On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:57:38 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:34:19 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:00:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
So you'd be assessed on the number of bags of rubbish that had to be
taken away? How often you walked and wore out the pavement? ;-)

Well no... I was thinking more about the high ticket items like
education and those that can easily be handled individually.

So you believe only the children of the well off should be educated?

No. But I do believe in choice without penalty.


No such thing.
Your choice penalises many others.

No it doesn't. It simply means that funding can go in the direction
of a wider choice of education. I explicitly said that funding to
the same level that would be spent to educate a child in the public
sector could be directed to a private sector school and the parents
could top it up.

That simply re-establishes a financial equality. As it is, the system
is very restrictive and inappropriate. Parents who are willing to
additionally fund their children's education have to pay for a state
education that they don't use and then pay again out of taxed income
to achieve what they believe is right.

Not that those who
espouse the madness of "choice" in education give a damn about that.

There is no madness in choice, unless you believe that education
should be restricted and dumbed down to the least common denominator.

Do you really think that people who fund their kids education out of
marginal rate taxed income do so for fun or because they have money to
throw away? Almost all the parents that I know who have done this
have sacrificed hugely to do so because they simply don't trust the
state to do a proper job.




--

..andy