Your political inclinations - who do you vote for?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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

---

[quote:u830zwch]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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

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 )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.o...%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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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

http://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.o...%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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.