Message #3450

[Martin]

To address your points in order Andrew. 

You're right that geographical inequality exists on the basis of rich and poor areas.  It's one of those things that's difficult to address, and abolishing private education will not eliminate all inequalities, but it will help a lot.

I live near to Alderley Edge - an area where there is one of the highest incidences of millionaires in Britain.  But even within Alderley Edge there is a sizeable council estate.   If all children went to their local state schools, then the schools there would contain quite a sizable minority of children from those estates.  I'm sure that you're right, that children from underprivileged families would notice their lack of privilege in such a school - as for going on school trips, perhaps skiing trips to Austria should be replaced with other less expensive trips, perhaps help should be given to less privileged children, it already happens with school dinners after all.  But the point is that the mix of pupils, if encouraged and managed well, will lead to a better understanding between rich and poor communities.  The disparity between rich and poor would become more apparent to the coming generation, and the pressure to change the system so that it is fairer would grow. 

You don't have to go back to Marie Antoinette to realise that the rich love to deny the plight of the poor.  From walled estates with private police forces to exclusive clubs and first class compartments, the rich only want the poor in their lives when they want to increase their own wealth with the services that the poor are forced to offer at so-called 'competitve' (meaning low) prices. Dickens' ghosts were exposers of the uncomfortable truth.

As you say, the top schools get nothing from the Government, but they still have more money to spend on their pupils than the state schools.   What I was talking about was increased funding to state schools in deprived areas to lower class sizes and improve educational resources - provided at the expense of the taxpayer - something worth spending taxes on as opposed to aircraft carriers. The government can't remove resources from those privileged schools they don't fund - which is precisely why they should abolish private education.

You may be right that these ideals will never be realised - whether it's due to human nature or propaganda is the question.  But, as I say, that doesn't mean that it's wrong to be an idealist.  If you get a growing majority of idealists who call for real change, then sooner or later something will give. You have to remember who the opposition are.  Those who send their children to schools like Eaton, Harrow and Westmisnter are people given to getting their own way - these are the people who tell you that adequate pensions can no longer be afforded.  It is they who set your expectations, it is they who tell you that resistance is useless, that human nature will not allow your ideals to become reality. Look at the link I posted a few posts back Rich get richer. Poor get poorer.  This is surely one of the reasons why things are not affordable for the poor.  Once they were.  They can be again, but not without a lot more supposed 'idealist thinking'. 

Don't be defeated.  Keep on resisting evil.