) but, generally speaking, private schools here deliver a far superior education on several levels.

Likewise, the government-run and tax-payer funded mail service here is a complete and utter financial nightmare--they always operate in the red, losing billions each year--whereas UPS, Fedex, and DHL seem to do just fine.

We do not have a state-run telecom but I am convinced it would run inefficiently.

Not saying these couldn't work--they may indeed work in other countries--but our free market system has proven to work well. Of course, they must be regulated to an extent.

Needless to say, I am a fiscal conservative. Socially, I'm liberal, but not the off-the-charts variety. I'm pro-life (except in unusual circumstances) and anti-death penalty.

I most closely identify with the Libertarian Party, something the Republican Party is becoming more like.

[slorydn1]

Wow. After reading through all of this I find that I am rather complicated. Not only do I not really identify with any particular political party here in the US, I really don't line up with any particular general ideology, either.

I am pro-gun, anti-abortion (except in special circumstances) and I believe that there are way too many entitlement programs allowing people to choose to stay out of work (it is rampant in my area, I see it everyday), that big government is a bad thing, that the federal government has way to much say in our daily lives, that alot of things could be handled by the state and local governments much more efficiently than at the federal level, and that there are way too many duplicitous departments spending tax money to do pretty much the same things. I believe that having a Department of Education at the federal level is absolutely ludicrous. I believe we need to expand our search for oil not restrict it. I believe that we should be standing up for an indviduals (and organization's) right to pray to God or whatever god they choose, not restrict it. I believe our legal system here in America, especialy on the Civil side is as screwed up as it possibly can be and that it is far to easy to sue someone-serious legal reform is needed. I believe that we are not tough enough on crime, that a 10 year prison sentence should mean a criminal actually spends 10 years in prison, not 2 years with time off for good behavior.

All that right there should make me a far right wing Rush Limbaugh quoting conservative Republican from post-experimental hell, right?

Well, actually-

I believe the rich make far too much money compared to everyone else, that they don't pay anywhere near their fair share in taxes, that there are truly poor people out there that really do need our help (kinda contradicts what I said above, I know), that we don't invest anywhere near enough as a country in technology and science. I believe we are slowly killing our planet and lack the political will to do anything about it. And although I believe that we need to find more oil, I also believe that we need to do way more to expand our use of renewable energy, because those fossil fuels we need to be drilling and digging for will run out, eventually. I believe we need to stop discriminating against homosexuals (well really anyone who we may view as "different", tbh). I believe that we as a society don't do anywhere near enough in recognizing and treating people with mental health issues. I believe that health care should be universal, that a person shouldn't have to pay so damn much just to see a doctor. I believe we aren't doing anywhere near enough to make our education system better. I believe that the use of the death penalty has run its course and should be done away with. I believe we should de-criminalize Marijuana and tax it heavily-treat it just like alcohol.

All that right there should make me a far left wing tree hugging Nancy Pelosi quoting liberal Democrat from post experimental hell, right?

Truth is, if I were so inclined to run for office (not that I ever would, I despise politicians, they seem to be all on the take or soon will be) I would be un-electable. I would never make it through the Primary process of either major party. My primary "opponents" would pick me apart on those things that go against the party line that I never could make it to a general election-and even if somehow I were to make it that far, voters would focus in on all things they don't agree with on either side, and not on the things they agree with.


Well there ya' go. You asked, I answered. I generally try to stay away from the political debates around here because of the labeling that inevitably happens, but there it is.

[edv]

Wow, slorydn1, you're right...you wouldn't make it in either primary with those beliefs, but you could start a 3rd party and call it the Common Sense Party.
For every issue that arises, you'd simply tackle it with a common sense approach. That would be a very popular thing, I'd bet.

But...I would never vote for you...y'know...because of that Harvick thing...

[keysersoze]

Wow. After reading through all of this I find that I am rather complicated. Not only do I not really identify with any particular political party here in the US, I really don't line up with any particular general ideology, either.

I am pro-gun, anti-abortion (except in special circumstances) and I believe that there are way too many entitlement programs allowing people to choose to stay out of work (it is rampant in my area, I see it everyday), that big government is a bad thing, that the federal government has way to much say in our daily lives, that alot of things could be handled by the state and local governments much more efficiently than at the federal level, and that there are way too many duplicitous departments spending tax money to do pretty much the same things. I believe that having a Department of Education at the federal level is absolutely ludicrous. I believe we need to expand our search for oil not restrict it. I believe that we should be standing up for an indviduals (and organization's) right to pray to God or whatever god they choose, not restrict it. I believe our legal system here in America, especialy on the Civil side is as screwed up as it possibly can be and that it is far to easy to sue someone-serious legal reform is needed. I believe that we are not tough enough on crime, that a 10 year prison sentence should mean a criminal actually spends 10 years in prison, not 2 years with time off for good behavior.

All that right there should make me a far right wing Rush Limbaugh quoting conservative Republican from post-experimental hell, right?

Well, actually-

I believe the rich make far too much money compared to everyone else, that they don't pay anywhere near their fair share in taxes, that there are truly poor people out there that really do need our help (kinda contradicts what I said above, I know), that we don't invest anywhere near enough as a country in technology and science. I believe we are slowly killing our planet and lack the political will to do anything about it. And although I believe that we need to find more oil, I also believe that we need to do way more to expand our use of renewable energy, because those fossil fuels we need to be drilling and digging for will run out, eventually. I believe we need to stop discriminating against homosexuals (well really anyone who we may view as "different", tbh). I believe that we as a society don't do anywhere near enough in recognizing and treating people with mental health issues. I believe that health care should be universal, that a person shouldn't have to pay so damn much just to see a doctor. I believe we aren't doing anywhere near enough to make our education system better. I believe that the use of the death penalty has run its course and should be done away with. I believe we should de-criminalize Marijuana and tax it heavily-treat it just like alcohol.

All that right there should make me a far left wing tree hugging Nancy Pelosi quoting liberal Democrat from post experimental hell, right?

Truth is, if I were so inclined to run for office (not that I ever would, I despise politicians, they seem to be all on the take or soon will be) I would be un-electable. I would never make it through the Primary process of either major party. My primary "opponents" would pick me apart on those things that go against the party line that I never could make it to a general election-and even if somehow I were to make it that far, voters would focus in on all things they don't agree with on either side, and not on the things they agree with.


Well there ya' go. You asked, I answered. I generally try to stay away from the political debates around here because of the labeling that inevitably happens, but there it is.

Not much to dislike there at all. I'm still trying to wrap my head around Obamacare.

úp cho ngÃ*y cu?i tu?n nÃ*o :D

[Roamy]

85% of our congress should be taken and released in the wilderness of Montana and then "open season" should promptly be declared.

[Starter]

85% of our congress should be taken and released in the wilderness of Montana and then "open season" should promptly be declared.
Only 85%??

[race aficionado]

I'm watching Nascar with my - up to now - far fetched dreams of seeing him win an oval race, and I'm reminded of a quote that I'm sure most of you have heard before.
Wouldn't it be great if our U S of A congressmen and women would ware sponsorship badges as they do in NASCAR.
Now that would be a sight to behold.

It's a travesty and we in the USA deserve it because we allow it to continue.

Oh cool! Juan's top 30 with 100 laps to at Bristol. :)

[anthonyvop]

That's a surprise, I must say. I had you down as a social conservative.


I am a social conservative. Leave us alone. Is there anything more conservative than that?

[BDunnell]

I am a social conservative. Leave us alone. Is there anything more conservative than that?

Very few traditional conservatives would, I'd imagine, view things like allowing abortion and gay marriage as conservative values.

[Rollo]

The profit motive you seem to detest would very likely lead to a more efficient system. In the U.S. there are obviously a few outstanding public schools (they would be considered private in the U.K.) but, generally speaking, private schools here deliver a far superior education on several levels.

I have no doubt that there are a few private schools which deliver a far superior education on several levels. The key word in that sentence is "few". I ask the question of who the economy is intended to serve and indeed what the point of nationhood is? If a country is only intended to serve a few people, then that's fine I suppose but I wouldn't really think that such a country is noble.


Likewise, the government-run and tax-payer funded mail service here is a complete and utter financial nightmare--they always operate in the red, losing billions each year--whereas UPS, Fedex, and DHL seem to do just fine.

I would also suspect that a privately run mail service would entirely fail to carry mail to places where it was unprofitable to do so; why should it?


We do not have a state-run telecom but I am convinced it would run inefficiently.

I'm also convinced that an American state-run telecom would run inefficiently. I've been convinced for a long time that Americans are incapable of running properly funded government.

Australia privatised its national telco in 1996. Telstra had plans to build a fibre-optic network across the country delivering services which it thought would be important in the future (which with the benefit of hindsight are now ubiquitous). Once it was privatised, the plans to build the National Fibre Optic Network were abandoned.
Cue 17 years later, Telstra never built the network and Australia went from being ranked 2 in terms of telco service to 21 out of 34 first-world countries (according to the OECD). The National Broadband Network which the Federal Govt announced in 2009 basically fulfills the function which private enterprise failed to do.

[airshifter]

Very few traditional conservatives would, I'd imagine, view things like allowing abortion and gay marriage as conservative values.

These days I don't even claim to lean closer to any specific party or thoughts on politics. Much like many things I just think for myself and don't care what category anyone using stereotypes might put me in.

[wedge]

Who would want to be a politician? Being a beacon of hope is not what it's cracked up to be: BBC News - Aung San Suu Kyi: From icon to political player (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21802811)

[sunita1211]

hmm to have a political inclinations is a strong question as i dnt have much knowledge aout the politics other than just voting for the netaas

[sunita1211]

but you see ignorance towards politics leads to a very bad situation in a countey economic wisw and ofcorse law-vise for these two things really affect one a lottttt.

[sunita1211]

a wrongly elected politician or a party can lead to avery good or a BAD country for which we will be the one to suffer

[sunita1211]

but neways i think all the politicians are corrupt except few but the fews are nt ablreto make much differecnce for the whole cause of cheat or scam the politicians cause

[Knock-on]

I hd never voted up to the last election as I didn't believe in any of the parties. However, I don't think it's a case of choosing who you want in but rather who you don't so I voted Conservative.

So, rather than saying what Paty I believe in, I'm going to touh on a few areas where I would make changes if I was in Power.

I am a firm beliver in reducing the size of Government and the Public sector. It creates jobs for the sake of it and a class of people that will always vote for a party that guarentees to keep them employed. I like employment but can't see the point of frivioulous employment for the purpose of having a job without actually producing or achieving anything.

So, I would take a huge swipe at the Civil Service, encourage (strongly) people to get off benefits, make the NHS much more fit for purpose instead of it trying to be a cash strapped, mediocre jack of all trades and take a fresh look at the Military. I will probably explain more as the thred develops.

As for social issues, I would take power away from Government to make every decision of our lives. People should have autonamy to run their lives as they want as long as it conforms to social acceptance. For example, we have Town Centres dying because people shun them for large, out of town retail centres. Well, hang on a minute. Why is local government obsessed with charging through the nose to park and enforce a draconian parking policy to penalise people. Much better to have more open parking policy, with little enforcement apart from tradittional traffic wardens penalising people that park illegally (double yellows and blocking roads). This way, it makes sense to visit town centres and if you abuse the Law of the road, youre nicked.

Abortion, smoking, drinking and other drugs; let the individual decide. It's personal choice and if you want to throw your life away by chasing dragons, then it weeds you out of the gene pool.

Keep bans on Guns and holding knives etc and if people are caught, bang them up. No messing about but a minimum 1 year with Hard Labour without any treats (TV, Playstation, Pool etc) for the first half of a sentence to punish them and then if they conform to the regime, they earn the right to a rehabilitation program that includes education, victim awareness and a positive, supported release program to help you back to the community and into a guarenteed job. If you don't conform to the regime, then keep them there until they do. I want prisons to rehabilitate people rather than just get them off the street for a period.

I would also implement a work fair policy to get people off long term benefits. You would get a maximum 6 months on benefit in a 3 year period on full benefits. If you haven't found a job in that time, you would go on a work program for a maximum of 30 hours per week to allow you time to find a job. The work would be in your local area collecting litter, gardening and mowing council land and the elderly. Assisting in Nurseries nder professional guidence to provide cheap childcare for parents wanting to work. Anything that benefits the community they live in and that supports them. I would also drop the 30 hours a week to 15 if they partake in back to work training but people need to contribute if they receive benefits instead of having no value associated with this support. If you don't conform, you lose your benefit.

I have loads of other ideas but I'll let the indignant pull these ideas apart and answer them before elaborating :D

[BDunnell]

I am a firm beliver in reducing the size of Government and the Public sector. It creates jobs for the sake of it and a class of people that will always vote for a party that guarentees to keep them employed. I like employment but can't see the point of frivioulous employment for the purpose of having a job without actually producing or achieving anything.

Are you able to cite specific examples? It's all very easy to make such statements, but very often difficult to back them up with genuine cases of people whose jobs are actually worthless — an accusation that's often quite offensive to the individuals concerned.

Furthermore, I would far rather retain most of the public sector jobs you deride than the low-paid, often temporary ones the private sector, which has proved itself time and again no more capable of running public services than the public sector, has created in recent times. This has enabled the Government to trumpet the role the private sector is playing towards economic recovery, ignoring the nature of the jobs being created.



People should have autonamy to run their lives as they want as long as it conforms to social acceptance.

How can one define 'social acceptance'? This is a dangerous road down which to go.



For example, we have Town Centres dying because people shun them for large, out of town retail centres.

And why has this happened? Not because of car parking, but because of the free market, in which I assume you believe. This is an essential contradiction in your point of view. If you want a free market coupled with a light touch by local authorities, you're going to have out-of-town shopping centres and a related decline in town centres — and this is before one even considers the changes in shopping habits, again brought about by the free market, that have contributed to the downfall of many long-established high street shops.


Why is local government obsessed with charging through the nose to park and enforce a draconian parking policy to penalise people. Much better to have more open parking policy, with little enforcement apart from tradittional traffic wardens penalising people that park illegally (double yellows and blocking roads). This way, it makes sense to visit town centres and if you abuse the Law of the road, youre nicked.

Much better still to encourage public transport use and end the dependancy many people have on cars.



Abortion, smoking, drinking and other drugs; let the individual decide. It's personal choice and if you want to throw your life away by chasing dragons, then it weeds you out of the gene pool.

Well, the individual can decide already on abortion, smoking and drinking. On drugs I tend to agree with you about decriminalisation.



Keep bans on Guns and holding knives etc and if people are caught, bang them up. No messing about but a minimum 1 year with Hard Labour without any treats (TV, Playstation, Pool etc) for the first half of a sentence to punish them and then if they conform to the regime, they earn the right to a rehabilitation program that includes education, victim awareness and a positive, supported release program to help you back to the community and into a guarenteed job. If you don't conform to the regime, then keep them there until they do. I want prisons to rehabilitate people rather than just get them off the street for a period.

So do I, but the sort of prison you suggest is not, I believe, the answer. We seem obsessed in the UK with the notion of toughening prisons up, when there is little evidence that this approach pays off. Indeed, examples from overseas suggest quite the reverse.



I would also implement a work fair policy to get people off long term benefits. You would get a maximum 6 months on benefit in a 3 year period on full benefits. If you haven't found a job in that time, you would go on a work program for a maximum of 30 hours per week to allow you time to find a job. The work would be in your local area collecting litter, gardening and mowing council land and the elderly. Assisting in Nurseries nder professional guidence to provide cheap childcare for parents wanting to work. Anything that benefits the community they live in and that supports them. I would also drop the 30 hours a week to 15 if they partake in back to work training but people need to contribute if they receive benefits instead of having no value associated with this support. If you don't conform, you lose your benefit.

Workfare only benefits the employers, not the employees — it's cheap labour under a different name. Making benefits dependant upon participation in such schemes is not appropriate on those grounds alone, quite apart from all the others. I think we should be focusing on creating the conditions in which proper jobs exist rather than forcing people into menial, low-paid ones. Only then will the problem — if it is a problem; of this, despite the deliberate efforts on the part of sections of the media and certain politicians to demonise those on benefits, I am not convinced — truly be solved for the longer term.

[odykas]

How can I vote for Angela Merkel? :evil:

[gadjo_dilo]

I am a firm beliver in reducing the size of Government and the Public sector. It creates jobs for the sake of it and a class of people that will always vote for a party that guarentees to keep them employed. I like employment but can't see the point of frivioulous employment for the purpose of having a job without actually producing or achieving anything.



:arrows:

[Mintexmemory]

How can I vote for Angela Merkel? :evil:
Presumably you have to first ensure you are registered to vote either in person in Germany or by postal vote or representation at the embassy in your country of residence. I believe there is now a paperless system (correct me if I'm wrong) operating in German elections so if you need help in the correct procedure for finding Angela's entry, where you want to make your choice I'm sure there will be a 'help' button or a nice young civil servant on hand to explain the intricacies to you. Good Luck in ensuring another term of office for Silvio Berlusconi's favourite woman.

[millencolin]

Living in Australia though, neither Labor or the Liberals or Nationals comes close to this, so I vote for a minor parties, out of spite.



As do I. All the big parties in this country are terrible. Politicians acting like children instead of trying to make Australia a better place.

In my electorate, the only minor party we had in the lower house election was the Greens, so they got my vote.

Until one of the major parties show some proper direction and start acting like grown ups, then I will keep voting for minor parties.

[Starter]

As do I. All the big parties in this country are terrible. Politicians acting like children instead of trying to make Australia a better place.
Nice (perhaps sad is a better word) to see we're not the only ones with that problem.

[Mark]

Isn't it a problem the world over? With every form of government.

[Knock-on]

Are you able to cite specific examples? It's all very easy to make such statements, but very often difficult to back them up with genuine cases of people whose jobs are actually worthless — an accusation that's often quite offensive to the individuals concerned.

Furthermore, I would far rather retain most of the public sector jobs you deride than the low-paid, often temporary ones the private sector, which has proved itself time and again no more capable of running public services than the public sector, has created in recent times. This has enabled the Government to trumpet the role the private sector is playing towards economic recovery, ignoring the nature of the jobs being created.

This is a thread in itself. I'll wait until Eurotroll starts it :D


How can one define 'social acceptance'? This is a dangerous road down which to go.

Socially acceptable is not something that can be defined, but just is. For example, it's socially acceptable to go out for a drink in the High Street but not socially acceptable to be blind drunk in the high street, falling all over the place and peeing in shop doorways.


And why has this happened? Not because of car parking, but because of the free market, in which I assume you believe. This is an essential contradiction in your point of view. If you want a free market coupled with a light touch by local authorities, you're going to have out-of-town shopping centres and a related decline in town centres — and this is before one even considers the changes in shopping habits, again brought about by the free market, that have contributed to the downfall of many long-established high street shops.

I don't remember advocating the curtailment of out of town shopping centres or even limiting the free market. If you have drawn that conclusion from what I wrote then you are wrong as it was never said or implied.

What I did say was that the draconian parking war that local government wages on town centre motorists, using them as a cash cow, turns people off using Town Centres which if anything, restricts the free market for those town centre shops.


Much better still to encourage public transport use and end the dependancy many people have on cars.

Why shouldn't I be dependant on my car. It's my choice and if I want to drive my car to commute, go shopping or even just go out for a drive for fun, then what's wrong with that? Public transport works very well in Cities and for those that want to travel to cities or home again but for those that live in the Country, it's pretty ineffectual.

If I travel to London, I jump on the train and then use the Tube or Busses in town. If I want to go to my local Sainsburys which is a mile and a half away, I must use the car or walk there and back half a dozen times with all the shopping I need.


Well, the individual can decide already on abortion, smoking and drinking. On drugs I tend to agree with you about decriminalisation.

I just don't think banning everything works.


So do I, but the sort of prison you suggest is not, I believe, the answer. We seem obsessed in the UK with the notion of toughening prisons up, when there is little evidence that this approach pays off. Indeed, examples from overseas suggest quite the reverse.

Again, one for Eurotroll this one :laugh: However, I didn't say just have tough prisons which I agree do little (if anything) to rehabilitate offenders.

I suggested a multi dimensional approach where the first part of the sentence is the short, sharp shock. The tough prison if you like, to introduce a base line for criminals. "If you do wrong, you get punished" is a message I want to get across. BUT, once the punishment is administered and a prisoner conforms, then there is a consequence and that consequence is the provision of luxuries in their cells. Possibly the move to a different cell which is more comfortable and allows the prisoner to start building up dignity and self respect. Education, training and the tools necessary to leave prison and become a valued member of society rather than just an ex-con.

And more, a propper transition mechanism for when the prisoner is released, to integrate them back in society. Half way houses with proper support as part of their sentence so they have to participate and an understanding that help will be availiable to get them in employment and when they are ready, to leave the half way house and return to a full life. We can go further and have ongoing 24/7 support as and when needed that an ex-prisoner can call upon if crisis or temptation arises.

I would much rather have that sort of framework than the current process which does little to stop reoffending and the beauty is that it would pay for itself many times over by reducing the prison population as it succedes.


Workfare only benefits the employers, not the employees — it's cheap labour under a different name. Making benefits dependant upon participation in such schemes is not appropriate on those grounds alone, quite apart from all the others. I think we should be focusing on creating the conditions in which proper jobs exist rather than forcing people into menial, low-paid ones. Only then will the problem — if it is a problem; of this, despite the deliberate efforts on the part of sections of the media and certain politicians to demonise those on benefits, I am not convinced — truly be solved for the longer term.


Gordon Bennet. Don't blame it all on the Daily Mail FFS. :)

Seriously, I think we are failing every single person that's on long term unemployment benefit. Lack of dignity, respect and purpose are by products of sucessive governments failure to address this issue.

I think if we take all the points raised, this thread will spiral out of control but possibly take one that you feel is really worthy of discussion and start a thread. Lets have an open discussion looking at pro's and cons where we try to understand the others point of view and judge the subject on it's merits rather than just argue our corner in a closed, negative manner?

[BDunnell]

Socially acceptable is not something that can be defined, but just is.

There are many things that some people deem socially acceptable and others don't. It's wrong, therefore, to believe that there is too much common ground.



I don't remember advocating the curtailment of out of town shopping centres or even limiting the free market. If you have drawn that conclusion from what I wrote then you are wrong as it was never said or implied.

What I did say was that the draconian parking war that local government wages on town centre motorists, using them as a cash cow, turns people off using Town Centres which if anything, restricts the free market for those town centre shops.

The notion that car parking charges are to blame for declining town centre footfall really does strike me as rather fanciful. Town centres are declining because not enough people actively need or want to go to certain shops any more; therefore, they close. If a shop is good enough, or meets a particular need, people will go to it. It's all very well beating about the bush, but this is the central reason for the decline you outline, not car parking prices. Nothing's going to make the problem go away, and we need to bear that in mind rather than adopting a 'finger in the dyke' approach.



Why shouldn't I be dependant on my car. It's my choice and if I want to drive my car to commute, go shopping or even just go out for a drive for fun, then what's wrong with that? Public transport works very well in Cities and for those that want to travel to cities or home again but for those that live in the Country, it's pretty ineffectual.

Yes, precisely because the attitude you describe is very common, and has led to public transport in such areas being neglected by politicians at all levels.



I just don't think banning everything works.

Nor do I, but the ban on smoking in public places I wholeheartedly agree with.


However, I didn't say just have tough prisons which I agree do little (if anything) to rehabilitate offenders.

I suggested a multi dimensional approach where the first part of the sentence is the short, sharp shock. The tough prison if you like, to introduce a base line for criminals. "If you do wrong, you get punished" is a message I want to get across. BUT, once the punishment is administered and a prisoner conforms, then there is a consequence and that consequence is the provision of luxuries in their cells. Possibly the move to a different cell which is more comfortable and allows the prisoner to start building up dignity and self respect. Education, training and the tools necessary to leave prison and become a valued member of society rather than just an ex-con.

And more, a propper transition mechanism for when the prisoner is released, to integrate them back in society. Half way houses with proper support as part of their sentence so they have to participate and an understanding that help will be availiable to get them in employment and when they are ready, to leave the half way house and return to a full life. We can go further and have ongoing 24/7 support as and when needed that an ex-prisoner can call upon if crisis or temptation arises.

I would much rather have that sort of framework than the current process which does little to stop reoffending and the beauty is that it would pay for itself many times over by reducing the prison population as it succedes.

With much of this I agree, and I do appreciate the fact that you're not simply coming at this from the 'hang 'em and flog 'em' angle, I don't think there's a great deal of evidence for the 'short, sharp shock' approach working — at least, not in Europe. Would you deem it suitable for, to take a recent example, Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce upon their entry to prison? In any case, we send far too many people to jail as it is.



Seriously, I think we are failing every single person that's on long term unemployment benefit. Lack of dignity, respect and purpose are by products of sucessive governments failure to address this issue.

Well, while there are those who are long-term unemployed through no-one's fault but their own, I don't see how forcing people into menial, low-paid jobs — which is basically what workfare means — does anything to help. It certainly doesn't assist those who have very good qualifications but don't especially want to be made to stack shelves for a large supermarket chain (which can thus take advantage of cheap labour, and is the prime beneficiary of the whole thing).

[keysersoze]

Are you able to cite specific examples? It's all very easy to make such statements, but very often difficult to back them up with genuine cases of people whose jobs are actually worthless — an accusation that's often quite offensive to the individuals concerned.

Furthermore, I would far rather retain most of the public sector jobs you deride than the low-paid, often temporary ones the private sector, which has proved itself time and again no more capable of running public services than the public sector, has created in recent times. This has enabled the Government to trumpet the role the private sector is playing towards economic recovery, ignoring the nature of the jobs being created.


Public school educators. Most are liberal, and while some are outstanding at what they do, there are many more who are "paycheck" employees, biding their time in a system where it's darn hard to get fired, in hope of an comfortable retirement. They tend to vote the way of the union, that is, for democrats. They are a large voting block (lobby) and, as such, can perpetuate their own "success." I frankly don't care if they are offended.

A federal job funded by taxpayers, say, one earning $60,000 annually, must be supported by 5-6 private sector employees making the same salary. Here's the math: each earner probably pays on average 10-12K in taxes. $10,000 x 6 employees= $60,000.

In this scenario, governments soon run out of O.P.P.: Other People's Money. In this sense, the job isn't necessarily worth-LESS, but it's clearly not sustainable. Oh yeah, I forgot, it IS sustainable--because the government just prints or borrows money. :rolleyes:

My best friend built up a business to where he provided a livelihood to 15 full-time employees, with benefits. It took him about five years. Part of that time he was still waiting tables, working out of our apartment, etc. Of course, now he's done quite well himself, but I have the utmost respect for what he has accomplished--how he has helped the economy. He produced a product and provided a service--quantifiable proof. And some of those employees have used their experience to move to other jobs and make an even better living for themselves. All of those employees paid into the system--did not take out.

Now, on the other hand, I'm a schoolteacher (in a private school). It is difficult to quantify what I produce. It's more than nothing, sure, but arguably less than my friend.

There is a litany of examples of large private companies that run efficiently and responsibly. It's easy to say that the public sector creates jobs because they simply write checks on borrowed money. An privately-owned company can't do that. Even an incorporated one can't do that for very long, because soon word gets out--stock prices tumble--and then the poop hits the fan. Enter Enron--Exhibit A.

It's too bad--there are a LOT of people who think government-controlled business is a good thing. It's actually an oxymoron. They have no stake in it's succcess because, as I pointed out, they can simply keep writing checks.

BDunnell, you do realize you are also generalizing on this topic and haven't provided any solid evidence?

[Captain VXR]

I'll be voting Labour or Green at the next election, depending on if Labour have a chance of winning in whatever constituency I'm living in. If I can vote in any Polish elections as a non-resident, then I'll be voting for Palikot's movement. Janusz Palikot's views match up with mine almost totally, you can find out more about him here:
Janusz Palikot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Palikot)

My political views tend to stem from Scandanavian style Democratic Socialism, Liberalism and Libertarianism. I believe in economic stimulus over austerity, a big government in terms of providing services e.g. the NHS whilst staying out of people's private lives. I believe in legalising all drugs (some will obviously need to be far more heavily regulated than others - Tesco Value Black Tar Smack isn't something I ever wish to see on the shelves, however M&S outside grown 6 month cured Alaskan Thunder**** buds would be nice :s mokin :) , allowing all sorts of different marriage types between consenting adults (gay marriage, polygamy etc) and so on.

Foreign policy-wise, I view foreign aid as something that, carefully managed, is a good thing, and that military intervention can easily be justified to aid uprisings against dictatorships and prevent genocide, it's my view that we should have intervened in Syria long before the Islamists did, hell if those Golden Dawn ****s try to start racist massacres in Greece then I think we should nip it in the bud. I'm pro EU, and would like to see a global union in the long term future promoting ideas like democracy and unrestricted free movement of people (yes I know this will be unfeasible for AT LEAST 50 years). I'm moderately pro-Palestinian, and take the view that the UK should immediately recognise a PLO controlled Palestinian state that exists in peace with Israel.

Environmentally, I view protecting the rainforests as a higher priority than reducing greenhouse gas emissions as a way of fighting global warming, and vastly increasing the use of cannabis for paper, bio-fuels, food, hempcrete and medicine, either to reduce the use or replace many of the unsustainable sources of raw materials we use today (rainforest wood and crude oil, to name a couple). I'm against fracking, and I'd like to see most of our electricity generated through nuclear and renewable sources.

I could list opinions for ages, feel free to ask me what I think of any given issue.

[Rollo]

Now, on the other hand, I'm a schoolteacher (in a private school). It is difficult to quantify what I produce. It's more than nothing, sure, but arguably less than my friend.


A class full of students will eventually go on to become both people who provide labour in the economy and taxpayers. A teacher in principle adds value to the workforce, which has benefits on a year by year basis going over possibly 40 years of productive working life.
You can't quantify that in the short term but to suggest that the value adds aren't that valuable is incredibly short-sighted.

Over the lifetime of a person, I suggest that the value adds of a teacher amortised across all students would be roughly worth 80 times the input costs.
(40 years/12 years)*24 student = 80 times the input costs
Education in principle is an investment in maintaining and improving the quality of labour.

"arguably less than my friend" - really?

[BDunnell]

A class full of students will eventually go on to become both people who provide labour in the economy and taxpayers. A teacher in principle adds value to the workforce, which has benefits on a year by year basis going over possibly 40 years of productive working life.
You can't quantify that in the short term but to suggest that the value adds aren't that valuable is incredibly short-sighted.

Over the lifetime of a person, I suggest that the value adds of a teacher amortised across all students would be roughly worth 80 times the input costs.
(40 years/12 years)*24 student = 80 times the input costs
Education in principle is an investment in maintaining and improving the quality of labour.

"arguably less than my friend" - really?

Do you know, I really don't care for the notion that one can work out in any detail how much a teacher is 'worth' to society. Not everything should be, or can be, given a financial worth. This is not the be-all and end-all.

[keysersoze]

A class full of students will eventually go on to become both people who provide labour in the economy and taxpayers. A teacher in principle adds value to the workforce, which has benefits on a year by year basis going over possibly 40 years of productive working life.
You can't quantify that in the short term but to suggest that the value adds aren't that valuable is incredibly short-sighted.

Over the lifetime of a person, I suggest that the value adds of a teacher amortised across all students would be roughly worth 80 times the input costs.
(40 years/12 years)*24 student = 80 times the input costs
Education in principle is an investment in maintaining and improving the quality of labour.

"arguably less than my friend" - really?

Yes, really. I don't prepare them all by myelf. And you sort of proved my statement--it's difficult to quantify. And I certainly wouldn't use some hocus-pocus formula.

My friend's payroll is well over 500K annually--this year, and every year. Those employees pay taxes immediately--this year, and every year. Thing is, there is no guarantee that, without him, all of his employees would be as well off.

[keysersoze]

Do you know, I really don't care for the notion that one can work out in any detail how much a teacher is 'worth' to society. Not everything should be, or can be, given a financial worth. This is not the be-all and end-all.

True. But contributing to the economy is a very real problem, and I'm attempting to tell you that to pay one public school teacher, who has a job that produces an unquantifiable product, would take the entire tax liability of 5 taxpayers. That schoolteacher, in turn, contributes taxes that pay for only 1/5 of another schoolteacher. It's an unsustainable system.

[BDunnell]

True. But contributing to the economy is a very real problem, and I'm attempting to tell you that to pay one public school teacher, who has a job that produces an unquantifiable product, would take the entire tax contrbution of 5 taxpayers. That schoolteacher, in turn, contributes taxes that pay for 1/5 of another schoolteacher. It's an unsustainable system.

I don't believe it is, on the grounds that there is no viable alternative short of forcing all parents to pay over and above taxation towards school fees, which is not socially acceptable and does not, I have to tell you, guarantee a better education. Far from it, in fact. One meets some extraordinarily useless people who have come out og the British private/public school system, just as one meets many hugely intelligent people who went to state schools.

I must say, I don't at all like the idea that a teacher 'produces' a 'product' — these are human beings we're talking about, after all — and don't believe it matters one jot that the end result is 'unquantifiable'. Not everything in life is, and nor should we think of everything that way. This is the language and the thought process of the person obsessed with business and the superiority of the private sector, a superiority that, when it comes to running public services, I would question.

[BDunnell]

My friend's payroll is well over 500K annually--this year, and every year. Those employees pay taxes immediately--this year, and every year. Thing is, there is no guarantee that, without him, all of his employees would be as well off.

There isn't, but to my mind there's no comparison between the two things. Personally, I would class your contribution as being superior on the simple grounds that I place a higher emphasis on learning, but this is just a matter of opinion.

[Rollo]

I must say, I don't at all like the idea that a teacher 'produces' a 'product'

Teachers deliver a 'service'. I mean to be blatantly honest, if we applied keysersoze's logic, the entire of the financial industry should also be done away with because they also do not produce a 'product'; neither does any form of management for that matter either.

[BDunnell]

Teachers deliver a 'service'.

To my way of thinking, they provide, rather than 'deliver', a service. 'Delivery', in my view, should only be applied to the physical delivery of objects.

[keysersoze]

I don't believe it is, on the grounds that there is no viable alternative short of forcing all parents to pay over and above taxation towards school fees, which is not socially acceptable and does not, I have to tell you, guarantee a better education. Far from it, in fact. One meets some extraordinarily useless people who have come out og the British private/public school system, just as one meets many hugely intelligent people who went to state schools.

I must say, I don't at all like the idea that a teacher 'produces' a 'product' — these are human beings we're talking about, after all — and don't believe it matters one jot that the end result is 'unquantifiable'. Not everything in life is, and nor should we think of everything that way. This is the language and the thought process of the person obsessed with business and the superiority of the private sector, a superiority that, when it comes to running public services, I would question.

Not necessarily obsessed with business--consider that perhaps some are concerned with a government that will not manage their resources responsibly.

I taught in public schools for the first 7 years--the last 13 have been in private schools. Now, if you go by the notion that the better educated are bigger earners--a fairly conventional idea--then you might be impressed to know that over 99% of the private school students I've taught have matriculated to a 4-year university (I currently have a former student attending Harvard). By contrast, the percentage of my public school students who went to a 4-year university was under 20%. The likely destination was junior college (a 2-year school). About one-third to half never set foot in a college.

The per pupil spending is not that different, if the school is a parochial one.

Another interesting fact: the private schools where I've taught have graduated around 100-110 students each year. And each year those 100-odd students earn 1.5 to 2 million dollars in scholarships to attend college. One of my weaker students walked away with a $120,000 scholarship. My point is that the private education pays these families back for their investment.

Another random factoid: 2/3 of my property tax liability (thousands of dollars) goes to fund public education. Guess what? We don't have any children. Not only is this situation socially questionable, it's downright immoral IMO.

[Knock-on]

The notion that car parking charges are to blame for declining town centre footfall really does strike me as rather fanciful. Town centres are declining because not enough people actively need or want to go to certain shops any more; therefore, they close. If a shop is good enough, or meets a particular need, people will go to it. It's all very well beating about the bush, but this is the central reason for the decline you outline, not car parking prices. Nothing's going to make the problem go away, and we need to bear that in mind rather than adopting a 'finger in the dyke' approach.




I don't think I suggested that car parking charges were responsible for the decline in High Street shopping :confused: I merely suggested it might make people shop in Town Centres more if they could park their Jam Jars without getting robbed blind by Local Councils obsessed with squeezing every last penny out of Motorists. A prime exmple of needless jobs for the boys comrade seeing as you asked for examples. :D

[Starter]

I don't think I suggested that car parking charges were responsible for the decline in High Street shopping :confused: I merely suggested it might make people shop in Town Centres more if they could park their Jam Jars without getting robbed blind by Local Councils obsessed with squeezing every last penny out of Motorists. A prime exmple of needless jobs for the boys comrade seeing as you asked for examples. :D
You should suggest that. BDunnell's comment, "Town centres are declining because not enough people actively need or want to go to certain shops any more;" completely misses the point of why they don't want to go there anymore. Parking fees are obviously not the only reason people might avoid a particular area, but certainly are part of the issue. I know that, absent a strong reason to do otherwise - price or limited availability elsewhere, I take my business where I can park with no charge.

[Spafranco]

Personally, I vote for the man that will lead us in the right direction. Was that a pun? Anyway, I voted for President Obama twice as I felt he was a spark that was needed and we certainly were wallowing in some serious problems. I also liked Chuck Hagel(as a senator (R). I felt he spoke his mind and was not swayed by party lines.

[keysersoze]

Personally, I vote for the man that will lead us in the right direction. Was that a pun? Anyway, I voted for President Obama twice as I felt he was a spark that was needed and we certainly were wallowing in some serious problems. I also liked Chuck Hagel(as a senator (R). I felt he spoke his mind and was not swayed by party lines.

Sure, going for the man who leads us in the right direction is good, but then you contradict yourself by saying you voted for Obama because he gave us a "spark." Those aren't the same.

"[Speaking] his mind" is a bit vague. What was in his mind?

Down through history there are a number of notorious men who were quite adept at providing the spark needed to get people to do their bidding--a very evil bidding.

Sure, an engaging personality helps, but I would hope that a citizen votes for the candidate that squares with their own ethos, an ethos derived from great study and introspection. There are way too many people in the U.S. who vote for a personality, or the "vibe" they get from a candidate, rather than a genuine knowledge of a candidate's:

1) accomplishments
2) voting record (assuming they served in Congress)
3) ethics
4) quantifiable leadership abilities
5) position on various fiscal (most important) and social issues (less important)

[anthonyvop]

Do you know, I really don't care for the notion that one can work out in any detail how much a teacher is 'worth' to society. Not everything should be, or can be, given a financial worth. This is not the be-all and end-all.

Of course you don't.

[BDunnell]

I don't think I suggested that car parking charges were responsible for the decline in High Street shopping :confused: I merely suggested it might make people shop in Town Centres more if they could park their Jam Jars without getting robbed blind by Local Councils obsessed with squeezing every last penny out of Motorists. A prime exmple of needless jobs for the boys comrade seeing as you asked for examples. :D

Well, it might, but I still think the problems are significantly deeper-seated.

[BDunnell]

Of course you don't.

I knew you were anti-education, but not to that extent.

[BDunnell]

You should suggest that. BDunnell's comment, "Town centres are declining because not enough people actively need or want to go to certain shops any more;" completely misses the point of why they don't want to go there anymore. Parking fees are obviously not the only reason people might avoid a particular area, but certainly are part of the issue. I know that, absent a strong reason to do otherwise - price or limited availability elsewhere, I take my business where I can park with no charge.

We have covered the reasons why in other recent threads. People go to supermarkets rather than local shops because they consider them cheaper (which, a lot of the time, they aren't), more convenient for reasons other than car parking (which, sometimes, they are, especially for those with full-time jobs), because in some cases of downright laziness, and because more shopping is now done online. The end result is the slow death of traditional high streets. Cutting car parking costs is the proverbial 'finger in the dyke' response.

[BDunnell]

Another random factoid: 2/3 of my property tax liability (thousands of dollars) goes to fund public education. Guess what? We don't have any children. Not only is this situation socially questionable, it's downright immoral IMO.

Hyperbole. Also, rather selfish. Bits of my tax contributions go to all sorts of things I don't personally use, yet I don't feel this sense of resentment.

[keysersoze]

I knew you were anti-education, but not to that extent.

This is what happens when one tries to discuss stuff with a liberal. They mis-characterize your comments, then attack your character.

[keysersoze]

Hyperbole. Also, rather selfish. Bits of my tax contributions go to all sorts of things I don't personally use, yet I don't feel this sense of resentment.

This is what happens when one tries to discuss stuff with liberals. They mis-characterize your comments, then attack your character.

[Spafranco]

Sure, going for the man who leads us in the right direction is good, but then you contradict yourself by saying you voted for Obama because he gave us a "spark." Those aren't the same.

"[Speaking] his mind" is a bit vague. What was in his mind?

Down through history there are a number of notorious men who were quite adept at providing the spark needed to get people to do their bidding--a very evil bidding.

Sure, an engaging personality helps, but I would hope that a citizen votes for the candidate that squares with their own ethos, an ethos derived from great study and introspection. There are way too many people in the U.S. who vote for a personality, or the "vibe" they get from a candidate, rather than a genuine knowledge of a candidate's:

1) accomplishments
2) voting record (assuming they served in Congress)
3) ethics
4) quantifiable leadership abilities
5) position on various fiscal (most important) and social issues (less important)

Already, a lecture. Whatever your intent I do not need a run down on whom I should vote for and for what reason. You don't know Chuck Hagel. Vague, read about his stance on the wars, torture being held accountable for one's actions.

[keysersoze]

Already, a lecture. Whatever your intent I do not need a run down on whom I should vote for and for what reason. You don't know Chuck Hagel. Vague, read about his stance on the wars, torture being held accountable for one's actions.

My post had nothing to do with your support of Hagel. Indeed, if you have thoughtfully vetted him, I can only have respect for it. But you only pointed out that you liked him because he spoke his mind--and I can only go on what you said.

[anthonyvop]

I knew you were anti-education, but not to that extent.

By your reply I can tell you just don't get it and probably never will.

Of course Education should be judge on its financial worth.....Why have an education system in the fist place if not for that? So people can write bad poetry?

[BDunnell]

By your reply I can tell you just don't get it and probably never will.

Of course Education should be judge on its financial worth.....Why have an education system in the fist place if not for that? So people can write bad poetry?

Because there is no true measure of education's financial worth on an individual basis.

[BDunnell]

This is what happens when one tries to discuss stuff with a liberal. They mis-characterize your comments, then attack your character.

Two things. One, calling Europeans 'liberals' is not deemed by us to be an insult, so I wouldn't bother with it. Two, in no way was I mis-characterising the comments of anthonyvop, whose attitude towards education is clear from the content of his posts.

[keysersoze]

Two things. One, calling Europeans 'liberals' is not deemed by us to be an insult, so I wouldn't bother with it. Two, in no way was I mis-characterising the comments of anthonyvop, whose attitude towards education is clear from the content of his posts.

There you go again, mis-characterizing my statements. I did not call Europeans liberals--I only called you a liberal. It was your statement alone, unless you are arrogant enough to think you speak for all Europeans.

However, you should be insulted by my observation that you argue by putting words in others' mouths and name call.

Show me the undeniable evidence that anthonyvpop is anti-education.

[keysersoze]

Of course Education should be judge on its financial worth.....Why have an education system in the fist place if not for that? So people can write bad poetry?

You can bet that the parents that choose to drop nearly 20K to attend our school--each year--are weighing the financial benefits of their decision. Only in BDunnell's world is not considering the finances of a situation deemed sound reasoning. :rolleyes:

[Spafranco]

Not necessarily obsessed with business--consider that perhaps some are concerned with a government that will not manage their resources responsibly.

I taught in public schools for the first 7 years--the last 13 have been in private schools. Now, if you go by the notion that the better educated are bigger earners--a fairly conventional idea--then you might be impressed to know that over 99% of the private school students I've taught have matriculated to a 4-year university (I currently have a former student attending Harvard). By contrast, the percentage of my public school students who went to a 4-year university was under 20%. The likely destination was junior college (a 2-year school). About one-third to half never set foot in a college.

The per pupil spending is not that different, if the school is a parochial one.

Another interesting fact: the private schools where I've taught have graduated around 100-110 students each year. And each year those 100-odd students earn 1.5 to 2 million dollars in scholarships to attend college. One of my weaker students walked away with a $120,000 scholarship. My point is that the private education pays these families back for their investment.

Another random factoid: 2/3 of my property tax liability (thousands of dollars) goes to fund public education. Guess what? We don't have any children. Not only is this situation socially questionable, it's downright immoral IMO.

I find it really difficult to read what you post. It has the all the characteristics of narcissism and lack of empathy for students that do not come up to your so called private school standard.

You state that YOU have done this and that and taken all the credit for those that have gone to four year colleges. Do you teach all subjects?

As a teacher, do you take into account socioeconomic parameters that have a direct effect on the ability to even attend school.

Now, you mentioned paying taxes and some of it goes to education but you have no children so you feel that is wrong. What kind of message are you sending to us on this forum?

Your view of morality is extremely narrow.

[keysersoze]

I find it really difficult to read what you post. It has the all the characteristics of narcissism and lack of empathy for students that do not come up to your so called private school standard.

You state that YOU have done this and that and taken all the credit for those that have gone to four year colleges. Do you teach all subjects?

As a teacher, do you take into account socioeconomic parameters that have a direct effect on the ability to even attend school.

Now, you mentioned paying taxes and some of it goes to education but you have no children so you feel that is wrong. What kind of message are you sending to us on this forum?

Your view of morality is extremely narrow.

My post was a reply to BDunnell's disparaging comments about students from private schools. I merely defended those students. With facts. Sorry if you find them inconvenient or unsettling.

Of course, you do resort to the typical liberal argumentative technique, but I managed to get the trifecta from you: I'm a narcissist, lack-empathy, and have a narrow view of morality. Whatever.

And of course, no liberal reply would be complete without mischaracterizing another person's post. I never "took credit" for the students' success. I also have no problem paying taxes, as you state. I have a problem with 65-75% of my PROPERTY taxes being used to fund education. I pay all kinds of taxes.

[Rollo]

Of course Education should be judge on its financial worth.....Why have an education system in the fist place if not for that? So people can write bad poetry?

Over what time frame do you propose that the benefits of the education system be measured and under what set of metrics? Moreover, how does one directly tie the direct financial worth to the net benefits it confers?

And at what point do you consider that education ends? High school? University? Does that also include for instance incentive payments which may exist for firms to take on apprentices and trainees? Does on the job vocational training count as well?

Maybe there is a net benefit in writing bad poetry? Once upon a time, universities considered studies of the classics, literature and the arts essential to rounding off the character of people; arguably the period from 1800-1900 probably caused the biggest changes in people's lifestyles and productivity that the world has ever seen?

[BDunnell]

There you go again, mis-characterizing my statements. I did not call Europeans liberals--I only called you a liberal. It was your statement alone, unless you are arrogant enough to think you speak for all Europeans.

I am a European; therefore, my statement is entirely correct.



However, you should be insulted by my observation that you argue by putting words in others' mouths and name call.

Insulted by a right-wing American? No.



Show me the undeniable evidence that anthonyvpop is anti-education.

His every contribution to the forum demonstrates the level of importance he places on education.

[BDunnell]

My post was a reply to BDunnell's disparaging comments about students from private schools.

Which 'disparaging comments about students from private schools'?

[keysersoze]

Which 'disparaging comments about students from private schools'?

Post #64

[BDunnell]

Post #64

I was disparaging about some. Had I been disparaging about all, then you would have cause for objection.

[keysersoze]

I was disparaging about some. Had I been disparaging about all, then you would have cause for objection.

You were also arguing that private schools cannot guarantee a better education, and while "guarantee" is too strong of a word to use in an argument, I gave you the evidence that private schools outperform public schools, in terms of not only getting a higher percentage of their students into college, but also into some of the top schools, as well as help them get scholarships.

[BDunnell]

You were also arguing that private schools cannot guarantee a better education, and while "guarantee" is too strong of a word to use in an argument, I gave you the evidence that private schools outperform public schools, in terms of not only getting a higher percentage of their students into college, but also into some of the top schools, as well as help them get scholarships.

My statement stands. I come from the state system and I've done OK for myself. This is true of many others.

[Rollo]

I gave you the evidence that private schools outperform public schools, in terms of not only getting a higher percentage of their students into college, but also into some of the top schools, as well as help them get scholarships.

I am prepared to accept this as fact.

It also does tend to drive a better quality of teachers to the private sector because wages are higher and because you're likely to get a better quality of behaviour from students who have more of their material needs already met, you're also more likely to end up with better outcomes.

The inverse to the question of "should people who have more wealth be given the oppotunity to buy a better standard of X than poorer people" is "do people who have more wealth deserve to have a better standard of X than poorer people".

High earners don't realise own wealth, study finds (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/high-earners-dont-realise-own-wealth-study-finds-20130324-2go1l.html)
"Asked specifically whether they would be prepared to pay more tax to support Gonski-style education reforms, 94 per cent of those surveyed said no."
- Sydney Morning Herald, 25th Mar 2013

Now obviously actual specific economic conditions will be different, but given that the United States is far more individualistic, the attitudes expressed would be even more pronounced than this.
Still, I ask the question of who the economy should serve.

[keysersoze]

My statement stands. I come from the state system and I've done OK for myself. This is true of many others.

Of course. Plenty do well, and some brilliant people drop out. Finishing, or even attending school, is not the be-all end-all. My wife is ridiculously talented in her field, out-earned me last year, and only attended college briefly. For my part, I also went to state schools, and paid for 98% of my schooling. But these are just anecdotes that are only part of an argument that could go on forever.

[SGWilko]

the least worst.

In my experience, the party that is 'least worst' while in opposition then becomes 'most worst' when in power.

Why can governments not be formed of MP's who head up de[artments they are qualified to deal with?

For example, a life long teacher/head teacher etc should be put in charge of the Dept of Education, A successful and ethical entrepreneur should be in charge of the treasury etc. Instead of frequent cabinet reshuffles.

Party's should stop pandering to the silent majority. For example, we have a heavily burdened welfare bill, because they know that if they keep the benefit 'beneficiaries' happy, they will continue to get their not insignificant vote.

TBH, my personal opinion is that I will vote for whichever party appears to give the impression of being the best for me and my family. It's all just lies and waffle though......

[SGWilko]

Really? I don't agree at all. I too think Ed Miliband is a fairly useless, ineffectual figure, but I believe he is likely to win the next election and become PM. When he was elected Labour leader I considered this fanciful, but — through few, or no, actions of his own — now my view has changed. Would he be a good PM? I very much doubt it, but nor do I believe his brother would have been as impressive a leader as many seem to.

Well, any idiot could be at the helm of Labour and not fail to win the next election, just by dint of the attrocious mess tweedle dum and tweedle dummer running the current coalition are doing!

[SGWilko]

Because there is no true measure of education's financial worth on an individual basis.

Take two children, and educate them by the same teacher. They will not be educated to the same level because the children will be different in their ability to learn etc.

[Malbec]

You were also arguing that private schools cannot guarantee a better education, and while "guarantee" is too strong of a word to use in an argument, I gave you the evidence that private schools outperform public schools, in terms of not only getting a higher percentage of their students into college, but also into some of the top schools, as well as help them get scholarships.

You're comparing the endpoints without any reference to the starting points.

Private schools are usually academically selective and demand a financial commitment over statefunded schools. Therefore there is instant recruitment bias with private school pupils likely to come from families that are wealthier, have a higher socioeconomic origin and have a culture that values education over state schools. All of these are independent positive predictive factors for academic success.

The question is how much value does a private school add to its pupils? Is that over and above that of a state school? If the private and state schools you refer to swapped pupils would the private school still outperform the state? Evidence from the UK where there are partially academically selective state schools indicates that the gap is far far less than you would imagine even though spending per pupil is less for state schools.

[keysersoze]

and have a culture that values education over state schools. All of these are independent positive predictive factors for academic success.


Bingo.

The lesson is that the government is lousy at running a business.

[Malbec]

Bingo.

The lesson is that the government is lousy at running a business.

Bingo? You clearly did not understand my post.

Claiming that private schools are inherently better than state schools because of academic results whilst continuously ignoring the rather different types of pupils they admit is worthless. I'm surprised you yourself if you switched from a state to a private school did not notice the cross-section of society your pupils were drawn from, and whether this in itself had a larger influence on your school's academic achievements than the way in which they were funded, run or indeed your qualities as a teacher.

[BDunnell]

Bingo.

The lesson is that the government is lousy at running a business.

As per Malbec's response above, this remark is utterly unrelated to the post to which it refers. It's also a spectacular generalisation, just as it would be to say that the government is automatically superior to the private sector when it comes to running businesses. One could cite many examples in the UK of privatisation having in no way brought about improved service — far from it. By the same token, I wouldn't want the state to start building cars, or selling coffee.

[BDunnell]

Take two children, and educate them by the same teacher. They will not be educated to the same level because the children will be different in their ability to learn etc.

To say nothing of all the other factors that may be involved.

[BDunnell]

Why can governments not be formed of MP's who head up de[artments they are qualified to deal with?

For example, a life long teacher/head teacher etc should be put in charge of the Dept of Education, A successful and ethical entrepreneur should be in charge of the treasury etc. Instead of frequent cabinet reshuffles.

This is a very good point, and one on which many would agree. It was often said that Tony Blair used reshuffles simply as a means of exercising patronage, rather than putting the right people in the right positions, trying to keep some degree of continuity and so forth. Constant reshuffles are almost a guarantee of poor government.

The one caveat is that people who are good at one thing, whether it be teaching, business or whatever, may — and often do — turn out to be poor politicians.

[Starter]

There are a number of reasons why state schools have a basic disadvantage to private schools. Few of them have much to do with money.

State schools are required to take all comers. That's regardless of innate intelligence; emotional stability; previous preparation; family support, or anything else. And they have a very hard time getting rid of the disruptive students,

State schools, at least here, are controlled by the teacher unions. The result is that the culture is more about job protection rather than education. There is very high opposition to requirements for job performance in order to remain employed. A typical situation in government jobs. Further, the path of monetary advancement for teachers lies in moving to school administration where job justification prevails and there is zero desire to change the system. I'm not saying that all teachers and administrators are worthless drones, just that far too many are - and you can't get rid of them.

Since state schools must tale all comers, and because left wingers who control much of the educational establishment find it abhorrent that anyone would dream of saying that all people are not equally smart, motivated and capable of advanced learning, teachers are forced to teach at the level of the slower students in a class. Too bad about the smarter students who would be miles ahead if taught at their actual capability. Over here, the no child left behind legislation has resulted in the real world of teaching to the test rather than real learning.

State schools are not allowed to discipline, in any effective way, troubled / trouble maker students. In many ways the parents of these children have instilled no sense of respect or discipline in their kids. Some of those kids are pretty bright but have no real future. That's because students only spend six to eight hours a day at school. That's thirty to forty hours a week. The other one hundred thirty eight hours they spend in the environment that created their bad learning habits and bad behavior in the first place.

State schools, again being controlled by left wing unions, refuse to recognize that all people are NOT created equal. Some are smarter, some less so; some have different interests; some learn at a different pace or in different ways; most have different skills and temperaments. If you had to pick one place where "one size fits all" does NOT apply, education would be very high on the list.

There's lots of other factors too, these were just a few that quickly came to mind.

[BDunnell]

All of the above points need to be qualified by saying (a) that they pertain to the US — many of them are not a picture I recognise from the UK — and that they are matters of personal opinion. With that in mind, here are some British perspectives on them.



State schools, at least here, are controlled by the teacher unions. The result is that the culture is more about job protection rather than education. There is very high opposition to requirements for job performance in order to remain employed. A typical situation in government jobs.

Whereas, of course, in the private sector one never comes across anyone of less than outstanding competence, does one? I know this isn't what you're saying directly, but it's (at least in part) implied. Just because private companies can perhaps fire people more easily doesn't mean that they do, and I'd be sure that this is the case in many private/public (in the British sense) schools, too.



Since state schools must tale all comers, and because left wingers who control much of the educational establishment find it abhorrent that anyone would dream of saying that all people are not equally smart, motivated and capable of advanced learning, teachers are forced to teach at the level of the slower students in a class.

Just those left-wingers who 'control much of the educational establishment', or left-wingers generally? If the latter, you're completely wrong, and paint an easy caricature. I class myself as left-wing, and disagree completely with the situation you describe. Not everyone of a like-minded political viewpoint thinks the same way on everything, you know.



State schools are not allowed to discipline, in any effective way, troubled / trouble maker students.

Not the case in the UK, where disciplinary proecdures have, as far as I know, been toughened up. And I must say I wonder whether your view of what constitutes 'effective' might be somewhat at odds with expert opinion. Exclusion isn't the answer, certainly, and it also needs saying that not every troubled child will respond well to the same forms of discipline.


In many ways the parents of these children have instilled no sense of respect or discipline in their kids. Some of those kids are pretty bright but have no real future. That's because students only spend six to eight hours a day at school. That's thirty to forty hours a week. The other one hundred thirty eight hours they spend in the environment that created their bad learning habits and bad behavior in the first place.

Indeed, but what's the solution to that? I take it you wouldn't care for increased state interference in the lives of these families, yet how else is one meant positively to influence that negative environment?



State schools, again being controlled by left wing unions, refuse to recognize that all people are NOT created equal. Some are smarter, some less so; some have different interests; some learn at a different pace or in different ways; most have different skills and temperaments. If you had to pick one place where "one size fits all" does NOT apply, education would be very high on the list.

Yes, with that last sentence I agree, but any suggestion that it's impossible for the bright to thrive in the state sector is hugely misguided.

[Starter]

Whereas, of course, in the private sector one never comes across anyone of less than outstanding competence, does one? I know this isn't what you're saying directly, but it's (at least in part) implied. Just because private companies can perhaps fire people more easily doesn't mean that they do, and I'd be sure that this is the case in many private/public (in the British sense) schools, too.
Of course I wasn't saying that, nor was it implied. What I was saying is that public schools have a much, much more difficult time purging under performing teachers.




Just those left-wingers who 'control much of the educational establishment', or left-wingers generally? If the latter, you're completely wrong, and paint an easy caricature. I class myself as left-wing, and disagree completely with the situation you describe. Not everyone of a like-minded political viewpoint thinks the same way on everything, you know.
Why can't I paint all left wingers with the same broad brush? You do it all the time here toward the other side. :p




Not the case in the UK, where disciplinary proecdures have, as far as I know, been toughened up. And I must say I wonder whether your view of what constitutes 'effective' might be somewhat at odds with expert opinion. Exclusion isn't the answer, certainly, and it also needs saying that not every troubled child will respond well to the same forms of discipline.
When I say "effective", I mean in a way which clears the situation to allow the other students to learn. Exclusion is certainly one answer that shouldn't be excluded :D , but like the teaching the remedy should be tailored to the situation.




Indeed, but what's the solution to that? I take it you wouldn't care for increased state interference in the lives of these families, yet how else is one meant positively to influence that negative environment?
I was responding to your comment about the difference between public and private education being about money, not proposing a solution.




Yes, with that last sentence I agree, but any suggestion that it's impossible for the bright to thrive in the state sector is hugely misguided.
Agree, anything is possible, but the system is less likely to provide a good outcome in public school.

[Spafranco]

Why can't I paint all left wingers with the same broad brush? You do it all the time here toward the other side. :p

I doubt that if you were told to tone down your finger pointing of those with a different political mindset you would not.

There are no right wing teachers in the US public school system?

[keysersoze]

Bingo? You clearly did not understand my post.

Claiming that private schools are inherently better than state schools because of academic results whilst continuously ignoring the rather different types of pupils they admit is worthless. I'm surprised you yourself if you switched from a state to a private school did not notice the cross-section of society your pupils were drawn from, and whether this in itself had a larger influence on your school's academic achievements than the way in which they were funded, run or indeed your qualities as a teacher.

I understood your point. I was just quite busy at work today and only had a moment to respond. And frankly I'm still busy. It's Monday in a teacher's world. This will be brief.

I will agree that not all students come from circumstances favorable for success. Of course I noticed that, no matter how hard we tried, some students (and their parents) could not have cared less about their kid's education. I got anecdotes from those days that are darn near impossible to fathom.

Starter did a magnificent job enumerating the litany of challenges facing public schol education.

[keysersoze]

As per Malbec's response above, this remark is utterly unrelated to the post to which it refers. It's also a spectacular generalisation, just as it would be to say that the government is automatically superior to the private sector when it comes to running businesses. One could cite many examples in the UK of privatisation having in no way brought about improved service — far from it. By the same token, I wouldn't want the state to start building cars, or selling coffee.

Then provide me an example of an industry or service that the state has run more efficiently than a private company. I can (and have) given examples of the converse.

[Rollo]

Then provide me an example of an industry or service that the state has run more efficiently than a private company. I can (and have) given examples of the converse.

SNCF, DB, EDF, Railways of India, Telstra, Areva, NHS, BBC...
Then there's other things like fire services, the Eisenhower Interstate System, water supply and sanitation...

[BDunnell]

Then provide me an example of an industry or service that the state has run more efficiently than a private company. I can (and have) given examples of the converse.

British Rail in its latter days was superior to the privatised mess we have now, and it is very telling that no other country in the world has adopted the UK's privatisation model for railway services. To give one example, the East Coast mainline was brought back into nationalised ownership owing to the failings of the previous franchisee. In re-nationalised form, it has proved more profitable than ever it was in private ownership. The privatisation of prisoner transportation in the early 1990s was a high-profile disaster. And, in regular dealings with both private and public sector organisations, there is simply no way that the private sector demonstrates any form of innate superiority in terms of customer service.

[keysersoze]

British Rail in its latter days was superior to the privatised mess we have now, and it is very telling that no other country in the world has adopted the UK's privatisation model for railway services. To give one example, the East Coast mainline was brought back into nationalised ownership owing to the failings of the previous franchisee. In re-nationalised form, it has proved more profitable than ever it was in private ownership. The privatisation of prisoner transportation in the early 1990s was a high-profile disaster. And, in regular dealings with both private and public sector organisations, there is simply no way that the private sector demonstrates any form of innate superiority in terms of customer service.

That the transit system was not profitable is not the fault of privatization, but of the specific company that failed. Believe me, if there is a profit to be made, you should bet the ranch that companies would be lining up to take it over.

You may have noticed that we aren't big on public transportation here in our massive country--we own cars. In Europe it costs so much to own a car (astronomical fuel costs, etc.) that many are forced into using public transportation. Moreover, governments should be responsible for infrastructure, and since railroads are built by governments, it's no wonder they run them. Only NYC and (I think) Boston and Chicago have extensive train systems. Some may be headed by state and local governments, but not the federal government. My city's smaller (but still substantial) mass transit system, with its outrageous financials, is considering going private.

I have noted in my limited travels in Europe (UK and Italy) that the term "customer service" is an oxymoron, so it doesn't surprise me that private companies struggle there. Here, if you don't have outstanding customer service, word gets around, and you either fix the problem or you sink.

[Starter]

British Rail in its latter days was superior to the privatised mess we have now, and it is very telling that no other country in the world has adopted the UK's privatisation model for railway services. To give one example, the East Coast mainline was brought back into nationalised ownership owing to the failings of the previous franchisee. In re-nationalised form, it has proved more profitable than ever it was in private ownership. The privatisation of prisoner transportation in the early 1990s was a high-profile disaster. And, in regular dealings with both private and public sector organisations, there is simply no way that the private sector demonstrates any form of innate superiority in terms of customer service.
I'm not familiar with all the British rail services, but are you saying that First is not doing the job?

[Rollo]

You may have noticed that we aren't big on public transportation here in our massive country--we own cars. In Europe it costs so much to own a car (astronomical fuel costs, etc.) that many are forced into using public transportation. Moreover, governments should be responsible for infrastructure, and since railroads are built by governments, it's no wonder they run them.

Why then in principle shouldn't things like the health care system and schools be considered infrastructure? How does this square with questions of economies of scale etc?

[SGWilko]

that many are forced into using public transportation. .

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a public transportation system so effective that, we would chose, rather than be forced, to use it????

[Dave B]

Well, any idiot could be at the helm of Labour and not fail to win the next election, just by dint of the attrocious mess tweedle dum and tweedle dummer running the current coalition are doing!
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But given the financial crashes and his own unpopularity it seemed that Gordon Brown had left an open goal last time round, yet the Conservatives were unable to win an overall majority. I've got a feeling that UKIP's surge will see them take votes off all 3 main parties and we'll be left with another coalition.

On a UKIP note, I hope that their new-found popularity will lead to them being properly scrutinised. Maybe then the public will see them for what they are: a loose collection of swivel-eyed loons with no clue how to run the economy (apart from leaving the EU), no clue how to improve healthcare (apart from leaving the EU), no clue how to protect the environment (apart from leaving the EU), no clue how to cut crime (apart from leaving the EU), and no clue how to do anything apart from... you guessed it.

[Knock-on]

British Rail in its latter days was superior to the privatised mess we have now,

How do you qualify this?

My recollection may be wrong but huge amounts of cash were pumped into BR but the service was shocking. I remember trains going late, early, just about any time apart from when they were supposed to.

Now, ocassionally we have delayed trains but I know it's 4 minutes walk from my house to the train station so if I leave 5 mins before it's supposed to depart, I can pretty much guarentee to walk on the train.

[Dave B]

How do you qualify this?

My recollection may be wrong but huge amounts of cash were pumped into BR but the service was shocking. I remember trains going late, early, just about any time apart from when they were supposed to.

Now, ocassionally we have delayed trains but I know it's 4 minutes walk from my house to the train station so if I leave 5 mins before it's supposed to depart, I can pretty much guarentee to walk on the train.
I think the key phrase is "is its latter days". BR was a national joke at one point, that's for sure, with clapped-out rolling stock and ruled by unions who would call a strike if someone was 30 seconds late getting a tea break. But towards the end of its existence it started to become punctual, well managed, and benefited from decent investment. A cynic might say it was being fattened up for privatisation, but I couldn't possibly comment.

[Knock-on]

I think the key phrase is "is its latter days". BR was a national joke at one point, that's for sure, with clapped-out rolling stock and ruled by unions who would call a strike if someone was 30 seconds late getting a tea break. But towards the end of its existence it started to become punctual, well managed, and benefited from decent investment. A cynic might say it was being fattened up for privatisation, but I couldn't possibly comment.

I think since privatisation, the Rail Network has improved significantly but it is still hugely subsidised. Pre-privatisation, there was some investment but due to some significant factors, (Hatfield, Network Rail) that investment has increased.

Interesting read:

Factcheck: Does the taxpayer subsidise the rail network more now than it did when it was nationalised? | Full Fact (http://fullfact.org/factchecks/taxpayer_subsidy_train_network_nationalisation-3391)

[BDunnell]

How do you qualify this?

My recollection may be wrong but huge amounts of cash were pumped into BR but the service was shocking. I remember trains going late, early, just about any time apart from when they were supposed to.

A common recollection, but I think collective memory has caused a false impression. By the end of its days BR was actually a hugely efficient operation, much more punctual and requiring increasingly less subsidy. Indeed, had it been given a few more years it would, if memory serves, most likely have turned a profit. This it managed by adopting a more commercially-driven approach. I am in no doubt that the positive trend would have continued.

[Rollo]

A cynic might say it was being fattened up for privatisation, but I couldn't possibly comment.

Dr Richard Beeching went from making zippers at ICI to running British Rail. He was a time-and-motion man who knew nothing of the business he was set to run and his first and second reports suggested closing almost 2500 stations and destroying more than 5000 miles of railway line.
Dr Richard Beeching at the stroke of a pen single-handedly destroyed one of the greatest legacies that Victorian Britain could have left the 21st Century. He was a short-sighted nitwit who after wholescale destruction of British Rail returned to his pathetic role at ICI making zippers. He was then made a life peer for his efforts.
Incidentally, he almost ran Lloyds Bank into the dirt not less than three years after leaving British Rail.

[Knock-on]

A common recollection, but I think collective memory has caused a false impression.

Really? My impression was not formed by 'collective memory' but personal recollection. The Unions held the service to ransome and the service was a disgrace. The restructuring onto vertical business streams was a huge improvement but overall it was an appalling example of a privately held White Elephant.


By the end of its days BR was actually a hugely efficient operation, much more punctual and requiring increasingly less subsidy. Indeed, had it been given a few more years it would, if memory serves, most likely have turned a profit. This it managed by adopting a more commercially-driven approach. I am in no doubt that the positive trend would have continued.

Again, I am drawing on personal recollection but as I understood it, there was a huge amount of investment needed after privatisation, in track and stock, because of gradual neglect.

Again I ask, can you provide referencable information on the punctiality pre and post Privatisation and that BR would have become self funding in public hands?

[BDunnell]

Really? My impression was not formed by 'collective memory' but personal recollection. The Unions held the service to ransome and the service was a disgrace. The restructuring onto vertical business streams was a huge improvement but overall it was an appalling example of a privately held White Elephant.

I use the term 'collective memory' because I think, in this instance, it's highly relevant — not just to your views but those of others. People remember BR as being crap because, for a long time, it was. That was its image, and that's what sticks in the mind. The fact that, by the end of its life, it had changed hugely goes almost entirely forgotten.



Again, I am drawing on personal recollection but as I understood it, there was a huge amount of investment needed after privatisation, in track and stock, because of gradual neglect.

Neglect that, had BR remained in public hands, would have been reversed as a result of its increasingly good financial performance. As it was, it took an awfully long time for that investment to happen post-privatisation, and even then it has always been funded to a significant extent out of the public purse as a result of the subsidies the private operators receive from the Government.



Again I ask, can you provide referencable information on the punctiality pre and post Privatisation and that BR would have become self funding in public hands?

Not immediately, but the detail on the financial position is in rail expert Christian Wolmar's book 'Broken Rails', which I would recommend (though it's a few years out of date now). If I remember rightly, he describes BR as, at the end of the 1980s, 'the world's most efficient railway' in terms of the percentage of GDP it required in government subsidy. Then, this was all thrown away for partly ideological reasons, and partly because of John Major's absurd personal nostalgia for the inter-war years.

[Knock-on]

You can hardly claim Christian Wolmar as independant and objective. He's as Left Wing as they come and famous for opposing privatisation. I knew his nme would pop up and dealt with it in post 122.

Next we will be asking Nigel Farage for a balanced opinion on Europe!!

[BDunnell]

You can hardly claim Christian Wolmar as independant and objective. He's as Left Wing as they come and famous for opposing privatisation. I knew his nme would pop up and dealt with it in post 122.

I would suggest, respectfully, that he knows more about the railways than do you or I. Have you ever considered that he might have opposed, and opposes, privatisation on the basis of a quite deep-seated knowledge of the subject?

You often go on about the need to 'attack the post, not the poster'. In that case, maybe you should practice what you preach with regard to Wolmar, and criticise the basis of what he says rather than coming to a view based solely on his political views (which are not that left-wing).

[keysersoze]

Why then in principle shouldn't things like the health care system and schools be considered infrastructure? How does this square with questions of economies of scale etc?

Perhaps other, smaller countries can make a go of it, but in the U.S. it would be run inefficiently:

generally:

1) people would receive worse health-care
2) students wouldn't receive as effective of an education

[Spafranco]

[quote=keysersoze]Perhaps other, smaller countries can make a go of it, but in the U.S. it would be run inefficiently:


generally:

1) people would receive worse health-care


You are basing this opinion on what? Wow, the health care in Switzerland, France, Italy, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Ireland,Germany and many more is atrocious. Why,they even pay in most of those countries and have the opinion that the US (right wing) is not even educated pertaining health care or Obamacare. It is sad for me to hear all these complaints that have no merit especially since this is my country.


2) students wouldn't receive as effective of an education[/quote:u830zwch]

Why not? Has it to do with your belief that you graduated all these students and now are four year college graduates. Hmmmm, I wonder if they took geography? Was that one of your subjects because if it is you should see the results of a sample questionnaire regarding geographic locations not just all over the world but including the US. It was sad. It is sad.
Know where these students were taking the quiz? Harvard, Yale, Princeton.

[BDunnell]

Why not? Has it to do with your belief that you graduated all these students and now are four year college graduates. Hmmmm, I wonder if they took geography? Was that one of your subjects because if it is you should see the results of a sample questionnaire regarding geographic locations not just all over the world but including the US. It was sad. It is sad.
Know where these students were taking the quiz? Harvard, Yale, Princeton.

I was going to say, 'as effective an education' as what? As they do already?

[Knock-on]

I would suggest, respectfully, that he knows more about the railways than do you or I. Have you ever considered that he might have opposed, and opposes, privatisation on the basis of a quite deep-seated knowledge of the subject?

When a source is famous for his biased view, it can hardly be considered objective. He does have indepth knowledge but that doesn't mean he is necessary correct or that we must take his opinion as sacrosanct.


You often go on about the need to 'attack the post, not the poster'. In that case, maybe you should practice what you preach with regard to Wolmar, and criticise the basis of what he says rather than coming to a view based solely on his political views (which are not that left-wing).

:confused: WTF?? Where in that post was there an attack on you???

I questioned a source that you quoted and asked you to check out a more independant analysis of some of his claims I had supplied.

[BDunnell]

When a source is famous for his biased view, it can hardly be considered objective. He does have indepth knowledge but that doesn't mean he is necessary correct or that we must take his opinion as sacrosanct.

Nor does it mean it can be dismissed out of hand by a layman.



:confused: WTF?? Where in that post was there an attack on you???

I meant an attack on Wolmar. Your entire critique of him is based on what you perceive to be his political views, not the specifics of his opinions on rail privatisation.

[Knock-on]

Nor does it mean it can be dismissed out of hand by a layman.

I did not dismiss it out of hand but gave a reason why I don't consider him objective. We are all Laymen so must make a decision based on the evidence at hand.


I meant an attack on Wolmar. Your entire critique of him is based on what you perceive to be his political views, not the specifics of his opinions on rail privatisation.

He's left wing, pro-public ownership and has asperations of being Londons next Labour Mayor. These are facts. If he becomes Mayor, watch out if you're a car driver :laugh:

With his views on the Railways, we are getting a bit off topic with all the talk about Privatisation. Perhaps a new thread rather than derail this one (do you like what I did there. Do yer :D )

[BDunnell]

I did not dismiss it out of hand but gave a reason why I don't consider him objective.

Yes, but no reasons as to why you don't consider him factually accurate, which is more important.

[Knock-on]

Yes, but no reasons as to why you don't consider him factually accurate, which is more important.

Ummm, I did in post 122. Have you checked the link?

http://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/styles/large/public/subsidy%20as%20percentage%20of%20TR.PNG

As you can see, rather than BR being self funding prior to privatisation, it was pretty static about 40% and only started going down after privatisation. There was a fake dip in 95/96 but a more sustained decrease until the massive problems in the early 2000's with Railtrack and Hatfield. Massive investment was necessary at levels that approached (and even just exceeded) pre-privatisation costs but once achieved, have been steadily declining since 2006/7 to the low of 35% of Rail Revenue last year (not shown).

Wolmar claimed that funding (adjusted for inflation) was about £1 to £1.5bn pre privatisation and is now nearly £4bn but he hasn't taken into account the massive increase in passenger numbers (and therefore revenue) which shows that investment per customer is coming down because it doesn't suit his views.

So, when Wolmar publishes where his figures come from, rather than deal in educated opinion, then we can discuss it further but until then, have to deal with the facts. You no have them and an explanation of why I don't take him too seriously.

So, in conclusion, we now have a cleaner, safer and more reliable rail service which has grown customer numbers year on year since privitasion for an decreasing subsidy level. Hmmm, privatisation really sucks.

As an aside, he has some good ideas and is someone that adds value to the transport discussion but in my opinion, has his own agenda too much in his findings and lacks objectivity.

[BDunnell]

Ummm, I did in post 122. Have you checked the link?

http://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/styles/large/public/subsidy%20as%20percentage%20of%20TR.PNG

As you can see, rather than BR being self funding prior to privatisation, it was pretty static about 40% and only started going down after privatisation. There was a fake dip in 95/96 but a more sustained decrease until the massive problems in the early 2000's with Railtrack and Hatfield. Massive investment was necessary at levels that approached (and even just exceeded) pre-privatisation costs but once achieved, have been steadily declining since 2006/7 to the low of 35% of Rail Revenue last year (not shown).

Wolmar claimed that funding (adjusted for inflation) was about £1 to £1.5bn pre privatisation and is now nearly £4bn but he hasn't taken into account the massive increase in passenger numbers (and therefore revenue) which shows that investment per customer is coming down because it doesn't suit his views.

You are being very selective here. In the interests of balance, here is the entire web page from which you took that graph:

Factcheck: Does the taxpayer subsidise the rail network more now than it did when it was nationalised? | Full Fact (http://fullfact.org/factchecks/taxpayer_subsidy_train_network_nationalisation-3391)

A slightly different picture overall from that presented by your take on the matter.

[Knock-on]

You are being very selective here. In the interests of balance, here is the entire web page from which you took that graph:

Factcheck: Does the taxpayer subsidise the rail network more now than it did when it was nationalised? | Full Fact (http://fullfact.org/factchecks/taxpayer_subsidy_train_network_nationalisation-3391)

A slightly different picture overall from that presented by your take on the matter.

You've just reposted the link I posted in #122 and claimed it shows something different :laugh: I give up.

Just what are you trying to say? You're making no sense :confused:

[BDunnell]

You've just reposted the link I posted in #122 and claimed it shows something different :laugh: I give up.

Just what are you trying to say? You're making no sense :confused:

What I'm saying quite clearly is that the bit you picked out of that page for further comment does not tell the full story. Not hard to grasp.

[keysersoze]

You are basing this opinion on what? Wow, the health care in Switzerland, France, Italy, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Ireland,Germany and many more is atrocious. Why,they even pay in most of those countries and have the opinion that the US (right wing) is not even educated pertaining health care or Obamacare. It is sad for me to hear all these complaints that have no merit especially since this is my country.



Why not? Has it to do with your belief that you graduated all these students and now are four year college graduates. Hmmmm, I wonder if they took geography? Was that one of your subjects because if it is you should see the results of a sample questionnaire regarding geographic locations not just all over the world but including the US. It was sad. It is sad.
Know where these students were taking the quiz? Harvard, Yale, Princeton.

I'm basing it on 20+ years of being in the field. I've taught in both, and attended a public high school. Among a litany of reason, the student-teacher ratio is key. In my school, it's 10:1. In a public junior high or high school, it's 25:1 and worse. It's hard to compete with that.

I frankly don't know what your first paragraph means. Are you saying that those European countries have poor health care? What is your country?

I base my comments on health care in the U.S. on many things, among them second-hand knowledge. Every member of my family is in the medical profession(except me). I've gotten a heaping helping of discussions on the matter over the years.

I'm getting effing fed up with the snide personal comments.

[Knock-on]

What I'm saying quite clearly is that the bit you picked out of that page for further comment does not tell the full story. Not hard to grasp.

Have you read the article. HAVE YOU READ IT??????

Wolmar made a misleading claim that was designed to reflect positivly on his opinion and the article took his claim and factored in the 300%+ increase in passenger numbers resulting in the adjusted graph I posted. The bit I picked IS the full story. End of story.

If you had bothered to read my post with the link before reposting it, you would have seen that but I guess that doesn't suit your view. Hardly objective???

Anyway, I'm not going to get dragged into this stupidity again and contribute to throwing this thread further off course. It's all yours. :rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

Have you read the article. HAVE YOU READ IT??????

Er... yes.

Shout and flounce off if you want to. However, just posting that graph did not tell the full story. This was explained in the accompanying text. Given that this thread is about political inclinations, I thought it very relevant to point out that in no way can the influence of privatisation on the British railways be described as entirely positive. This fact remains.