In a free market system they’d be formed by contract instead, although they’d probably have to negotiate limited liability with their customers.

“More worryingly, the two biggest criticisms of those which do exist are that they are often run by religious or social fundamentalists who believe that their views are not represented in mainstream schools”

So? That’s the price we pay for living in a tolerant, liberal, pluralistic society. I’d rather live in a country that included a minority of nutty schools than one on which the state controls all of them.

Approx. 8% of Swedish schools are publicly funded independents, which, compared with the 92% that are not, is a pretty small minority and certainly not something that the ‘average’ parent could be said to have endorsed. More worryingly, the two biggest criticisms of those which do exist are that they are often run by religious or social fundamentalists who believe that their views are not represented in mainstream schools, rather than parents who set them up due to educational concerns, and that the diversion of students has caused some public schools to collapse, which, if it were to happen over here would potentially result in (as I said, the majority of) children whose parents don’t have the time or inclination to set up schools being forced into privatly established ones.

Significantly he made no mention at all of the greatest obstacle to People Power and that is our archaeic monarchial system. Power and influence beyond the dreams of mere politicians and only some of it gifted to the Prime Minister of the day through the Royal Perogative. If we are ever to become a true democracy then we need to start at the very top; the unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic, royal family, by which I mean the royal institution not the individuals.

I believe the 80% figure came from a German official.

“To run with the examples of schools, the sorts of people who are likely to set up their own schools are almost certainly not going to be normal parents with concerns about the quality of their childrens’ education,”

Tell that to the Swedes. In any case I thought one of the arguments against this idea is that middle class parents concerned with their childrens’ education would take their children out of the local comp and effectively segregate them in these new schools.

Whenever a professional politician speaks you should always try this test: reverse each of their sentences and see how bleeding obvious what they are saying is. Because eventually they will do the opposite of what they said in the first place.

Brown for instance. Here’s a snippet from his piece for the Indy:

“I will tolerate behaviour that is against everything I believe in. A thorough investigation of all expenses claims will not be conducted. Local people cannot have more influence on local budgets and local decisions, from policing to schooling. Everyone must know that they are not being heard. Our proposals will put more power where it belongs – away from people’s hands. There is no option I will consider if it redistributes power”.

I don’t think that giving more power to local government and putting in place measures which make it easier for people to be heard is a bad idea, quite the opposite, but what Cameron’s said on the subject so far implies that his reforms have very little to do with making the voices of the majority heard or deal with corruption and unfair influence within Westminster, and everything to do with giving more power (and public money) to small groups of people who, almost by definition, have interests incompatible with those of the rest of the community and trying to appear ‘progressive’.

Richard Murphy at Tax Research UK dissects Cameron’s weasel words on education brilliantly at
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2009/05/26/i-dont-believe-david-cameron/comment-page-1/#comment-552268 The agenda for health and education, as with New Labour, is & will be privatisation at all costs.

“Almost half the regulations affecting our businesses come from the EU,” says Cameron!

For crying out loud.

“Almost half” now is it?” What is it with obsessive Europhobes and exaggerations about how much regulation is agreed at EU level? None of them can agree what the figure is: some say 70pc, some 75pc, some say 80pc. Cameron now says its “almost half”.

The only definitive figure I’ve ever seen is the House of Commons library one which, collated, made it around 9pc (and in broad areas where the EU already has competency – trade, consumer affairs, agriculture, fisheries).

Anti-EU obsessives constantly lie, exaggerate and misrepresent. It’s a wonder so-called euroscepticism has any credibility left in this country.

“But the tragic truth today is that no matter how much we strengthen parliament or hold government to account, there will still be forces at work in our country that are completely unaccountable to the people of Britain – people and organisations that have huge power and control over our daily lives and yet which no citizen can actually get at.”

The lobbyists? The banks? The corporations? Er, no:

“Almost half the regulations affecting our businesses come from the EU. And since the advent of the Human Rights Act, judges are increasingly making our laws.”

I don’t think I had fully realised until I read yesterday’s Guardian stuff just how bad it is going to be under Cameron. Another mediocre showman who is completely and utterly the possession of big business and big money.

So far, the call for people involvement has seen other Tory celebrities want to stand against current Tory MP’s, “safe”.

Those who, for example, want a referendum on the death penalty may not be so keen on a referendum for a higher rate of tax and vice versa.

Should majority opinion always get its way and if not, how do we determine which issues the majority should determine?

Yet the thrust of this article is against the opposition.

We all know why.

PR kills off any prospect of a rightwing Thatcher-esque government ever gaining power in Britain. It strangles the influence of the rightwing press. The Tories would be forced leftward, back to where politically the majority of the British voting public currently sit.

Cameron’s proposals benefit no one except the Conservative Party.

Same old power mad Tories.