I'm fed up with Wes making this argument :
"In an ideal world, of course, we would still be arguing for free education. If I was starting with a blank sheet of paper, I would have system that was funded by progressive taxation where graduates aren't making that contribution. But we don't live in an ideal world." As he does in the Guardian.
Either
a) He is actually in favour of charging for education, but doesn't dare say so, which smacks of cowardice and dishonesty
or
b) He genuinely does believe in free education and progressive taxation, however he is so blinkered by his Labour party affiliation that he daren't push for it.
What does he mean when he says 'we don't live in an ideal world'? If we lived in an ideal world, we wouldn't need campaign groups.
Next Greenpeace will come out and say 'if we were starting from scratch we wouldn't be pumping so many greenhouse gases into the air but we don't live in a perfect world, so hey, bring on climate change'
Ordinary people, I believe start from the position of 'this is how things should be, lets get as close to that as possible'.
Wes appears to follow the logic of 'this is how things should be so lets get as close to that as possible without fundamentally disagreeing with the Labour Party'.
