As for the Netherlands, the “pillarisation” belongs mostly to the past, and the differences between different faith groups aren’t that rigid anymore than they were still few decades ago.

The school vouchers have worked for 90 years in the Netherlands, what more evidence do you need? Please elaborate. I think that the facts speak for themselves.

For short review of the Dutch school system please Google the phrase “Should You Fear School Choice” and read the first result.

Enough of this, I will correct the misinformation about the Dutch school system you are spreading, so that others wouldn’t be misled.

“From what I know of the Netherlands schools system, schools are rigidly divided into Catholic ones, Protestant ones and Secular ones, and this division applies to much else in welfare provision in that country as well.”

You are refering to the pillarisation. However, the division isn’t that rigid anymore, your information seems to be sebveral decades old.

There are for instance so-called “samenwerkingsbasisschools”, which unite for instance a Catholic and a Protestant, or a religious and a secular (publicly or privately owned) school, and where most classes are tought in united groups, and religion in separate classes. Then many religious schools are popular among non-religious parents because the high quality of their classes, and they are obliged to take in also non-religious pupils, if they want to be part of the school voucher system. Etc. The division in other sectors of the society isn’t that rigid anymore, either.

“Well, this is interesting, given how much many Liberal Democrats hate faith schools and would wish to forcibly abolish them.”

I believe in religious freedom, and that also includes a right to practise the religion, and teach it to one’s children, as long as they aren’t totally excluded from other influences. Actually the Dutch system was born as a compromise between different religious groups after a fight which schools should have public and which shouldn’t. But the resilt is that also schools using some alternative educational method, like Montessori method or Dalton method, have flourished. Nowadays there are both religious and secular schools using these methods.

“But anyway, if you think the Netherlands system works, tell me why, I’m interested to hear.”

Could you elaborate what do you need to know? The Dutch system has been used for over 90 years, and it doesn’t seem to have hurt the pupils or put them in a more inequal position. You might be interested to read this short article about school vouchers.

“I think, however, they pay much higher taxes there than we do here, which some would say is illiberal.”

Not all of the higher taxes are spent to education, I’m sure that there would be many other things from where to cut. Of course given that a large part of the Netherlands is below the sea level, some money is also needed to build and keep the dams, and these taxes can’t be cut.

So if you wish to win me over from my scepticism, it might help if you actually engaged with what I said, and answered my queries rather than issued abuse without actually countering my points.

In my previous post I raised objections to at least one version of what “vouchers” might mean when it comes to school provision. As I said, the concern that it was a wheeze for taking yet more taxpayers’ money (and these days we tax the poor at higher rates than we tax the rich) and subsidising those already privileged, while shunting off the underprivileged to worse facilities. If I’m wrong, you or Tristan explain why I am wrong. You haven’t done so yet, so maybe you can’t.

However, I also said I wasn’t opposed to vouchers in principle, because I’m not sure there really is a principle to them. It may just be a bureaucratic way of ellocating pupils and funding to schools that isn’t too different to what’s done now.

Those who are most in favour of such schemes actually seem to be rather unaware of how the state school system works in this country. They imagine the council dictates what goes on in schools and simply tells parents to which school they have to send their child. As a result, teachers are lazy because there’s no competitive incentive to improve.

Actually, local authorities have almost no say in what goes on in schools - that’s the job of the governing body, with day to day responsibility of the head, who is appointed by school governors. And the governors are by and large parents, so how is that much different from the parent-run system you think your scheme will bring in and change things radically? Parents to have a choice of which local authority school they may send their children to, and can choose schools in other boroughs. The problem is what happens when there are more applicants to a school than places - but I’ve asked how this is dealt with under vouchers and received no response, so for all I know it’s the same as the current system, in which case “vouchers” means nothing at all. If it’s selection by ability or wealth, well, as I said, that’s problematical, but I’d applaud you for your honesty if you admitted that’s what you want.

As for the great change you think your vouchers scheme would bring by introducing competitive pressures on teachers, well, just what world are you living in? Not the one of SATS for sure, which is the one I live in. Teachers are obsessed by these silly little tests (which properly should just be a couple of boring hours lessons for the kids), to the point where they spend most of their time in the later years of primary school teaching to SATS rather than teaching usefully. And this is all down to the competitive pressure they are under, as the competition is judged by SATS. Ditto in secondary schools, exam league tables, as a result of which education is warped to fit the exams, and the exams are warped to fit the league table points (i.e. drop the hard subjects, make them all do the easy ones, don’t bother with the kids at the top and bottom who won’t affect the league table position). This competition thing isn’t quite so easy to get working effectively as you suppose.

From what I know of the Netherlands schools system, schools are rigidly divided into Catholic ones, Protestant ones and Secular ones, and this division applies to much else in welfare provision in that country as well. Well, this is interesting, given how much many Liberal Democrats hate faith schools and would wish to forcibly abolish them. You might not be aware but I have been a strong defender of them within the party on liberal grounds, not always an easy position to take. But anyway, if you think the Netherlands system works, tell me why, I’m interested to hear. I think, however, they pay much higher taxes there than we do here, which some would say is illiberal.

Now I see. The difference is, that when you are trying to purge party of people who don’t agree with you, its “challenging”, when other are doing it, they are “Trots”. Thank you for clarifying it to me.

BTW, I have lived in the Netherlands, and I can assure you, that the average people there don’t consider the system they have had for over 90 years as “extreme free-market ideology”. Actually, when I descbribed the British NHS to a moderate Left-leaning friend there, she rose her eyebrows and called it a “communist” system. Maybe living abroad for some time might broaden your views, as well.

If Tristan were right that this handout would magically drastically improve everybody else’s education, it would be worth doing anyway. But there’s no reason to expect this. It is wishful thinking, largely by people looking for handouts for the rich.

There is a huge gulf within the state sector, some very good schools in nice areas, and some pretty awful ones. There is probably quite a gulf in the private sector too - some minor public schools don’t appear to be selling nearly as much privilege as the big ones.

Vouchers will clearly expand the private sector through subsidy, but there is no reason to expect this will be more of the best of the private sector, or at the expense of the worst of the state sector.

If you believe there are no handicaps to getting a decent education involved with coming from a background of poverty and little contact with educated society, then how do you account for the fact that there is a massive correlation between schools that have bad results and poor areas, and schools that have good results and wealthy areas? If you put it down to just the school being good or bad, you must suppose this is just a coincidence, and it might equally have worked out that the “bad” schools were in the wealthy areas and the “good” schools were in the poor areas. I do not know if you are any sort of statistician, but even if you are not, I am sure you can see the probability that what we are observing is just a coincidence is vanishingly small.

I know from my own life experiences that for every poor child who has parents who are pushing them and know how and where to push them, there are many whose parents don’t know how or don’t care to push them, or who get trapped into the whole anti-education culture that is so predominant amongst poorer people in this country. It’s your failure even to acknowledge this as a factor which is condescending, or maybe just ignorant, I don’t know enough about your own life background to be sure on that.

The fear about vouchers scheme is that it’s just a way for the well-educated and privileged to get more tax-payers’ money into educating their kids, while shunting off to ever worse and hopeless facilities those kids whose parents don’t know or don’t care. It’ll be the middle classes who’ll set up the private schools you see flourishing under this system, whose kids will be nice and easy to educate, so the private schools will want to educate them, it’ll be the poor people whose kids are more challenging and expensive to educate who the private schools will say “sorry, it’s our freedom to decide who we want, and we don’t want you, you’re too much trouble for us”.

The point about Eton is that it does involve selection either by ability or by money, or by a bit of both - so the really clever poor kids can be used as an asset to help the less clever rich kids who pay higher fees. You haven’t denied this is how the voucher system you endorse would operate, so I assume that’s what you want. Thus it also means poor kids being turned away. The fear is that NO schools will be interested in educating children who have neither great ability nor top-up fees to offer, so they really will be shunted off to last-resort rubbishy facilities.

Nothing you have said suggests you care at all about this. But I will put this down to ignorance rather than malice.

Anonymous - yes I have been challenging people who endorse extreme free-market ideology and claim to be associated with the Liberal Democrat party. I did not realise until the leadership election prompted me to start looking at blogs just how many of this sort of person has invaded the party of which I have been an active member for 30 years. But I assume if people put up blogs it’s to promote discussion, and I have been discussing these issues with these people. I have been using my real name to do it, the name I have always gone by in my political activity, and my academic activity, I have nothing to hide.

Having said all this, I’ve noted that “vouchers” could mean all sorts of things, I’m not opposed to the idea altogether, but I am asking questions about how it works in question. It does not inspire confidence if the only reply I get from those who most strongly endorse the idea is abuse.

All libertarians aren’t anarchists. Actually, the original libertarians were all minarchists. But it is true, that the small flaw with minarchism is, that it doesn’t justify taxes, nor specify how to finance the minimal state. Some have suggested, that companies could simply pay for it, a bit like they now sponsor for instance culture and charities. Some have suggested, that people could pay kind of membership fees for the protection. But it isn’t simple, so probably a full minarchy can’t be achieved, though it is a noble aspiration. As for anarchy, already Locke showed how a government will rise from the state of nature (=anarchy), so it is pointless to aim to anarchy, which would soon collapse anyway.

However, if there is an obligatory payment for the education, or for health care, people should at least be able to decide where they get the services they have already paid for. Now they aren’t. The very rich can afford to pay twice, but people with middle or low income can’t. School vouchers would enable also people with middle or low income to choose the school for their children. And they should have that right, because they have already paid for it.

You seem to be stuck on sticking it to the rich. For the sakes of saving £5 billion a year (at the most). Hardly worth jeopardising the future of the most vulnerable for is it?

Of course, a truly libertarian solution would be removing the state totally, but that’s not yet feasible (well, not if we want the poor to have a wide choice).

As such, some system which extends the advantage that the rich have (ie choice) to everyone is the most liberal/libertarian solution which doesn’t penalise the poor.