Paul,

Your sarcasm and put downs are no substitute for common sense and knowledge.

ttbn, one thing about all you conservatives you can't laugh at anything, your mob take everything, oh! so serious. Life is meant to be miserable. Correct.
Lighten up my friend, it was only a joke. I am not familiar with what goes on in SA. In Sydney there are around 600 million public transport journeys P/A. The system, its running and performance is vital to the well being of the city.

The uninformed like Hasbeen do not know what they are talking about when they make a silly statement like;

"I find almost nothing more offensive than the sight of tens of thousands of public servants riding the obscenely highly subsidised public transport into their inner city "work" places, while those who pay their salaries are driving to work, paying huge taxes on their fuel to subsidise said public transport."

The fact is only 23% of public transport journeys are work related, and how many of them are by public servants, I have no idea. Most fall into the category social/recreational/educational that is about 77% of all trips taken

"Most fall into the category social/recreational/educational that is about 77% of all trips taken" Don't believe a word of it. Sounds like more of those statistics plucked from thin air by academics, bureaucrats & greens. State the source if you want to be takes seriously.

However if it were true that would be the greatest possible reason for making public transport full cost recovery. There is absolutely no reason why some of us should subsidies any others in their social/recreational activities.

Hasbeen,
Which news report was that on?

_________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
There is plenty second rate about the running of SA's public transport. All rail passengers have been affected by extended closures because they've been too incompetent to keep the lines open while they maintain them. But it has absolutely nothing to do with privatisation.

However the same can't be said about the SA water contract. The way it was granted may have been corrupt. And the technical mismanagement of the Bolivar sewage works resulted in the Big Stink. Eventually they got their act together, but overall the water privatisation has been far from fine.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Paul,

Far left ideologues are as bad as far right ideologues. Where the cost of outsourcing something to the private sector is genuinely cheaper than the public sector doing it themselves (and the cost advantage does not come at the expense of quality) it's stupid to oppose private sector involvement as you do. Anyone who doesn't want the best of both worlds is a complete moron.

And if you want less private sector involvement, the most sensible response is to encourage reform of the public sector, to make it more efficient than the private sector. That includes (but is not limited to) ensuring the decision makers allow it to exploit its natural advantages such as cheaper finance.

Your insulting our nation's fifth biggest city is not at all funny. You seem to be totally clueless about how to make jokes, so here's a hint: if the joke needs so much explanation that you have to include the insult in the premise not the punchline, it's usually not worth bothering with.

Aiden, your reference to me as a complete moron is offensive and I'll treat it so. I give you facts, and you call me a moron. Where do you sit?

Not withstanding that, I will make my position clear. I have not made any reference to any other "privatization" other than public transport. Which at the end of the day, the vast majority expect to be treated as an essential service, and not a profit making concern, like banking for instance. Which unlike public transport is open to competition in a relatively free market, and therefore it can be cost effective for government to leave that to private enterprise, I do not dispute that.

cont

cont

What I contend is, ideologically driven conservative governments push the "privatization" of public transport as being some kind of economic panacea for the taxpayer, trumpeting "its a win, win situation for all", when it is clearly not the case, so the actual facts show. On the one hand, the "privatization" venture has to satisfy the profit motive of business (the private operator), and at the same time meet the service expectations of the general public (the voter). Often all that happens is the profit is privatized, while the service cost is left for the taxpayer. Sydney Ferries privatization, independent report, positive benefit to the taxpayer = $700K, negative cost to the taxpayer = $80M. The ferries run no better under the private operator than previously. The difference now is there's a $79.3 miliion cost burden on the taxpayer to maintain the service.

In NSW, we had private enterprise build and operate the 'Airport Link' rail line. But due to outrageously high fares, the occupancy rate fell to a miserable 8%, in other words the trains were running 92% empty, stopping at deserted stations, picking up non existent passengers. The taxpayer through the government was forced to make a $900M "loan" to the operator, to prevent him from going under. Not only that, the government was forced to pay a fair subsidy at the 3 non airport stations, bring their fares into line with those of the general suburban network. This resulted in a massive boost in patronage. The 'Airport Link' occupancy rate is now on a par with the rest of the suburban network. Thanks to the generosity of the taxpayer.