Liberty Alone

Can someone just answer the simple question - why are schemes like school vouchers such a dirty suggestion for the LibDems?

Is it taking education out of the state sector? (in which case it follows the advice of JS Mill)
Is it because it has been suggested by the Tories so is ‘tainted’?
Is it because of some dogma that markets cannot possibly work in ‘public services’? (in which case why on earth not? What makes them special?)
Or is it because we’re becoming a conservative party?

I really don’t understand the hostility which this brings up. Surely being liberals we believe in individual empowerment, especially for the poor. We believe in choice, not just for the outcomes a market brings, but for the basic fact that we treat people like individuals who should have control over their own lives.

I really fail to see why its such a taboo such that it becomes something for leadership contenders to hit each other with. With our state education system failing so many so badly, why is it taboo for senior members to suggest making substantive changes? Its frankly ridiculous and risks the wellbeing of so many people. For me our failing education and health systems are more important for people in this country than climate change. They should be two of the central issues of our time, but we continue to just pretend that the current system is all hunky dory and just needs some tweaks to make it work.

In the US at least.

Nice to see all the do gooder ‘liberals’ want to protect them from their ‘mistake’. I suppose the poor can’t lobby or give donations so they don’t matter.

Of course, the UK isn’t in quite the same mess as parts of the US with the unions, but still, its interesting that the poorest in society want the opportunity.

This just goes to show that it is not poverty, but lack of opportunity which is the real problem for the poorest. Unfortunately, the parties which are thought to care for the poor most seem intent on keeping them in that state because nice, white, middle class people can make better choices than the individuals concerned.

I am a firm supporter of a voucher system in education as a solution to the current dire state of this country’s education system.
The current system whilst it has its success stories fails drastically too much, despite the best efforts of all involved. This is not due to evil intent, but due to fundamental flaws in the system as a whole.

Voucher systems however are opposed at all turns by people, despite evidence from countries like Sweden that they work very well.

I am going to concentrate on one of the most illogical objections - that it will help rich people most:

Consider a private school which charges £4000 a year to educate a child.
Under this voucher system the state gives each child £3000 to spend on their education. That brings the amount to pay down to £1000 a year making it far more affordable enabling a greater selection of society to attend, to the benefit of all.

Now, you may say what about those who cannot afford the £1000?
Well, the vast majority of schools are concerned with education and want to give the best education they can to those who will benefit. To this end many private schools have scholarship funds to provide that education to those who cannot afford it but who would benefit.
Say our school has one scholarship fund which is worth £4000 a year. Without vouchers there is enough for one pupil a year to benefit. With vouchers there is enough for 4 pupils to benefit. Clearly a good thing.

A clever school might also realise that the rich who are paying less would pay a bit more for the education, so they could charge a total of £4500 a year leaving parents to pay £1500 a year. That means that they make a profit of £500 per year per pupil. So two pupils paying that rate will fund a scholarship for another pupil.

Other effects may also come into play. If wealthy parents are paying less, then they will be more inclined to give donations or support activities at the school meaning the school can raise even more money to be spent on education.

I think I have demonstrated that all benefit, with poorer people benefiting even more. True, the rich pay less and benefit from tax money, but that is money they’ve paid for education rather than money they’re taking from the poorest. If you pay taxes surely you should be allowed to claim the services you paid for?
The poorest clearly benefit the most. The marginal benefit for the rich is a little bit of money. Not much in terms of their income (the benefit increases as they get less rich of course)
The marginal benefit for those who couldn’t afford to send children to the school is huge. They now have access to an education which previously they did not. That is worth far more than a few thousand pounds saved by a few rich people.

Lastly a note on the popular argument that its immoral for the rich to benefit from tax money.
This is wrong. Morally and practically.
Morally it is wrong because people should be equal under the law. That means the rich are entitled to receive the same benefits from their taxes as the rest of us, including education.
Practically it is wrong because whilst you may succeed in harming the rich a little, as I have demonstrated you harm the poorest most. The benefit from withholding tax benefits from the rich are minuscule compared with the overall benefits.