The post you are reporting:
You think that will make a difference to those whose parents pay the fees outright in the first place?
I'm talking about the fact that if you have money, you can still go and study a 'pointless' degree, but if you don't have the money you are directly affected by this decision, even if you wish to study 'something useful'.
Education is still used as a way of keeping people in their place, or class (although I know you don't believe in that term). Social elitism and status dictate places but now we also have to include financial background into the equation. A good example being Trinity college, Cambridge taking on prince Charles with two 'old' A-levels at 'B' and 'C' grade. It is laughable and talk about doing a degree for the sake of it.
People with money will be able to get the best while those who are able, but not as well off, have reduced choice. If you fail to see class division, this is it in a nutshell. Meritocracy is an illusion peddled by the Conservative party and just a way to make people think they have a choice.
On your blog Barry you refer to privatised schools with parents receiving vouchers. Where would you set up your school with the best teachers? A deprived town or an affluent one, as a business man I think you know where the best return would be! It's the same problem, more money, more opportunity. Therefore if you are poor so will your kids be.
And as for the selection of 10 year olds, that makes no sense either. You can't support the idea that intelligence is set if you also believe that a school can exceed expected results defined by the very same descriptors. The two ideas are incompatible.
The Conservative government want people to take responsibility for themselves, which is pretty easy to say when you are a cabinet made up of millionaires.