Here we have a society where many are condemned to the underclass by virtue of birth and peer pressure whilst the left -wingers mouth their pious platitudes about `no school left unturned', `no child spared' and move into the right catchment area or send their children to private school.
The man from the BBC is just as bad. He's happy to talk about `little progress in changing the structures' and `school reforms' without the least bit of questioning of that New Labour packaging. He doesn't name and shame the ideologues from the Labour party who would rather see the equality of the gutter than the flourishing of the best.
In short, they make me sick.
I teach the products of this nearly gutted system in what is supposed to be a first class University. I meet students who never learn anything, because they've been taught not to, people who think looking other people's work up on the Internet is `research', mathematicians (all with grade A's at A level) who reach for a calculator to multiply .4 by .6. Able students who've been crippled by the pablum of bland mediocrity that's been served to them at school.
Anyway, I'll stop before I start frothing at the mouth.
Here's Tony ...
10 years after saying his three priorities were "education, education and education", Tony Blair still does not see his education reforms as complete.
...closer examination revealed a sense of regret that he has not achieved more with his school reforms over the past decade.
He also sounded what seemed like a note of anxiety about the permanency of the reforms and a desire to embed the latest changes before he leaves Downing Street.
Ten years may seem a long time in politics but many of the reforms remain partial and unfinished...
Mr Blair hinted strongly at one of his main regrets when, looking back at the early years of his government, he said: "over time, I shifted from saying 'it's standards not structures' to realising that school structures could affect standards".
Certainly the phrase "standards not structures" became a mantra during Blair's first term in office, from 1997 to 2001.
This was mainly because of Labour's determination not to become mired in debates about the abolition of grammar schools or the ending of grant maintained status.
So those first years saw little progress in changing the structures of secondary education.
[Estelle Morris] believes there was "a capacity problem in the DfES (Department for Education and Skills)".
"We had some very good people in the civil service but not in depth."
In characteristically honest fashion, she adds that "we did not have all the answers politically either".
A much tougher judgement on the Blair years comes from Chris Woodhead, who was chief inspector of schools in England during Blair's first term.
"What Blair wanted to do - ensure greater parental choice, diversity and to challenge the educational establishment - was absolutely right," says Woodhead, who is now professor of education at Buckingham University.
However, he adds, Blair "has not delivered on any of that".
He believes the failure of the Blair school reforms was down to the prime minister's "political difficulties" with his own party and his failure to dig down into the detail of education policy.
While Estelle Morris believes there has been a real change in the culture of schools, and particularly in the quality of teaching, Chris Woodhead argues that Labour failed because it did not deliver the freedoms that schools needed.
...successive Labour and Conservative governments supported the shift from the tri-partite system of grammar, technical and secondary modern schools towards a single comprehensive.
They also supported the merging of different exam routes - the O-level and the CSE - into a single exam for all, the GCSE.
These changes were implemented in the name of social equity and as a reaction to a system that was regarded as writing off the majority of young people from an early age.
At first, Blair's government continued the trend towards uniformity: with more central direction and over-arching national targets for all children and all schools.
But latterly he has been more persuaded of the need for different routes for different pupils.
So we have seen, once again, a proliferation of school types and the end of the "monolithic comprehensive".
Now Blair is arguing that the interests of social equity no longer require a single route for all young people.
His espousal of "personalised education" means that "equal, but different" is his way forward.
...if Blair's successors do continue in the same direction, the challenge will be to ensure the different pathways through education are equally valued and not sorted into class-based, rigid hierarchies.
Or, as George Orwell might have put it, will some qualifications be "more equal than others"?
We wouldn't want that, would we? Class-based, rigid hierarchies - nasty, filthy stuff.
Nobody stops to wonder where the class-based bit comes from or whether a hierarchy (rigid or flaccid) might be based on something like ability. That would be more thought-crime after all.
To quote Kipling (The Children) out of context:
...Our statecraft, our learning
Delivered them bound to the Pit...