Mark, I guess this is where we disagree. A voucher system will let the middle classes steam ahead in the hope that those less well off will eventually benefit too. I much prefer a system where everyone is empowered with the same choices and the same benefits, but the schools themselves play a greater role in giving opportunities to those from tougher backgrounds. Charter schools in America are placed in the hardest districts because the national and state governments know that this is where you have to start, not by giving the middle classes a further step up.

Our underclass is absolutely down to distorted welfare policies but changing our benefits system will not be enough to wipe away the generations of pain that Labour have inflicted on many families. This is why I believe the state needs to play a role (albeit a limited one), because without some help these families will keep falling further and further behind.

Cabalmat, you may well be right. I’m just frustrated that he dug such a huge hole for himself. No doubt this was politically rather than personally motivated.

It’s pretty obvious what he’ll do. There’s bound to be at least one good state school in the whole of London, and Cameron will pull strings to make sure his kid gets a place. Like Blair did. Come to think of it, Cameron’s a lot like Blair in many ways.

I prefer the US definition of middle class – that is every normal family with one or both parents working. What we UK snobs split up into ‘working class’ or ‘middle class’. A teacher friend told me that the only kids who cause problems are from single-parent families, broken homes etc. (obviously a lot of kids from those backgrounds are perfectly good pupils). So if a voucher system benefits “the middle classes” which is around 80% or 90% of the population in my book, that must be A Good Thing? And those parents from The Underclass who care about their kids’ education* can ride the coat tails of the US-definition middle class who gradually and inexorably push up standards.

Or do you think that Tesco et al would provide better food at lower prices if they were nationalised and there were some taxpayer-funded premium for selling ‘healthy options’ to The Underclass? I doubt it. And running a chain like Tesco is one heck of a lot more complicated than running a school for a few hundred children, teaching them time-honoured stuff like times tables, spelling, grammar and history and so on.

* The incredible rise in The Underclass is purely down to our welfare policies** that e.g. pay an unemployed single woman an extra £120 a week plus free council flat if she has two or more kids, whereas a woman who gives up her job to stay at home with two kids while her hubby goes to work on an average wage gets a princely £40 or so in Child Benefit and a smidge of Working Tax Credit – there’s no penny compensation towards the loss of her earnings. That’s a whole ‘nother topic (click link for more)

** They don’t have any of this rubbish in The Netherlands and their rate of teenage & single mothers is negligible.

There are two ways of ensuring equality – either drag everyone UP to the same level or dismantle the top end and place everyone in the bottom. Socialism, in its urge for equality over its drive for standards, would rather that everyone suffered at the same level than have anyone, especially not the rich, escape from egalitarian squalor.

As someone from a working class background, from a council estate who’s parents benefited from Thatcher’s change to home ownership and so on it has always been this perverse desire not to elevate but to demote all to the same level that underpins my abiding mistrust of socialism. Its the abiding belief that quality should rise and that talent, not ‘need’, should be rewarded that has consistently pushed me to the right of centre.

But I must say that I am disappointed in Cameron’s attitude towards Grammar schools. I’m not any kind of educational expert, AT, but in terms of giving disadvantaged kids the opportnity to a good, solid, rigorous education, as well as producing well-rounded and more-self-reliant individuals, Grammars cannot be beat.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Cameron’s ideas are very good, and were they to come to fruition would be a distinct improvement on what we have now.

But we don’t really know if it will work, or what unseen, and potentially insurmountable problems, may arise as a result.

Whereas, despite the fact that Grammars would have to adapt slightly, they remain an engine of social-mobility with an impressive and proven track record.

TBH, I’d rather pay a bit more tax, if I had to, if it could *guarantee* kids left school able to read and write. The saving would come down the line from reduced benefit bills and lower prison fees.

As a blue-sky excercise, would it be beyond our ken to devise an educational system that let every child be literate and numerate and if we can do that, maybe get year-zero on education and start from scratch!

The middle classes will have too much power in a voucher system, whereas a ‘pupil premium’ to encourage schools to take on pupils from more difficult backgrounds will help push education forward for everyone, not just the well-off. Choice can be introduced through other more just means, as David Cameron and Michael Gove have discussed, and vouchers would not incentivise new schools to set up in neglected areas.