Your political inclinations - who do you vote for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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

---

Which 'disparaging comments about students from private schools'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Which 'disparaging comments about students from private schools'?

---

Post #64

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Post #64

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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
"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

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......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

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????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.