Is it the fault of NuLabour or socialism?

[minestrone]

... but they are not forced. It is a choice whether to pay once or twice. Instead of sending children to private schools we should be improving state education. Unfortunately, state education is in the hands of politically correct unionised left-wingers. Perhaps privatising state education and removing it from state and union interference could be the answer.

WOOOOSHHHH

[Old Greg]

My punctuation is fine in that previous post and with that I would like to repeat "maybe your parents should have spent the same on your education as my parents did on mine".

Did you not learn to parse or analyze sentences in your expensive education? It is no wonder you cannot construct an argument if you cannot construct a sentence. Perhaps you should have another look at the post, and when you have seen what you did wrong, you can come and tell the whole class.

[Sysman]

How much extra will that cost in taxes?

There was the half way house of direct grant schools (i.e. the parental top up system). If I remember correctly the rest of the fees (or a sizeable chunk thereof) came from central government, rather than the local authority. In the case of my school over a quarter of the pupils were there with scholarships provided by local authorities.

Old Labour scrapped the system in the mid 1970s, the Tories brought it back in the form of the Assisted Places Scheme (sorry, don't know the precise details), an New Labour in turn scrapped that circa 2000.

Both schemes allowed parents who wanted to contribute to do so, without having to be mega-rich.

[Sysman]

In Denmark an awful lot more children (as a % of population) go to fee paying schools than they do in England. This is possible as the money follows the child.

Most private schools require a top up, the top up depends on income, the lowest incomes don't need to pay extra at all.

A low income parent, if they can convince the council to pay, can even get their kids into a full on boarding school.

[b]I think the system in the UK where parents are forced to pay twice for private education is quite divisive in comparison.[b]

That is the problem with Labour abolishing the Direct Grant and Assisted Places schemes . they have turned private education into a preserve of the rich.

[Ruprect]

No I'm not. Legislative enforcement is reqiured within the context of a capitalist state, not a socialist one.

Just to make sure I understand you correctly: you are positing that we should have a small government socialist state (oxymoron IMO), with little or no legislative enforcement on the application of equality?

[DodgyAgent]

Just to make sure I understand you correctly: you are positing that we should have a small government socialist state (oxymoron IMO), with little or no legislative enforcement on the application of equality?

Would someone please explain what is meant by "equality"?

[Ruprect]

Would someone please explain what is meant by "equality"?

Good question. This is what OG stated - he points out (validly) that there are always going to be differing definitions of this, but IMO the current accepted social convention on equality is "Equality of opportunity".

the acceptance of equality - a socialist analysis of equitability. I think you probably mean common ownership of the means of production and equitable distribution of the fruits of production, to use some old-school language. Different socialists (and others on the left) would define these differently, but like many I don't seek to prescribe a definition up front. Once those in power are removed (if they ever can be), there will be time to evolve a model that works.

[DodgyAgent]

Good question. This is what OG stated - he points out (validly) that there are always going to be differing definitions of this, but IMO the current accepted social convention on equality is "Equality of opportunity".

Which in itself is also meaningless without some sort of qualification.

[Ruprect]

Which in itself is also meaningless without some sort of qualification.

alright then.... these days this refers to:

Access to services
Access to healthcare
Access to education
Consideration for jobs (aside: I don't understand how "positive" discrimination sits with this)
[edit] increase social mobility [/edit]
etc etc.

my original point was that you can't achieve these sort of aspirations without a large and intrusive state.

[DodgyAgent]

alright then.... these days this refers to:

Access to services
Access to healthcare
Access to education
Consideration for jobs (aside: I don't understand how "positive" discrimination sits with this)
etc etc.

my original point was that you can't achieve these sort of aspirations without a large and intrusive state.

My point is that the state delivers exceptionally poor services, so most people with the ability to earn do so in order to avoid having to use state supplied services.

If equality of opportunities is what it says then does it matter if those competing for those opportunities are not themselves of equal standing (same education, same upbringing)?