I dont know if you've heard of Academy schools in the UK. They are privately run businesses. Some of them are very good... others, like in Bristol are complete failures. All the Private sector ever seem to do is balls up a perfectly good service, railways, busses, schools. Privatisation just never seems to work.

 

 

 

 

 

I have not heard of that system of schools, but being privately run does not guarantee success, that Bristol example if it was bad, it would lose business. Then it would have to get its act together and provide a service which people would pay for, or it would face closing down or getting brought out.

 

The weak, and inefficient services die out in the free market, when under state control they do not face the same penalties if they fail. The free market provides a service which the people want and are willing to pay for, the state provides what they think the people want.

 

 

 

The reason why Railways fail, even under private ownership is because they are a rather inefficient method of transportation in a highly competitive environment. When the state run such services they generally used tax payers money to keep them going because the margins are so thin it is next to impossible to get a economic return on investment. The truth is the road networks are much more versatile and practical then rail would ever be. It is a transport method of a previous age.

 

 

 

Most bus services I have had experience with are run by private business and they are quite successful. The ones which were not have gone under or been brought out.

 

 

 

Thinking about state ownership and privatization, the only examples which I can immediately think of which have not succeeded are cases when the government has not been willing to give up complete control.

 

 

 

If you want to see examples of the wonders of state owned enterprises, I suggest you take a visit to North Korea.

The only thing wrong with Bush is that he is a Republican acting like a Democrat with religious ideals. Which is just plain odd.

 

 

 

No - he is just changing the definition of what it means to be Republican.

 

 

 

(As a result, the opposition - the Democrats - adjust themselves to be oppositely oriented from the new Republicans, changing the dynamic of our two-party system.)

The only thing wrong with Bush is that he is a Republican acting like a Democrat with religious ideals. Which is just plain odd.

 

 

 

No - he is just changing the definition of what it means to be Republican.

 

 

 

(As a result, the opposition - the Democrats - adjust themselves to be oppositely oriented from the new Republicans, changing the dynamic of our two-party system.)

 

 

 

We're going to split soon - can't you feel it? We're going to split into a Howard Dean party (liberals), a Democrat party (moderate liberals), a religious Right Republican Party (Bush's party) and a Conservative-Libertarian Party. Wouldn't that be awesome?

 

 

 

Maybe I'm dreaming...

The only thing wrong with Bush is that he is a Republican acting like a Democrat with religious ideals. Which is just plain odd.

 

 

 

No - he is just changing the definition of what it means to be Republican.

 

 

 

(As a result, the opposition - the Democrats - adjust themselves to be oppositely oriented from the new Republicans, changing the dynamic of our two-party system.)

 

 

 

We're going to split soon - can't you feel it? We're going to split into a Howard Dean party (liberals), a Democrat party (moderate liberals), a religious Right Republican Party (Bush's party) and a Conservative-Libertarian Party. Wouldn't that be awesome?

 

 

 

Maybe I'm dreaming...

 

 

 

That would be SWEET!

 

 

 

I'm in CT right now, and with the Lamont - Lieberman thing, you can definitely feel the tension within the Democratic party about direction to take.

The only thing wrong with Bush is that he is a Republican acting like a Democrat with religious ideals. Which is just plain odd.

 

 

 

No - he is just changing the definition of what it means to be Republican.

 

 

 

(As a result, the opposition - the Democrats - adjust themselves to be oppositely oriented from the new Republicans, changing the dynamic of our two-party system.)

 

 

 

We're going to split soon - can't you feel it? We're going to split into a Howard Dean party (liberals), a Democrat party (moderate liberals), a religious Right Republican Party (Bush's party) and a Conservative-Libertarian Party. Wouldn't that be awesome?

 

 

 

Maybe I'm dreaming...

 

 

 

That would be SWEET!

 

 

 

I'm in CT right now, and with the Lamont - Lieberman thing, you can definitely feel the tension within the Democratic party about direction to take.

 

 

 

Just don't end up like Canada with their 11500+ parties to vote for.

The only thing wrong with Bush is that he is a Republican acting like a Democrat with religious ideals. Which is just plain odd.

 

 

 

No - he is just changing the definition of what it means to be Republican.

 

 

 

(As a result, the opposition - the Democrats - adjust themselves to be oppositely oriented from the new Republicans, changing the dynamic of our two-party system.)

 

 

 

We're going to split soon - can't you feel it? We're going to split into a Howard Dean party (liberals), a Democrat party (moderate liberals), a religious Right Republican Party (Bush's party) and a Conservative-Libertarian Party. Wouldn't that be awesome?

 

 

 

Maybe I'm dreaming...

 

 

 

That would be SWEET!

 

 

 

I'm in CT right now, and with the Lamont - Lieberman thing, you can definitely feel the tension within the Democratic party about direction to take.

 

 

 

Just don't end up like Canada with their 11500+ parties to vote for.

 

What'd be wrong with that? Then people might start thinking which party is best to vote for if they have so many options - instead of this two sides to a coin deal with such extremes on both.

(For the duration of this post, 'public schools' will refer to schools run by the state, not the way the phrase is used in england. I confused myself for a bit there hehe)

 

 

 

 

I have not heard of that system of schools, but being privately run does not guarantee success, that Bristol example if it was bad, it would lose business. Then it would have to get its act together and provide a service which people would pay for, or it would face closing down or getting brought out.

 

 

 

Nice enough in theory, but in practice it requires the sacrifice of children's education. After all, how else are you meant to measure the effectiveness of a school? You need students. Take an elementary school. In sweden, that's 9 years of education. You run a kid through nine years of private education starting at the age of seven. Kid then get's the choose where to studies, and finds this nifty public school he'd like to attend. He goes there, and quickly realizes that compared to the other students, his actual knowledge of the subjects is sub-par. If kid is asked whether he'd go to the private school if he go to do it all over again, he says "no way!".

 

 

 

This isn't a box of cereals. If your kid doesn't like the cereal, you don't buy the cereals. But if your kid isn't learning enough to be competative with children at other school, how do you as a parent evaluate that? And how do you evaluate it in time to do something about it? And that's assuming there's actually an alternative to move your kid to. Maybe it's the closest school and you don't have time/money to transport your kid to the "best" option. Maybe the "best" option is too expensive for you. I'm fairly sure some of the posters here knows what it means to have to buy food that tastes crap, but hey, it's affordable! Or a computer with less performance. Or a used TV. Do we really want to do that to the education of our children?

 

 

 

That being said, I don't think private run schools are a bad thing. I think completely entrusting the education of our children into their hands is stupid idea; Economic competition alone will not be able to keep the quality of education up. But throw in a few public schools. Let the private options compete with public schools. Legislate a bit to make eliminate money as a factor in the choice of where to place the kid (call me silly, but I really don't think you can have a democratic society where the quality of basic education depends on the wealth of your parents) so that the school you choose is chosen for it's quality of education; Not because it happened to be the cheapest local alternative.

 

 

 

The weak, and inefficient services die out in the free market, when under state control they do not face the same penalties if they fail. The free market provides a service which the people want and are willing to pay for, the state provides what they think the people want.

 

 

 

And in a democratic state where the state is made up of representatives for the people, by the people, of the people, I'd say we can't categorically rule out the idea that, once in a while, the state is actually going to be able to provide the people with what they want?

And in a democratic state where the state is made up of representatives for the people, by the people, of the people, I'd say we can't categorically rule out the idea that, once in a while, the state is actually going to be able to provide the people with what they want?

 

 

 

You say that because you've had no experience with the Kentucky state school system. :P

What'd be wrong with that? Then people might start thinking which party is best to vote for if they have so many options - instead of this two sides to a coin deal with such extremes on both.

 

 

 

Because there's never a majority government meaning the people in power can't really do anything.

Because there's never a majority government meaning the people in power can't really do anything.

 

 

 

They call them "majority coalition governments" and while they have their con's, they most definitely work.

 

 

 

edit: I'd also like to point out that the end result of the "first past the post" system used in the UK and the USA still makes it entirely possible that the winner of the election is not the guy with the most votes. I have vague recollections of G.W.B. in the 2000 election actually recieved something along 500 000 votes *less* than Al Gore? Recieving the support of the majority in a democratic system based on "first past the post" is overrated.

Because there's never a majority government meaning the people in power can't really do anything.

 

 

 

They call them "majority coalition governments" and while they have their con's, they most definitely work.

 

 

 

Yep, for example I read in Washington Post, in your country four of the most succesful parties made a coalition and they're in power now (though lots of ministers resigned for some stuff like illegally paying for their babysitters and odd stuff like that).

 

 

 

Each party still gets to voice their opinion, and if the other 3 parties opinions vary too greatly, they're no longer a majority coalition because one party protests. So each party has to listen to each other since they got into power by co-operation.

Because there's never a majority government meaning the people in power can't really do anything.

 

 

 

They call them "majority coalition governments" and while they have their con's, they most definitely work.

 

 

 

Yep, for example I read in Washington Post, in your country four of the most succesful parties made a coalition and they're in power now (though lots of ministers resigned for some stuff like illegally paying for their babysitters and odd stuff like that).

 

 

 

Each party still gets to voice their opinion, and if the other 3 parties opinions vary too greatly, they're no longer a majority coalition because one party protests. So each party has to listen to each other since they got into power by co-operation.

 

 

 

Actually in Canada it's just called a minority government, and the opposition pretty much vetoes any bill put forward - what usually ends up happening is that the Conservatives or the Liberals will be voted into minority government when power shifts from one to the other - they then usually get a term to prove themselves with minor changes that the opposition approve of (they aren't entirely spiteful) and if they do a good job, there's a better chance they'll get majority government next term.

 

Nice enough in theory, but in practice it requires the sacrifice of children's education. After all, how else are you meant to measure the effectiveness of a school? You need students. Take an elementary school. In sweden, that's 9 years of education. You run a kid through nine years of private education starting at the age of seven. Kid then get's the choose where to studies, and finds this nifty public school he'd like to attend. He goes there, and quickly realizes that compared to the other students, his actual knowledge of the subjects is sub-par. If kid is asked whether he'd go to the private school if he go to do it all over again, he says "no way!".

 

 

 

Firstly I would say that a person would have to be a pretty bad parent if they fail to notice that their children is failing in their education. I would also add that many children already fail in the state system and in many cases the state system is the only choice. With my idea, there would be much more choice and a greater chance that the child would get moved into a school which suits their need. At the moment it is mostly a one size fits all solution.

 

 

 

That being said, I don't think private run schools are a bad thing. I think completely entrusting the education of our children into their hands is stupid idea; Economic competition alone will not be able to keep the quality of education up. But throw in a few public schools. Let the private options compete with public schools. Legislate a bit to make eliminate money as a factor in the choice of where to place the kid (call me silly, but I really don't think you can have a democratic society where the quality of basic education depends on the wealth of your parents) so that the school you choose is chosen for it's quality of education; Not because it happened to be the cheapest local alternative.

 

 

 

Most parents are caring, and want the best for their children. I doubt many would choose a childs education on the "cheapest local alternative". One way to prevent the action of parent greed is to continue to tax the population for education, then allow parents to take their child's share of state funding to any school of their choice - public or private. Failing schools should be allowed to close, or taken over by better performing ones.

 

Actually in Canada it's just called a minority government, and the opposition pretty much vetoes any bill put forward - what usually ends up happening is that the Conservatives or the Liberals will be voted into minority government when power shifts from one to the other - they then usually get a term to prove themselves with minor changes that the opposition approve of (they aren't entirely spiteful) and if they do a good job, there's a better chance they'll get majority government next term.

 

 

 

Canada employs a 'first past the post' system. I'm not quite sure how you manage to end up with a minority government though, nor how the opposition - if it isn't forming a government, then it surely can't have a majority? - could veto anything? (... if you could see me face, there'd be this glowing "oooo, new knowledge, tell me!" expression radiating from it).

 

 

 

Still though, that's not the same thing a majority coalition government, as in that case - by definition - the opposition is in minority and won't be vetoing [cabbage].

 

 

 

Firstly I would say that a person would have to be a pretty bad parent if they fail to notice that their children is failing in their education. I would also add that many children already fail in the state system and in many cases the state system is the only choice. With my idea, there would be much more choice and a greater chance that the child would get moved into a school which suits their need. At the moment it is mostly a one size fits all solution.

 

 

 

What's this about failing their education? They did decently well in their education. In that particular non-public school. But in comparison to other private schools and public schools in the region, they underperformed. The problem was that the private school - and it most likely still does - churned out students with less downright knowledge than other alternatives. I question whether this is acceptable in a democratic society.

 

 

 

Most parents are caring, and want the best for their children. I doubt many would choose a childs education on the "cheapest local alternative". One way to prevent the action of parent greed is to continue to tax the population for education, then allow parents to take their child's share of state funding to any school of their choice - public or private. Failing schools should be allowed to close, or taken over by better performing ones.

 

 

 

We do that in my country. Quite frankly, I think it works great, except the state should pay a lot more attention to who it gives the money to, and whether the people who get the money are actually competent. Mostly, I'm thinking of various religious schools that teaches things strictly against the swedish "lÃÆÃâÃâäroplan", a basic set of instructions regarding what the schools for various ages are meant to be teaching. Common violations are stuff that belong in the category "How To Teach Kids To Be Good Democratic Citizens".

 

Actually in Canada it's just called a minority government, and the opposition pretty much vetoes any bill put forward - what usually ends up happening is that the Conservatives or the Liberals will be voted into minority government when power shifts from one to the other - they then usually get a term to prove themselves with minor changes that the opposition approve of (they aren't entirely spiteful) and if they do a good job, there's a better chance they'll get majority government next term.

 

 

 

Canada employs a 'first past the post' system. I'm not quite sure how you manage to end up with a minority government though, nor how the opposition - if it isn't forming a government, then it surely can't have a majority? - could veto anything? (... if you could see me face, there'd be this glowing "oooo, new knowledge, tell me!" expression radiating from it).

 

 

 

Still though, that's not the same thing a majority coalition government, as in that case - by definition - the opposition is in minority and won't be vetoing cabbage.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_H ... omposition

 

 

 

Bills are voted on by the house of commons. It is currently 40.58% comprised of Conservatives. Everybody votes on bills - not just the conservatives and the official opposition. That means the conservatives can only guarantee a vote of 125 of 308 seats will vote in favour of a bill - they still need 29 out of the remaining 183 to vote in favour - which usually happens, but it guarantees that the conservatives can't do anything ridiculous as the other seats can vote against.

 

 

 

A minority government also does not have access to a lot of documents - many of which are related to the sponsorship scandal - since the Conservatives do not hold a majority, alot of the corruption the Liberals have gone through cannot be exposed until a party aside from the Liberals gets a majority vote.