'Orange Booker', I'm with 'Mike S', fwiw, methinks moreover that you should elaborate on what's good about giving our money to a bunch of people (who!) we didn't elect or choose, who in fact are self-selecting. Selecting themselves for whichever pernicious reasons you might imagine.

I remember the tw*ts who got and get involved with schools that I am and have had experience of.

And, honestly, I think they were almost every time in it for their children, alone.

'Fergus Pickering'. You could be right. But do you know what, I'm relatively well-informed and I'd be hard pushed to dissect umm.. free schools.. mm.. AV. I could tell you what Ryan Giggs has been up to though. For shame.

Democratic choice means nothing anymore because we are slaves forced into smaller and smaller cages with smaller and smaller windows. Tell me what democratic choice means to you, really. And please don't say answering some 1/2 arsed poll that none of the respondents could give a flying monkey about. Or voting for one of three identical parties once every 5 years.

Dorries has just quoted your poll figures on abstinence on Newsnight in a piece on the appointment of Life to an advisory board.

Bet she won't rush to quote any of the others that don't concur with the Govt line.

@Mike S

First, I don't see why I should be unaware, blissfully or otherwise that many people are not in a position to consider private schooling, I never made such a ridiculous claim. What I was getting at was that the question on private schooling was somewhat 2-dimensional because it didn't specify whether state schooling was a attractive alternative. It was a methodological observation, not an ideological point.

As for free schools, they are not getting new money, they are merely re-allocated money from the existing budget. I have not seen any proof that free school pupils will get significantly more funding per head (from public funds) than existing state schools. As for who sets these schools up, i.e. the pushy middle class parents, (who are also taxpayers), while there is much to dislike about them, you have to admit they (a) know how to get things done and (b) have high standards/expectations. Now if the whole community, including less advantaged kids get to benefit from these tarits than I would argue that would be a good thing, all too often teachers have low expectations of such kids and consequently they have low expectations of themselves.

As long as free schools do not take significant money away from existing state schools on a pupil per-head basis, and they are genuinely open to the whole community than I genuienly think they cannot be faulted. The reason why I think the educational establishment and many NS readers are anti is because it undermines the model of centralisation in favour of autonomy, and that if free schools are set up and do well they will further underline the shortcomings of the state monopoly model.

I hate the fact that NS readers want to keep us in the dark ages. Europe is considered to be more left wing than us, yet is more decentralised than us.

So many people in this country have been brainwashed into to believing than something can only be good if it's got a government brand on it. Untill we become more enlightened we will never catch up with the rest of Europe or anywhere else in industrialised world.

The fees to be paid back rise by RPI plus 3% from the day you start borrowing - the plan is you will never pay them back. So yes a graduate tax that immorally imposes a noose of debt around young peoples neck - hence the opposition

Free schools will be anything but that run by "activists" who have their own personal reasons which may be the fact all the schools in their area are poor. Dilema if there is a spanking new Academy nearby, with all its false promises, apart from heads first voting themselves a rise, so why set up a free school? I thought the aim was high standards in all schools? That idea seems to have failed as will free schools and eventually Academies, sons of Grant maintained!

@mike s
Would you care to elaborate on the damage that will be caused by free schools in your opinion?

Regarding the public/private issue I think a big factor is how good local state schools are. If you happen to live near one thats great, if not than you might feel private schooling to be the best option for your kids.

What exactly are the arguments against free schools? It seems to me a brilliant move.

What is better than having the schools themselves, the teachers and administrators on the ground, deciding how the school is run? I don't know why you would want the continued centralised model. And any current centralisation ongoing is to remove them from the local authorities power, which fears losing out on its control over schools. It ultimately frees them from the rule of politicians.

The reason we on the left attack the 'free schools' is because of partisan dislike of Tories - the feeling that you have to oppose this because it's a Tory government bringing through these proposals (of course originally from the Blairite Tories themselves). Look at it for the strength of the idea itself, and beyond any scaremongering ideas of 'privatising schools!' (which are the most successful schools in the country, remember), and it's a great idea.

Orange Booker - I won't have time to do justice to all that is pernicious about free schools until Friday. I'm busy right now and travelling all day tomorrow. Suffice to say the bottom line is that the taxpayer will be paying for middle-class parents to set up schools for their kids and the money that we would have given for general education will be taken from other, less-advantaged schools in the area. And that is just the start of it...

As for your public/private divide you seem blissfully unaware of the fact that a great many people will not be able to consider private education for their kids however bad the local school can be.

Still, Orange Bookers would never claim that we're all in it together....