Attention Class...

With a report released this week which suggests that more and more parents are prepared to lie about their religion to get their children into top faith-schools, and the recent comments of award-winning playwright Alan Bennett against the existence of private schools, it would seem that the crusade against the class system has moved into its next phase of attack: Education. The left has, for decades, been attempting to erase our centuries old British aristocracy and middle-classes from society, and by using self-righteous reasoning almost reminiscent of that of Cromwell's they continue to succeed. The implementation of Labour's recent inheritance-tax, which can now take up to 40% of the inheritance should the figure be more than £250,000, is obviously targeted at the sons and daughters of the once social elite. Removing the possibility of continuing a family dynasty on the basis of all important 'Equal Opportunities'. The reformation of the House of Lords, which now means it will consist of 'elected-only' members has eradicated the centuries old tradition of handing down of peerages from father to son, effectively breaching a gap for even more left wing, obsessionist nobodies to fill the house. This Labour move in particular is one of several steps which I predict will occur in future years. The House of Lords (now being all elected) will firstly fill up with more people fuelled by a desire to further dismantle any remnants of the class system. The House will next be deemed by the Government to be just another House of Commons (as it is also now filled with elected members, rather than its rightful Lords), and finally a vote will be held on whether or not the House is significant enough to stay. The House (now being filled with people bent on its removal anyway) will win a vote to deem its existence unnecessary, leaving the House of Commons to be the sole decision maker, and the country, in my view, more susceptible to Dictatorship.

The removal of the class system, the aristocracy and eventually the Monarchy is a pattern which again and again can be seen in the history of many nations, most notably in those of the rest of Europe. Propagators of such acts consider what they do at the time to be righteous, and think they are ensuring the bettering of their people by doing so. As Orwell might once have privately interpreted it, a few poor people get fed up with a few rich people and decide to alleviate them from their wealth and power in the name of goodness; the poor people get a movement going (as they are a majority) and eventually do so, distributing it amongst themselves. I suppose the notion that this is in essence theft, and often cold-blooded murder, does not even enter their minds at the point of action, and seemingly it might not enter anyone's head for a good hundred years or so. The French revolution, the Russian revolution, the Chinese Revolution, all victories by the left in overthrowing centuries, sometimes millennia, old social hierarchies in favour of more 'equal' ones. Anti-establishment in Britain is by no means a new occurence, and without a doubt the acting against the ruling classes is part of our national history, whether you consider it to be treasonous or not. The difference is, that with the death of the British Empire with Winston Churchill in 1965, and the subsequent emergence of liberalism filling its void, the left has more power now over the ruling classes than it ought to. This does have some benefits however. For example the implementation of the Hunting Act 2004 has outright banned fox hunting with hounds, a sport which was, and still is today, popular amongst middle and upper class families. As a lover and great believer in the natural preservation of the countryside and wildlife of Britain, I thoroughly deplore the barbaric blood-sport; and see it as nothing more than socially accepted murder. The method by which foxes, badgers and anything else which finds itself at the mercy of such hunts are systematically ripped apart alive could never bring me any ounce of pleasure or gratification should I be responsible for its occurance. The notion that the social elite and intelligencia could be so bored as to participate in such hunts still baffles me to this day, and it disappoints me when ever I see admirable figures like Boris Johnson or Prince William advocating hunts, trail led or not. I welcomed the Labour enforced bill with open arms, after all I concluded that to be consistent as a society we might as well turn a blind eye to cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting as well if it brought people pleasure. The events which followed the act surprised me, it is said that because of the bill, more people than ever are now participating in illegal hunts across the country in defiance of the Government. A seemingly huge movement which defends the historic traditions and mentalities of their forefathers with action. I do not support the continuation of illegal hunts across the country but rather admire the people for taking such a strong stance against forced liberal restrictions. If only such movements would rally in response of real travesties like the reformation of the House of Lords, we might be less at threat from the left-wing office.

Getting back to Education, and the fact that parents are willing to have their children baptised to get them into top performing faith-schools doesn't surprise me at all. Being brought up a traditionalist Anglican at my first and most influential primary school, and further encouraged on by my mothers efforts to take us to a Baptist school most Sundays, I had the option (when aged 11) to attend either a top ranking CofE school or a largely secular but more local state high school. Much to my current regret I chose the latter, but the fact that I had a choice in the matter at all was down to the fact that I attended church. My final decision also shows how free thinking I had been encouraged to be as a boy, and it was taken (as I now realise) with much regard of the ultimately temporary friend base in which I was surrounded by at the time. The prospect of having to make new friends and start all over again was daunting to a weary 11 year old who had endured one school and house move already, all I could ultimately conceive of then was the coping of the 'here and now'. My mother had not purposely sent me to church for all those years just for me to turn down the opportunity when it arose, but in fact most of my friends at Sunday-school were there just for that very reason, openly admitting why they had started attending church in the first place, their motives were well known. This however did not hinder their willingness to learn at church, nor sing hymns, nor represent the church at Easter or at local community events; and they were just as much respected because of this. Their active role in the church outweighed the fact that they may have been going for ulterior motives, after all they supported what the church stood for, and those that didn't, didn't attend. The moral up-bringing of those parents' children at the church every week ensured that they learned about the Bible, the principles of British tradition, and the acceptability of behaviours in modern society; and quite frankly it did a better job at teaching those things than most parents could have done independently.

There are several arguments, I believe, for a persons right to attend church for whatever reason they deem fit; whether it be community, respectability or tradition, if not spiritual gratification. The first is that British Christianity is by no means what it used to be. In many parts of the country congregations are dying, churches are being demolished, and Christian based community traditions are becoming more and more frowned upon by secular councils. The realising of the premise that a child may only be considered for application at a top school because of his/her attendance at a church is bound to fill empty pews in and around the immediate local vicinity. The influx of young families into these places of worship means that those people are more likely to be affected by the moral obligations which are expected of church attending folk, more often than not resulting in a 'good citizenship-ness' which will consequently affect the community for the better. The second reason is that the whole basis of Christianity is to bring those who may not know about the principles of Christ into a place of its teaching. Thus an influx of people who may not have initially regarded themselves as Christian will be learning how to do so just by being at church. Alcoholics, thieves, murderers, adulterers, persecutors and all other forms of sinner have often been accepted into the church since its very conception, and so how is it logical to accept those people, yet deny entry to those who merely want the best for their children. The third and final reason in this argument is that this country is a free one, to claim that private and faith schools are elitist and un-equal, and therefore must be banned (as the playwright Alan Bennett this week proposed) would be to say that because private healthcare is only available to the rich, it is elitist and un-equal and therefore should also be banned. Or that expensive dining tables should be banned because they are only available to those rich enough to afford them, and are therefore elitist and un-equal. The basis of ones skills, experience, wealth and social merits to excel in life is something which all of society relies on to function properly. To suggest that this is somehow wrong would seem to me to be an illogical attack on behalf of people without such skills, experience, wealth or social merits, people connotative of Labours socialist core supporters.

Academic institutes such as Eton College have for centuries taught the 'crème de la crème' of British society, providing a top quality service to people who can afford to send their children there. Less grand examples of private educationary bodies continue to out perform many Government managed state schools, earning proud, attractive reputations which parents are obviously drawn to. The failings of state schools which many members of the public have noted, don't seem to be acknowledged enough by Government ministers. I suppose that if they think it's relatively okay to leave state schools in their current...state, then they should be prepared to accept that some parents aren't going to want to send their children there, shelling out up to £20,000 a year for ultimately better alternatives. Instead of talking about improving state schools to cap competition, Government supporters have edged away from its failings and attacked those privately funded bodies simply for being better at teaching, as well as simultaneously scrutinising parents for sending children there. Amongst all the carefully designed, politically correct Government talk about the problems of a society which doesn't know or care where it's children are at night, which often results in murders such as that of Garry Newlove outside his home in 2007, it seems the real criminals in the eyes of Labour are parents who care too much about their children.

In all honesty, the Government lobby at the heart of British policies should ask themselves this: 'Is it better to live in a place where parents send their children to church in an attempt to get them the best life can offer, or to live in a morally deficient society where parents don't care about where there children are, what they are doing, or whom they are with?' The irresponsible prattle of a few absent-mindees, who are given a platform in the hope that they might further de-stabilise our rich society is what repels me about our current age. It is the result of an immoral, illogical, socialist movement, which has taken too much power at the expense of the once ruling classes...

(Picture: The historic Eton College, Windsor.)