Reply to: Britain must say 'no' to eastern European workers, says Cameron

[DodgyAgent]

I agree with you in principle, but the practice leans very much one way: all the private rail operators now receive a subsidy more than 4 times what British Rail did for corresponding operations, in real terms, and produce worse performance figures than the now state-owned East Coast.

And as for the two systems being proved against each other, East Coast Mainline is the very case where they have been: first GNER went bust, then National Express defaulted, then state-owned DOR took over and not only works but as I pointed out improved all the indicators of success that I can think of.

We could go into a long debate about which is better but this is not my point. The point is that the best of both worlds should be brought together. The dynamics of choice and competition and the ethic of public service. Whether in practice this would mean having a two tier ownership of business system that will raise the investment needed and provide the returns but was set apart from the clutches of the financial markets. Maybe something along the lines of ownership of affordable homes, we have affordable businesses

[expat]

Where have the two systems been proven against each other that proves your point?

Irrespective of who runs them the debate should be about how they should be run. On the one hand you have private sector running them for profit and then you have the public sector running them - with no financial or service responsibility.
One may be better than the other but the real argument should be on how they should best be run. Unfortunately it is a debate that gets taken over by vested interests and personal prejudices and politics

I agree with you in principle, but the practice leans very much one way: all the private rail operators now receive a subsidy more than 4 times what British Rail did for corresponding operations, in real terms, and produce worse performance figures than the now state-owned East Coast.

And as for the two systems being proved against each other, East Coast Mainline is the very case where they have been: first GNER went bust, then National Express defaulted, then state-owned DOR took over and not only works but as I pointed out improved all the indicators of success that I can think of.

[DodgyAgent]

I don't want to argue it because I don't need to, the proof is there in East Coast Mainlaine, which since being effectively "nationalised" under the state-owned Directly Operated Railways has paid over £602m into public funds (50% more than National Express or Virgin Rail), has a public subsidy 1/7 of that to Virgin Rail, a hugely improved safety record, increased leverls of punctuality and customer satisfaction.

The assertion that railways work better under public ownership has been tested, and proven.

Where have the two systems been proven against each other that proves your point?

Irrespective of who runs them the debate should be about how they should be run. On the one hand you have private sector running them for profit and then you have the public sector running them - with no financial or service responsibility.
One may be better than the other but the real argument should be on how they should best be run. Unfortunately it is a debate that gets taken over by vested interests and personal prejudices and politics

[expat]

They are not good examples because they are monopolies. If however you want to argue that they would be better run and better funded if they were nationalised then go ahead and argue it.

I don't want to argue it because I don't need to, the proof is there in East Coast Mainlaine, which since being effectively "nationalised" under the state-owned Directly Operated Railways has paid over £602m into public funds (50% more than National Express or Virgin Rail), has a public subsidy 1/7 of that to Virgin Rail, a hugely improved safety record, increased leverls of punctuality and customer satisfaction.

The assertion that railways work better under public ownership has been tested, and proven.

[DodgyAgent]

Like the way it worked so well for the privatised railways and utility companies?

They are not good examples because they are monopolies. If however you want to argue that they would be better run and better funded if they were nationalised then go ahead and argue it.

[expat]

Lets face it, most teachers go into the job because they had limited job opportunities yet we let them in charge of getting our kids up for the job market of the future. It is only ever going to end in disaster.

Quite false in my experience, quite insulting, and quite ignorant. Teachers are qualified in their subject and in education. Can't say that for the politicians that we put in charge of them.

[expat]

You can blame both governments however it is the left who have the grip on the education system. The best way to improve education is to give the consumers the power of choice.

Like the way it worked so well for the privatised railways and utility companies?

[darmstadt]

And how many of those are for not teaching the school curriculum?

This chap didn't quite get sacked: Sledging lesson sees teacher reprimanded by education body | Education | The Guardian, but you have to ask yourself, is there actually a real, in-place, curriculum: Ebacc Scrapped In 'Humiliating' GCSE U-Turn By Michael Gove

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Isn't the real problem that literate and numerate Eastern Europeans with lower living costs are able to compete with people who aren't that bright here? You can't educate everyone into Steven Hawking even by adopting a total free market - no doubt there are plenty of Eastern Europeans who have had to stay at home 'cos they can't learn enough English to get a job here.

It's ironic given the received wisdom on here that all teachers are lefties (I have personally met plenty who weren't) and that that's damaging - that the apparently well-educated kids taking jobs from our average kids are coming from a state education system in a mixed economy run by Social Democrats. Surely if they are so great, they must be the product of a totally free-market education?

[DodgyAgent]

Reading material for your afternoon tea break:

BBC News - Sacked teacher Kim Shaw 'victimised', tribunal told
Teacher sacked for pruning school bush gets £70k unfair dismissal compo | The Sun |News
Teacher 'sacked for explaining sex acts': Tribunal told of movement within school to 'get rid of a number of teachers who do not toe the orthodox Jewish line' - UK - News - The Independent
Removing bad teachers
Disciplinary And Capability Procedures Guidance For NUT Representatives | National Union of Teachers - NUT

And how many of those are for not teaching the school curriculum?

[darmstadt]

give me an example of a teacher being sacked

Reading material for your afternoon tea break:

BBC News - Sacked teacher Kim Shaw 'victimised', tribunal told
Teacher sacked for pruning school bush gets £70k unfair dismissal compo | The Sun |News
Teacher 'sacked for explaining sex acts': Tribunal told of movement within school to 'get rid of a number of teachers who do not toe the orthodox Jewish line' - UK - News - The Independent
Removing bad teachers
Disciplinary And Capability Procedures Guidance For NUT Representatives | National Union of Teachers - NUT

[DodgyAgent]

You're correct but due to the standards set down by successive governments this is how they have to teach. If they don't then they're sacked.

give me an example of a teacher being sacked

[darmstadt]

Teachers have a huge amount of influence with kids. If you think that they just stand there like lecturers delivering "courses" then maybe you should look back at your own childhood. Teachers for instance can paint positive and negative pictures on work, capitalism, socialism - anything they like. They may not have any say in the curriculum but they certainly have a say in how the curriculum is taught.

You're correct but due to the standards set down by successive governments this is how they have to teach. If they don't then they're sacked.

[darmstadt]

I meant labour and Tory. Your frivolous take it or leave it point is exactly why we have a problem with our education system.
i am not quite sure what this has to do with "buying degrees"

Sorry not frivolous, you put the parents in the position of a consumer therefore you're making the analogy of a child's education to that of buying a product. This means that a parent makes the decision of what education that their offspring are going to get, basically shopping around. Now if you can afford it, you're going to buy the best, but if you can't you make do with what you're provided with which in many cases is not going to be the best. Once upon a time, teaching was seen as a noble profession but due to successive governments and their ignorant politicians meddling with the education system it is now seen as just a 9-5 job, just a job and nothing else. If the government were to listen to teachers and not blank faced civil servants, local town hall busy bodies or their own ego then once again the education system might get back on track.

As a consumer you can buy your education hence the remark that you can buy a degree, whether it be from a 'dodgy' internet university to an Oxbridge establishment.

[Churchill]

Teachers have a huge amount of influence with kids. If you think that they just stand there like lecturers delivering "courses" then maybe you should look back at your own childhood. Teachers for instance can paint positive and negative pictures on work, capitalism, socialism - anything they like. They may not have any say in the curriculum but they certainly have a say in how the curriculum is taught.

WDAS++;