It's not really a one size fits all situation. A lot of Grammar schools, for example, take in a large percentage of non fee paying kids and give them a better education. They are sometimes ran on a non profit basis with profits (if there are any) being used for more scholarships or investment in facilities that often the wider community can access. However, we also have places like Eton and Gordonstoun which are the elite - however, in those I think many have the total wrong idea about who goes there. It used to be the government and royalty set but it's a lot more diverse these days. I would agree with places like Eton and Gordonstoun being charged more - they often cry poverty which seems unlikely. However, your local grammar school is likely a completely different case.

I would agree that it's fairer, however it certainly isn't meritocratic.

Of course these schools, places at which will be prized, will increase fees.

I also take issue with this, painless and no harm, idea that this isn't going to pull children out of better schools into the state system. Of course it is, there are going to be a bottom percent of aspirational middle class families who were stretching their incomes to send their children to these schools. For them the increases will be the straw that breaks that back.

Now I agree, there is a wider discussion to be had over the nature of private/public education....something that has been touched upon many times before.

However, let's not play here, the left's direction of travel is always towards an equalized education system and the abolition of privilege.....as equality is their obsession and desire in all things regardless of its averaged outcomes (and hated by the aspirational).

However, to paraphrase the biblical proverb, 'iron sharpens iron', or in other words if you wish to produce the best minds you must surround them with the best.

As Socrates taught Plato, who taught Aristotle, who taught Alexander.

You're correct on the meritocracy point.

There will be a tiny percentage of families as you describe who may now be priced out of it... so what? Why should the taxpayer subsidise a luxury they cannot afford?

Maybe we can release some useful pamphlets about how to make your weekly shop cheaper, or how to cook dinners, like we do with the poor. They can just cut out the smartphones and Netflix subscriptions.

Well yeah but that's obviously a completely separate point - there is no proposal from Labour to close down private schools, so I don't think we should conflate the two.

Who are the Labour MPs who have sent their own children to private schools while looking to close them down?

If you mean Grammar Schools I have no problem with that but I doubt Labour will agree.

You're correct on the meritocracy point.

There will be a tiny percentage of families as you describe who may now be priced out of it... so what? Why should the taxpayer subsidise a luxury they cannot afford?

Maybe we can release some useful pamphlets about how to make your weekly shop cheaper, or how to cook dinners, like we do with the poor. They can just cut out the smartphones and Netflix subscriptions.