Council tax and new ways..........

No you're missing the point. My starting premise was that the sourcing and financing could and should be separated from the delivery. The second point is that the state does not *need* to own and run schools, although it could. However, that would be alongside schools in the private sector or having a trust status.

The first key thing is that the money in the pot remains the same or could even be supplemented by those parents wishing to do so.

The second key thing is that schools, be they in any of these sectors would have greater autonomy from government control and control of their destiny.

Both of these provide for the good existing schools which are held back by bureaucracy to excell and make themselves increasingly attractive to parents.

In other words, the parents and pupils get to decide, along with the teachers how things run and not the civil servants.

A much better way of proceeding.

It gives everybody a choice, just as it does for every other service or item that we buy. I see no issue with that.

Moreover, it encourages the schools to focus on providing a good quality service. If they do then people will use them. If they don't, then people won't. It's a very effective way of raising standards to what they should be.

This is a pessimistic view. The reality is that the good ones would excell and the poor ones would close. That is what should happen.

Well there you go.

What a curious notion.

I've already explained it very clearly several times. The point is to separate funding from delivery.

Why do you automatically assume that sink schools would be produced? Doesn't this rather demean those who you imagine would go to them? I expect that they would find that offensive.

The point is also to empower schools to make their own local decisions about which way to go and to deliver what is appropriate. I suspect that many would opt to excell in certain educational areas and subject mixes. This would be very effective because it would allow for more resources to be put on specialist areas in a school rather than trying to be jacks of all trades and masters of none.

Schools will only be redundant if they make themselves so by not providing what is required.

Why do you think their would be damage to education? It was deemed that there would not be anything unacceptable when comprehensive education was embarked on and the national curriculum commenced.

The downsides are really only in the minds of those who believe that the state has to be in the funding *and* the delivery of education business.

Once one appreciates that this is perfectly possible, and actually desirable, then the shackles of state control fall away.

It seems that the market has moved to needing lots of media studies experts. Presumably this is so that they can put their own spin on government failure rather than the government having to pay to do it for them.

So 50 suppliers have allegedly banded together and done a price fixing deal. So what?

It doesn't really need somebody from the OFT to figure out that fee rises are 3x inflation. I think that their customers can work that one out.

I think if you were to look across the whole sector, you would see quite a range. Even so, within a range, it would not be surprising that the major costs of buildings, maintenance and staff would be fairly similar.

Dribble, if you had been paying attention Andy Hall and I had a disagreement further back on this thread. I prefer state education and totally believe in the NHS. Andy from what he posted prefers something costing much more and providing something rather inferior. Personally I can't understand it especially given his good taste in tools :-)

Oh dear. What a lot of nonsense.

Of course we are not. This is the classic excuse used by those who would seek to do people's thinking for them.

That's simply demeocracy and it doesn't require a collective will. It simply means that those who would wish to govern lay out their store and individual people get to decide which to buy.

Presumably you found the union block voting arrangements pretty attractive?

Ah, I see. You weren't clear on that point.

That's an area where I have no difficulty at all, thanks.

This doesn't *need* government action at all. What is needed is for their competitors to sort themselves out and to provide what their customers want to buy. Tesco has done that very effectively and deserve to have their market position as a result.

The present laws are more than strong enough. What is again needed is effective competition by others having what people want to buy.

Not at all. I've been in the IT industry long enough to have seen it all before. In the 70s and 80s, IBM dominated, and to some extent DEC in certain sectors. PCs became popular because users wanted to declare UDI from IT departments and do their own thing. We see outsourcing coming and going. Another fashion. It all runs on what people sell and what they buy. Fortunately, governments have sufficiently little influence over that.

Significantly more? How much in % terms?

We were better off under the poll tax because we had 3 kids at school.

Next door were worse off by about 20% but their kids were all working and they had 4 salaries coming in.

Politicians have always been so. How much community charge does "Oh No Antonio" pay on his £3 million Belgravia (?) house?

DG

Good Lord. How is that possible?

She was conned by that if "everybody" paid it the charge for "everybody" could be small. I've heard the figure of 50 quid per annum mentioned !

From square one, the special pleading from the single interest groups rolled in, and the cost for "everyone else" went higher and higher.

Then the local authorities (mostly Labour controlled) thought it was their turn to start troughing in on the change, as they had done in the LA re-organisation in the '70s, and indeed yet again sometime later.

She also made the big mistake of doing a trial run in Scotland. They

Community charge started later in England by that time the "rent a trots" were fully organised.

A fine kettle of fish.

An estate agent would regard it as a valuable amenity. If only because it meant nobody would be building over your back fence, usually.

The number of toilets in the house used to affect your water rates.

DG

I wrote it in English. It made clear sense when read in that same language.

Fortunately the UE has more balls than the UK government and is more effective than the USA courts.

No. That was the PR excuse. The *point* was to corruptly move more money from taxation into fat cats' bank accounts.

It's the downside of your proposal. It's rather a large and expensive downside

- and you expect the taxpayer and the individuals hit by it to pay the cost whilst you and your mates pick up all those extra profits going into private schools.

I'm sure I thought "EU" when I wrote that! ;-)

You're still missing the point and are using emotive arguments. I haven't said anything about profits or extra profits, only the separation of funding from delivery. I already said that the state investment in education would remain the same.

The advantage would be that the users would have the opportunity to choose between different schools of which the state might run some and other organisations might run others.

Oh dear. I think that you are looking for PR excuses because you have become familiar with a a government that operates in that way.

Unable to produce a reasoned discussion you resort to terms like "fat cats". I'm not very impressed.

Certainly I have good taste in tools. I certainly don't believe in the NHS as it stands today or in the structure of education. To be explicit, I think that the state can be in the business of organising funding for both so that there is fair distribution of finance. I don't think that the state needs to be in the delivery of either.

It does seem to be rather different to your view, Matt, doesn't it.?

I don't know why Dribble can't tell the difference either. I blame the parents.