The rise of the state comprehensive

1970's Britain. The state education system was not exactly benefiting from a good reputation and as John Crace rightly points out in his recent 'G2' article, many schools featured rapidly decaying Victorian buildings and other more 'modern' structures were coated in asbestos. These schools continued to endure hard lives as the UK embraced the 80's and another 18 years of Conservative rule. Of course, these Tory rulers were subjected to  slightly more privileged surroundings while they were educated.

Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow. Just a few of the schools that have educated Prime Ministers, London Mayors and Royals. But I think that their prestigious reputations of creating the egos to fill the top positions is coming to an end. John Crace compares two schools; Eton, former school of David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Princes William and Harry, with North London comprehensive Haverstock, alma mater to the Miliband brothers, 2012 London mayoral candidate Oona King and Liverpool football player, Joe Cole. And the article makes the obvious point that although Eton has produced some illustrious names; Haverstock could soon boast both the Labour leader and the Mayor of London.

Now, in May, I left the comprehensive school that has taught me for the past five years and taken me through my GCSE programme; Noadswood. It like most other state schools in the UK benefited hugely from the 13 years of Labour who rightly invested huge amounts in education. Noadswood has not quite seen a complete rebuild but has definitely seen huge refurbishment and development; as has Haverstock; which now boasts contemporary buildings with modern classrooms and wide corridors. An age of austerity for the less privileged but not for the more privileged, which will inevitably occur while Tories are in government, will only bring down the continuing success of many state schools whose GCSE results are ever improving as a direct result of this extra investment.

Of course, cuts need to be made, we all acknowledge this, but halting the Building Schools for the Future Programme, then ring fencing the International Development budget is not the way. The need for cuts, I believe, is met equally by some schools with the need for redevelopment. There are schools in this country falling to pieces, literally. Just 3 months in to a coalition, a great mistake has already been made. This doesn't bode well for the next five years of this parliament. If sustained spending can be kept at schools then perhaps the cases of Noadswood and Haverstock can be the cases seen across the UK, I can't see it happening though, not while the coalition is in place. Before the election, the Labour needed the country, now, the country needs Labour.

A stark Miliband bias.

Up until last night both my 1st and 2nd preferences for Labour leader were taken up by the Miliband brothers. However, last night I watched a replay of the BBC Radio 5 Live debate with Victoria Derbyshire. Now, as every debate has done so far, it completely reaffirmed my support for my 1st preference, Ed Miliband. But it also knocked the David quarter of that family off of his 'Ashley Giles 2nd place perch'. He reminded me of Blair, not that that is an entirely bad thing, but it is not going to give Labour the different direction we need. On the front of David's leaflet his team sent out recently, it tells us on the front cover that he believes ''we need to change the way we do politics'' - very true of course, but his performance suggests that he is more of the same, juts not listening really. Going off on a tangent on questions, so different to Ed though, he quickly referred back to audience members and it seemed like he was really engaging, that is what we need, that is how we should 'do politics'. I also found him quite annoying at times as well and dare I say it, felt like he was talking and remarking like he was somehow better than the rest. That is of course a huge public turn off.  I don't doubt his ability however, he was an excellent Foreign Secretary, actually, an outstanding one. And I think he will be again, but under his brother's leadership.

So, on the back of that 'performance' and the other debates, I currently have a top two made up of Ed Miliband and Andy Burnham. First and Second respectively. People talked of the Miliband's being too alike to fight against each other, but I have found that couldn't be more untrue. In personal terms, I find Ed to have his priorities right more so than David, the fact this isn't about one person be elected by many, but many electing one person.It's just about the one leader and what they will do. But it's about how they are going to engage the membership and increase it so the movement is big enough for the new leader to be able to do the things they are suggesting.  The factor of the people and the use of the word 'you' is much more prominent across Ed Miliband's campaign who I believe will recreate the people's party.

Support Ed's campaign, click here.