Allowing universities to be guided by an invisible hand does more harm than good  University degree programmes, unlike other products like televisions or designer shoes, are tools of social mobility: unlike a TV, a good degree will help you to get other good things later in life (like a higher salary). This means that it is important that people have a fairly equal opportunity to access the best degrees. Market forces will make the best universities more expensive than the others, and mean that the best degree places are awarded not to the cleverest, but to those able to afford it. Universities are already elitist despite being open to all and being publicly funded. In the UK class is a major determinant of where you go to university. Oxford University only has 11.5%, and Cambridge 12.6% of its students coming from a working class background compared to an average of 32.3%1. This is a situation that will only get worse as students have to pay for the best private universities.  1 Davis, Rowenna, "Does your social class decide if you go to university? Get the full list of colleges." Guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2010,


With regard to subsiding universities and the student loan schemes, both of these could nevertheless be operated even if universities were privatised. For example, assisted place-schemes,(which-School.co.uk) where the government funded bright students to attend private schools are successfully run in the UK.With regard to pressure to increase diversity in the student population, this merely treats the symptom and not the cause, which is the inadequate educational support given to some groups in society at a lower level: this should be directly addressed instead.


Far from reducing the quality of university private universities would increase it. Private Universities would go where most money is, and this is most likely to be at the top where a lot of money can be charged for the degrees. This is what Grayling's proposed New College of the Humanities is doing. The New College of the Humanities will charge fees of £18,0001. With the extra money they will be able to hire the best professors and have a very good student teacher ratio, better than 1:10, with the result that there will be a lot of one to one tuition and student-staff interaction to increase the quality of teaching2.  1 BBC News, “Academics launch £18,000 college in London.” 5 June 2011.  2 New College of the Humanities


Schools have significantly better facilities and a much more appropriate and segregated learning atmosphere than the home. The state system pools facilities to allow access for all children to sports and science facilities1. Parents are very unlikely to be wealthy enough to provide the plethora of things necessary to a well-rounded education. Teaching within the home asks children to switch between 'learning' and 'play' mode in the same environment which is confusing especially for young children. Schools provide a specific environment that is dedicated to learning. Homes are more complex environments, ill-suited to teaching and the concentration required to learn. 1 'The Cons and Arguments against Home Schooling' in Educate Expert (2011)


The home is an ideal learning environment.  Home schooling allows children to learn in an environment that has the needs of one or a very few number of students as the focus of the educative process. Parents are willing to invest in their children and can provide targeted provision that prioritises the learning needs of those individuals1. Therefore, specific textbooks that are tailored to the child's mode of learning can be purchased. State schools, in contrast, are often very ill-equipped and under-funded, leading to standardized text books and teaching methods. The home also lacks the many distractions and disadvantages of schools: peer pressure, social stigma attached to achievement, bullying, show-offs and general rowdiness. 1'Virtues in to Vices' in The Journal Of Home Education


Homeschooling allows for the accommodation of faith practices.  The state constantly fails those with greatest faith needs in schools. There are numerous examples of failure of accommodation: ignorant provision for prayer times, banning of religious dress, unwitting subjection of students to religious festivals that are manifestly unsuitable1. If parents want to avoid such perils altogether, and teach their child within an environment that caters for their religious need then that is and should be their right. 1'Rise in racism in the playground' BBC News (2007)


Home-schooling is not the best option for exceptional students. The state does not ignore or abandon individuals that have special needs and those with special needs are those that most need the state's enormous resources to focus on their requirements. Once a student has needs of such a magnitude that demands it, they are educated in special schools specifically intended to help them, with staff trained to possess skills beyond that of a parent's instinct. Even if it were the case that home-schooling is better for the specific needs of exceptional students, the benefits of education in a wider context override the objection to class-based education. The experience of growing up alongside less and more able students produces individuals with greater understanding of their society1. 1'Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: a research synthesis' Scruggs, Thomas E. Mastropieri, Margo A. Exceptional Children (1996)


Parents should be permitted to home-school their children provided they register the fact and submit to inspections  Parents who take their children out of school, or choose to home-school due to apprehensions over the quality of state education, should be entitled to do so provided the child is better off as a result. To ensure they are not neglected, parents hoping to home-school must both register the fact they are home-schooling their child and submit to regular, state inspections of the child's progress. If the child is deemed to be falling behind his age group, the parent may be forced to return the child to a school. The parent should be given standards of teaching that they must adhere to before the inspections occur, and the standards should be sufficiently flexible to reflect children learn at different speeds and that not all children's development reflects fairly on their teacher.


Home schooling involves good community involvement and social interaction.  Homeschooling families do not operate in isolation. There are extensive support networks (particularly in the USA the nation with the largest proportion of the population homeschooling) that exist to provide companionship, promote sports events and social functions. In addition, standard social provisions for children in civic society – scout movements, sports club – are open to homeschoolers. Homeschooling is not a removal from society but just from state schools.1 Homeschooled children often engage with their local community to a greater extent than their schooled peers.  1 ‘Home Schooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream’ Patrick Basham, Public Policy Sources


Interaction with other pupils is a crucial element of a child's development and involvement in clubs is not a substitute for the social skills learnt in school. Teaming building, working towards goals, being forced to confront problems with and live alongside individuals one might not like, or come from different backgrounds, is clearly done best in a school environment1. Those that seek to cocoon their offspring from the outside world merely delay the time when their children have to deal with it. Education is about more than academic teaching, it's about educating the whole person, and that is best achieved by educating them within a school with their peers. 1 'School as a context of early adolescent's academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings' RW Roeser, JS Eccles, The Elementary School Journal (2000)


Merely ensuring the registration of a child as being home-schooled does not fulfill the state's right to ensure that all children are given a satisfactory education. Inspections will help, but parents will nevertheless be unable to provide to their children the opportunities present in a school environment. The inspections should require that parents offer their children at least an equivalent level of teaching to that he or she would receive at a school, yet how is a parent going to teach practical science? How are they going to dissect animals? The inevitable result of such a policy therefore would be the acceptance of inadequate education. The only policy that respects and protects a child's right to education is to ban home-schooling altogether.


Those that wish to be educated in a religious environment have the chance to send them to a religious school the quality of which can be monitored by the state1. There are great dangers involved in exclusivity of faith. The adherents of all religions shouldn't shut themselves away, but rather engage in society as a whole, and understand other people's beliefs and points of view. 1'Gove defends faith schools', Riazat Butt, Guardian.co.uk (2011)


A school education is not mutually exclusive with family bonding. Just because a child attends school does not mean that their parent loses all influence upon their moral development. It is important for children to have a variety of different role models around them1. There is also no guarantee that the moral structure that parents might be instilling in their children away from any effective monitoring is beneficial. 1 'Why a Positive Role Model Is Important for Children', Caitlin Erwin, LiveStrong.com (2010)


Home schooling is often the best option for catering for the needs of exceptional or disabled students.  Classroom-based education must, by necessity, cater for the needs of the group as a whole which leaves those the very bright unchallenged and those with special needs falling behind and unsupported1. The state often takes years to recognise the needs of students and they lose years of education in the process2. In addition, even if those needs are identified 'special schools' are underfunded and stigmatised. For many students with identifiable problems that affects their capacity to learn within mainstream schooling but is not severe enough to merit a place within the special needs sector, homeschooling can benefit such students by shaping the learning environment to cater for their needs by being flexible to adapt. 1 'Every Child is Special


COUNTERPOINT Home-schooling is not the best option for exceptional students. The state does not ignore or abandon individuals that have special needs and those with special needs are those that most need the state's enormous resources to focus on their  Family bonding is a massively important element of a child's development and is prioritised by home schooling1. The value of the family is constantly undermined in modern society; positive parental role models are found less and less frequently. If a parent is judged by a state vetting process to be good enough it is enormously beneficial for society as a whole to approve is an environment that cements both a positive role model and family bonding. 1'The Role of Interpretation Processes and Parental Discussion in the Media's Effects on Adolescents' Use of Alcohol' Erica Weintraub Austen, Bruce E. Pinkelton, Yuki Fujioka, Paediatrics, (2000)


Homeschooling is not mutually exclusive from social interaction1. Interaction happens outside the classroom, where it belongs instead of acting as distractions to learning. In addition, homeschooling events involve children of all different ages as well as adults and in this way children learn to interact with a greater range of individuals than they would come across in a class just containing children of their own age and often makes them more confident in interacting with adults in a relationship that is not just a simple teacher and pupil relationship2. Parents still select schools for their children on the basis of common values, cultures and achievements - and even go as far as to move closer to the school they want to fall into its catchment area.  1Mike Fortune-Wood, ‘The “S” Word Socialisation’ from Home Education UK  2‘Civic Involvement’ HSLDA


Schools are often of poor quality and are failing the children. Parents have the right to withdraw their children from bed state schools. If the quality of education is sufficiently low in their eyes, they are entitled to be allowed to make the considerable sacrifice involved in becoming a 'home schooler'. It is reasonable that a parent should want to reject such educational theories and if they pass the inspection process then should not be denied that chance. "Homeschool freedom works. Homeschoolers have earned the right to be left alone."1 1 'Academic Statistics on Homeschooling', Home Schooling Legal Defense Association, (October 22, 2004)


Most parents do not have any teaching qualifications.  If parents are not trained or qualified teachers how can they provide a better or equivalent quality of education than a professional teacher at a school. Even if a parent or tutor excels in one area, will they cover all the things a school does? Even if they tried to, they would not do so adequately due to sheer lack of experience and training. The point of a curriculum is that these are things we have decided as a society that children need to learn, and in order to learn they require the support of qualified teachers1. Support groups and educational text books can help, but they alone cannot turn a parent into a good teacher. 1 National Curriculum Website


Danger of parents indoctrinating their children.  Homeschooling allows the possibility of parents removing their child from wider society and indoctrinating them with their own beliefs. State schools teach history and social interaction within a framework agreed on by w wide variety of bodies within the social spectrum. If a parent's world view if so far detached from that perspective that he wishes to remove his child from school it is likely that those alternative view are questionable at best. These beliefs can involve can include gross intolerance for particular minority groups supported by false information. These ideas can still reach the child out of school, but the government has a duty to protect children from a regressive upbringing by at least offering a more constructive perspective. 'Andy Winton, the chair of the National Association of Social Workers in Education, said: "School is a good safety net to protect children."' 1 1'Get tough on home tuition to weed out abuse, says review' from Guardian website


Diversity of school is necessary for social development.  Being forced to confront problems and individuals from different backgrounds is vital as a preparation for the future as a microcosm of the society they will later enter. Parents and children spending day after day at home re sometimes subject to a phenomenon sociologists call the 'hothouse' relationship the closeness between them becomes exclusive, with reaction to outsiders almost aggressive by instinct. This relationship makes it even more difficult for the child to adapt to life in the wider world.1 While there maybe attempts by parents to socialize their children through other means these organizations and club are centred around similarity. School is a mixture that does not filter out students, and there is an inherent social value to such a mix.  1‘The Cons and Arguments against Home Schooling’ in Educate Expert (2011) www.educate expert.com


The state operates a system of quality control run by experts.  Hundreds of experts and researchers ensure the quality of public schools. It is presumptuous for a parent to think they know how to teach a child better than that accumulated wisdom. Just because the child is a product of that individual does not mean that the education knowledge of the parent surpasses that of professionals in that field who have spent years training1. Furthermore, even the best teachers can be improved by the insight of a third-party; such evaluations are not accessible to home-schooling parents. The danger is that 'From the government's perspective, the world of home education is full of unknowns'; there are not sufficient measures of quality control in place to protect the child and their right to a comprehensive education. 1'Home truths: do we need yet another inquiry into home education?' from Guardian website


The state education curriculum offers only a very limited view of history and as such is itself a form of indoctrination. For example, in the UK, a proud history of achievement and creation goes untaught whilst the sins of colonialism and the faults of class structure are emphasised to pupils year after year. Parents do not necessarily have to have extreme or radical political views to want to home school their child and indoctrinate them. They often actually want to allow them to have broader historical and political education than offered by the narrow curriculum1. If parents are determined to prejudice their children it is unlikely that being in school will prevent that. And these parents who wish to teach tolerance shouldn't be penalised by a minority. 1'Prescriptive national curriculum restricts teachers', Jessica Shepherd, Guardian.co.uk (2009)


It is wrong to assume that home schooling will necessarily be of poor quality. Many parents will be fantastic teachers with or without a formal qualification. One parent says that it is often teacher themselves that recognise that teaching qualification are not necessarily the most important factor: 'the more people– mainly teachers – we spoke to, the more it began to seem like school could actually be a damaging place to be.’1 In addition, there are extensive support networks that are capable of providing a range of skills and knowledge that a parent might be lacking. The internet makes these connections increasingly viable as well as providing better research facilities than any school library had ten years ago.  1 ‘Honey, I think we're home-schooling the kids’ from the Guardian website


What is taught in history will never be 100% accurate, but it is possible for historians to achieve a considerable degree of objectivity, especially if they seek to be aware of the influences upon their own thinking. Part of most secondary school history curricula is the consideration of how historians are affected by the context in which they write: this equips pupils to consider critically what they are being taught and why they are being taught it. Moreover, it can be argued that worthwhile ends (e.g. the good relations between different ethnic communities sought by the British government) justify some selection of the history that is taught to schoolchildren. After all, it isn't possible to teach children everything about all historical periods, so there must be some criteria for making choices about what would be most valuable to study. A 'British' history curriculum will aid integration and encourage multi-culturalism within the country, without sacrificing truth, merely breadth.


History teaching will reflect the erroneous preconceptions and aims of those who set the curriculum  History is not objective and, in schools, historical fact is at the mercy of those in control of the curriculum. Even when there is no attempt to deceive or manipulate, postmodernist critiques of history suggest all history teaching will reflect the preconceptions and aims of those who set and teach the curriculum. The British government announced in early 2006 that history taught in schools should seek to engender a sense of "Britishness" by stressing a shared political and cultural heritage1. The Education Secretary at the time asked schools to 'play a leading role in creating community cohesion' by doing so1. Even if no historical events are invented as such, this will nevertheless lead to an unbalanced account, in which events that support modern political/social ends are highlighted and others receive less attention. The principle that such tainted information, whether implicit or explicit, can be taught to children is dangerous. 1 BBC News. "Schools 'must teach Britishness'." BBC News. January 25, 2007. (accessed July 14, 2011).


Isolated instances in which history has been used for propaganda purposes do not reflect a dangerous subject, merely dangerous regimes. The vast majority of History teaching does not seek to promote such agendas. It is common sense to tailor the national history curriculum to the nation in which it is being taught, and very easily achieved without constituting propaganda. Recent studies have shown it is common for states to focus heavily on their national history, 'setting out key events that shaped the national story as compulsory knowledge'1. Furthermore, all subjects can be distorted if the State and its teachers are prepared to try hard enough - for example, under the Nazis German children were taught Mathematics with a heavy emphasis upon military applications (e.g. calculating angles and ranges for artillery). Instead of banning the subject, what is needed is proper inspection of schools and monitoring of the curriculum, under the control of a democratic government. 1 Baker, Mike. "History study needs fact first, analysis later." The Guardian. February 18, 2011. (accessed July 14, 2011).


History should be left for those intellectual capable of understanding its limitations, and therefore not taught at school  Even if no agenda is being consciously or subconsciously pursued, school pupils are presented with oversimplified information in History. This is a result of the limited time available, the limited intellectual capacity of pupils, the limited knowledge of many teachers (who may not be history specialists, especially in primary schools) and the desire for answers that can be labelled as "correct" or "incorrect" in examinations. Much school history teaching is therefore concerned simply with memorising "facts". However, such learning needs to be accompanied by a deeper understanding of events, lacking definitive answers but providing a narrative to give the 'facts' (often figures) meaning. As schools recognize this is beyond most students, they struggle to make time spent in history lessons conducive; a study in America found that only 20 percent of fourth graders were proficient in history, while that dropped to 12 per cent for high school seniors1. 1 Resmovits, Joy. "U.S. History Test Scores Stagnate As Education Secretary Arne Duncan Seeks 'Plan B'." Huffington Post. June 14, 2011. (accessed July 14, 2011).


Where there is uncertainty, this can and should be highlighted if pupils have the intellectual capacity to understand the debate. Much of the benefit of studying History is that it is not (or should not be) solely based upon the learning of facts. Rather, History develops the ability to evaluate and challenge different interpretations. If historical study were postponed to adulthood, this would mean that most people would learn no History, unless they chose to study for a History degree. And it is impossible to escape any discussion of History in adult life - there are many television programmes and press articles devoted to historical subjects every day, and politicians constantly refer to past events to justify their actions. Only if citizens are equipped at school to question such historical interpretations can the public avoid being misled.


History lessons can be used as state-sponsored propaganda, distorting the events of the past  History taught in schools sometimes involves flagrant distortion of historical evidence either by the State or by individual teachers. Attempts may be made to avoid nasty aspects of a nation's past (e.g. the massacre of Chinese civilians by Japanese soldiers at Nanking in 1937) and/or to put down other peoples (e.g. the presentation of Australian Aboriginals as uncivilized until the 1960s). Japan's attempt to erase the memory of Nanking in its schoolchildren began in 1950s when it banned a third of all textbooks and 'Nanking Massacre simply disappeared' from their history1. As well as these extreme examples, low-level anti-Americanism is arguably pervasive in modern French school textbooks, reflecting tensions between France and the USA arising from the latter's Gaullist heritage and the recent "War on Terror". It is highly undesirable for school pupils to be exposed to misinformation peddled in History classes, which can lead to violence, hatred or discrimination. 1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011).


History does offer a source for understanding oneself and one's nation, but that no reason to teach it at school. In fact, the centrality of history to identity is an argument in favour of leaving history lessons until students are old enough to weigh sources and evaluate arguments themselves. Australian school children don't need to be taught specifics about the history of their nation at school in order to develop into well rounded, reasoned adults. In fact, they are more likely to better understand the plight of the native aboriginals if they are only introduced to the historical specifics of the case at a later, more mature age.


The teaching of history does not either to the maintenance of memory or the learning of lessons. Examples have shown that states can use history lessons to in fact erase certain memories, denying any lessons to future generations. Furthermore, teaching history encourages people to become obsessed with past conflicts and alleged wrongs inflicted upon them; it is more productive to forget the past and to seek friendship in the present. For example, modern tensions would be reduced if pupils in Ireland were no longer taught about the Battle of the Boyne (1690) and pupils in South Asia stopped learning about conflicts following the Partition between India and Pakistan (1947).


Historical facts can be established to a sufficient degree to be taught to schoolchildren  For most post-medieval periods, it is possible to establish such "facts" with a very high degree of probability. To take the Holocaust as an example, fears of the events being erased out of history books drove Dwight Eisenhower to travel to Germany to witness the aftermath first-hand. The future American President was driven by a desire to be able to 'testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief that the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda'1. Furthermore, even if the historical facts are not as clearly evident as the Holocaust, and have to be simplified, this need not be "intellectually dangerous": it is impossible to prove that a real harm results from only knowing the academically dominant interpretation of a historical episode, even if it might be theoretically desirable to consider minority viewpoints too. Indeed, all school teaching involves simplification and generalization: much school science teaching entails discussion of how general rules (learned earlier during a pupil's school career) are not always applicable. 1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011).


History teaches useful skills applicable in other areas of education and life  History teaches many useful skills, which are of great value to both individuals and the economy. These include the ability to think critically and construct reasoned arguments, an awareness of differing points of view and understanding of cultures (both one's own and those of others). Essays on historical events or figures require an original, structured argument and an evaluation of sources, skills that have relevance in other areas of education. Furthermore, the humility necessary to accept the limitations of historical research are instrumental in encouraging multi-culturalism in society and respect for views one might not initially understand.


History should be taught to school-children, they form an integral part of understanding oneself and one's nation  Historical events, no matter how tragic, gruesome or embarrassing, should be taught in schools in order to provide a basis for the youth to explore their own identity and that of their nation. Children should therefore not be shielded from reality, but be taught, in an appropriate manner, about all manner of relevant historical events. In so doing, they will not leave school with a false image of reality, or of whom they are and where they live. Only then will they be prepared for the very worst life will throw at them. For example, Australian school children are unlikely to fully appreciate the plight of their Aboriginal compatriots without a thorough understanding of the British discovery of the island and subsequent governmental policy that oppressed the native population. As the future leaders of tomorrow, it is essential that the youth are given the broadest, most accurate platform on which to build their own perceptions of life.


Teaching history ensures that events of the past are not forgotten, and lessons are learned  "Organized forgetting" of the past does not lead to harmony: those who allege historic wrongs are unlikely to forget them and will be aggrieved at attempts to deny the significance of the events concerned. This is seen in the Chinese outcry at Japanese attempts to forget the Rape of Nanking; the international attention drawn to the issue led to attempts within Japan itself to re-introduce the event into history textbooks1. By 1997, all Japanese textbooks included the event, signalling a shift towards a closer relationship with China, their long-term rivals1. Friendship often results from shared recognition of past wrongs, and a resolve not to repeat past injustices and mistakes; studying the past is essential for this. History teaching in schools is especially important when tensions are present: those who set and teach the curriculum can and should strive to be impartial, to counter one-sided historical narratives to which pupils may be exposed by their families and the media.  1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011).


History teaching is a waste of time, particularly at school, where it often revolves around the learning of names and dates. Antiquarian knowledge is of no practical use; pupils should spend more time learning sciences and vocational subjects. It is dangerous to both pupils' employment prospects and the economy as a whole for time to be spent studying History at school.


Historical facts cannot be established to a sufficient degree to justify history being taught as a subject in school. Though there are certain facts that are beyond question, history is about more than the accumulation of facts but the creation of a narrative. Narratives in history are constantly subject to changes as further evidence comes to hand. Young students should not be forced to learn a narrative that may become redundant in the week between history lessons. Furthermore, though Eisenhower meant well, he could only ever control events in the United States, if Germany had decided to censor their textbooks, as the Japanese did, in the wake of World War II, his protests would have fallen on deaf ears and done little to ensure the German youth knew of the horrors of the Holocaust. As such, it is necessary to restrict history lessons to the youth; once mature and reasoned, they will be much better placed to evaluate and study history in depth.


While it is true that parents who are having their children educated privately still pay their taxes that get spent on state education, it is also worth noting that private schools currently hold charitable status in the UK, and as such benefit from tax subsidies that some people estimate as £88 million annually (BBC, 2011). This money is able to fund facilities that state schools could not afford. Therefore while private schools financially benefit state schools in some ways, they also are financially damaging to state schools in many other ways.


Private schools are financially beneficial for state schools  The state funds the education system through taxation. Parents who do not send their children to state schools still pay those same taxes. Therefore, these taxes are spent on a smaller number of schools and there is more money per child in the state sector than there would be if we banned private education. In 2008 there were 569,080 students in independent schools in England,(BBC 2009) - this would be a very large extra burden for state schools to bear. These students’ parents are therefore not only paying for their own children but also for students to study at state schools as well.


The US magazine Time found research in 2007 that suggested that private schools do not provide a better education than state schools, they do however have a higher percentage of students who would do well in any situation. This means that these children would not lose out by going to state schools. ‘The study says that it is "the kinds of economic and resource advantages their parents can give [students]" — as well as the level of parental involvement in their kids' education —that determines success or failure in high school. The problem isn't in the schools; it's with social inequality’ (Time.com).  The second criticism is that statistics provided by the argument are true only because private education exists, and takes all the best teachers, head teachers and resources away from state schools. If public schools were banned then state schools would gain more teachers and resources and thus would raise to the standards currently occupied by private schools. In a study by Hill and Guin for the University of Washington found that in the US more experienced teachers taught in private schools, thus in theory improving levels of teaching due to experience. (University of Washington2003).


People should have free choice about how they spend their money  People should be allowed to spend their money as they wish. If parents choose to spend money on their children’s advancement over something else they could buy then it is there decision to make. The core of this is the idea of ownership over our income, and that the state should not be able to restrict our spending this income by banning products such as private education. Education in Germany can be used as an example of allowing parents the free will to decide where their child goes to school, article 7 paragraphs 4 of the Grundgesetz enshrines the right to create private schools. (The Grundgesetz).  There are many other similar cases where the state provides a service but there are also private options, healthcare being the most obvious. While most people in Britain use a National Health Service (NHS) hospital there are other options provided privately by companies such as BUPA, no one proposes that people should not be able to buy better healthcare, quite the opposite - the NHS may be moving towards privatization.(McCabe and Kirkpatrick, 2011)


The state already does restrict our spending by criminalizing the purchase of certain goods. For example we cannot choose to spend our money buying slaves even if we desire to. Just as we shouldn’t be able to buy another human life, we also should not be able to buy an advantage in life. It seems clear throughout this debate that private education does give an advantage over state schools in many areas. This argument of an unfair advantage has also been identified by Ontario’s (Canada) Provincial Ministry of Education where they are going to identify where a credit was earned if outside the student’s high school (Tamsyn 2010). It further seems unfair to say that people should have a right to choose private education, while this choice is not available to everyone. Those who cannot afford the huge expense of private education are often not choosing to put their children into state schools, they just have no other options. The average annual cost of sending a child to private school in the UK is £9,627, which works out at 36% of the average earning; In the USA the cost of a year’s secondary education is $10,549, out of reach of most families. (The Guardian, 2007; capenet.org). Therefore in defending the freedom to choose to send a child to private school, we are merely defending the right of the wealthy to have this choice and restricting the choice of everyone else.


Private schools provide a better education than state schools  In 2007, Time the US magazine discovered that private schools in the US received much higher SAT scores that the state counterparts. Research suggests that private education puts a greater emphasis on critical thinking, while state schools emphasise memory and learning by rote (time.com). These types of critical skills mean that students from private schools have a better start at university education as they are more used to what will be required of them. Furthermore, students from private schools are more likely to get into a university in the first place (Time, 2007/ BBC, 2010). In the US students are twice as likely to get the grades allowing them to go to university if they have had a private education, and for minority groups in America it is more than double (Capenet.org, 2001). This is likely to be replicated across the world. Private schools in Brazil also provide better education, as there is one teacher per 10 students in comparison to the 45-50 students per class in a government funded school. (Cabra; and Throssell 2010). Therefore by denying private education the effect may be disastrous for these minority groups.


This is what is already happening. It is the government that sets a curriculum for state schools (such as in Great Britain, Singapore, Japan, China, New Zealand and France) and the government want us to vote for them. So in many ways the education system may already be indoctrinating children in state school in the way this argument fears private schools do. Yet there are also private interests in many state schools already. For example in Britain academies are partially funded privately and in return are outside of local authority control so they do not have to follow the national curriculum.(BBC News, 2010)


Abolishing private schools will not bring to an end to inequality between pupils as this is illustrated every day in state schools. For example, bullying is extremely common in all schools whether they be state or private. Bullying represents inequality between pupils as often it is the result of one pupil being different to another. Additionally, teachers may treat their students differently depending on their intellectual ability or their behaviour. In the US racism between students and teachers is still a big issue, as minority groups are consistently placed on slower academic tack and in 38 states “black students are twice as likely as whites to be labelled as mentally retarded” (University of Washington2003).  Thus Private schools are not the only means of inequality between students and so the abolition of these would not completely diminish student inequality.  On the disparity between private and state schools, the correct way to improve the education for children in state schools is to spend more money on state schools, devote more time, energy and enthusiasm to them rather than punishing those schools that do just that. Preventing a minority from having a certain type of education is not the way to help improve the majority’s education. By and large, the complaint is that private schools are doing well and providing a good education, whilst state schools lag behind. It is in all our interests to set the standard of education as high as we can – you do this by raising state schools to the standard of private schools, not by depriving children of a private education.


Private schools lack diversity  A private school is an institutionalised, artificial environment where the child will be exposed almost completely to children of their own socioeconomic background. This has two very interlinked problems.  1) One of the most important factors of a child’s education is to be exposed to a variety of races, religions, economies and abilities. This allows children to grow up to be more aware of these differences between people and more accepting of diversity as they get older. Yet private schools admission costs alone mean that students are from wealthy backgrounds, and this means they are largely exposed to other people from wealthy backgrounds. As we know, the majority of the people in the world are not wealthy and therefore these students have an extremely blinkered view of their country. Pakistan can be used as a prime example, where half of its children cannot read a full sentence at primary level and government spending on education has been cut from 2.5% to 1.5%. For those in private education and who usually go to university aboard they will never see or understand the situation of the majority in Pakistan and thus has a dysfunctional view of their country. (Landzettel 2011)  2) It is an inevitable feature of democracies that the rich have particular access to politicians and policy-makers. Furthermore, students from private education are much more likely to go into government or political roles. As mentioned above 66% of British politicians went to private school, and 44% of American politicians (against an 11% national average). While the rich don't have a need for state education because they can pursue education for their children from other sources, they have no motivation to lobby politicians on behalf of the education system and a perverse incentive to remove education from political agendas in favour of their preferred issues and legislation. Only by forcing the rich into the same situation as the poor can we expect to gain meaningful ground in terms of education reform, especially in terms of increased funding relative to national and municipal budgets. We cannot expect education will be a national priority until the entire nation has a vested interest in the good order of the system.


Schools should be free from bias  Private education needs funding, be it from a business, individual funders or organisations and private schools rely on this money to run. It seems unlikely then, in this context, that these funders that the school is so reliant on may have an influence (even if unintentional) on various factors of the school life such as curriculum, food or teaching style. In many countries, such as the US, the curriculum in private schools does not need to be standardised (as State education does) and therefore teachers are free to teach what they desire and this might not give an open and full account of certain topics. The bias could be political, charitable or even commercial. We could have a political group like GreenPeace wanting to run a school and heavily emphasising environmental issues, or a company like Shell emphasising our desperate need for oil. Neither of these would present a balanced education which is what our children need. An example of this is that about 50 independent Christian schools in the UK teach creationism as part of biology.(Walker, 2006) In countries such as the Netherlands, South Africa and the republic of Ireland, private schools are set up and run by religious groups, and therefore will have a degree of influence over the curriculum. Education is a powerful tool, especially to impressionable children. And ultimately it appears that private education is at a much higher risk of being biased in its teaching than state education.


Private schools encourage elitism  Private education suggests that a higher level of schooling is a privilege of those who can afford it, rather than a right. This encourages a cycle, whereby those who get a good, private education are more likely to get higher paid jobs as private education increases access to higher education (in the UK twice the percentage of students from private school went to university than those from state school), certain sectors of employment, (in the UK only 7% of students go to private schools, yet these people hold 86% top media jobs and 70% of barrister positions, 33% of MPs) (Gibson, 2006) and employer networking. Thus their children are more likely to go to private school and get a better job. This means that by allowing private education we create a society where the rich remain rich, and the poor remain poor, with the gulf between the two areas ever increasing. If we were to remove private education the field would be open for people from all walks of life to achieve a range of different things.


Similarly the counterargument to this has two distinct principles.  1) That some state schools lack social diversity as much as private schools, particularly in small, rural areas. Therefore we cannot simply criticize private schools, and must recognise that all schools have different levels of diversity. MacKinnon recognises that segregation in the United States schooling system is often defended on the grounds that it ‘represents the community’. Yet this is only the case because housing itself is segregated (Scrapbook). Therefore if we are banning private schools on the grounds of diversity, we should enforce a policy whereby neighbourhoods are forced to be diverse in order to ensure the same thing happens in state schools.  2) That rather than shut down private schools we should encourage the creation of funded places or bursaries. This way people who can afford private school do not have their choices limited, but that there is a greater diversity as people from poorer backgrounds would still be able to attend the schools.


Gaddafi was not deliberately killing civilians but rather targeting armed rebels fighters who were targeting his government. In his words he said he would show no mercy to rebels and did not speak about civilians.  When pro Gaddafi forces regained control of Brega and Zawiyah, there was no bloodshed reported or any conflict harming civilians [1]. We don’t know what would have happened had Gaddafi regained control of Benghazi, but it is likely there would have been no bloodbath.  [1] RT news, ‘Gaddafi gaining ground in battle, losing on information front’, rt.com, 11 March 2011


Intervention prevented an impending bloodbath in Benghazi.  From the day of the uprising in Benghazi, the government was committed to fight back till the end. Gaddafi asserted that he will chase down the protesters and cleanse house by house while his son said that rivers of blood would flow with thousands of deaths, if the uprising didn’t stop [1].  Military jets and helicopter gunships were indiscriminately unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.  The resolution of a no fly zone passed by the security council weakened and prevented government forces from killing people and destroying cities using air strikes[2]. Air strikes went on to destroy artillery, armor and other weapons that could be used for indiscriminate attacks. The intervention therefore stopped large scale civilian bloodshed.  [1] The middle east in revolt, ‘Gaddafi’s son; last gasp of Libya’s dying regime?’, time.com  [2] Los Angeles Times, ‘Obama on Libya; Intervention prevented more bloodshed’, latimes.com, 28 March 2011


Far from creating a liberated and free democracy western intervention has set Libya on the path to becoming a failed state. The country is today ranked among the most insecure countries in the world [1]. Two years after the war, The country has not managed to form a unified police force or a professional army, and it has even formally recognised several of the militias, entrusting them with security tasks [2]. It may be better but freedom of information in Libya is still under threat [3]? The threat is simply different; less from the state, and more from a chaotic situation. Freedoms are also not gaining ground in all areas; notably there are concerns that religious freedom is declining with the country moving towards Sharia law, and with minorities being attacked and forced to convert to Islam [4].  [1] The New York times, ‘Clashes and car bombings highlight insecurity across Libya’, nytimes.com, 4 November 2012  [2] Euronews, ‘Libya’s internal insecurity appears long-term militia problem’, euronews.com, 10 October 2013  [3] World press freedom index, ‘Middle east and North Africa’, rsf.org  [4] Nzwili, Fredrick, ‘Christians in Libya cast anxious eye at religious freedom’, The Washington Post, 10 January 2014


A long ruling and ruthless dictator was toppled.  Gaddafi was an oppressive ruler who led Libya for 42 years. The country had no Parliament, political parties, or NGO’s and no civil society [1].  He ruled Libya with an iron fist, eliminating any political opposition, restricting people’s rights and worst of all supporting different terrorist groups around the world. The same man was responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people [2] and he supported the leadership of Iddi Amin a dictator who killed masses in Uganda.  His leadership posed a threat not only to Libya but to countries around the world. Western intervention in the Libyan civil war paved a clear path for the downfall of Gaddafi’s rule. We should consider the downfall of such a dictator to be a success and benefit to Libya and all who Gaddafi threatened.  [1] Neil, MacFarquhar, ‘An erratic leader, brutal and defiant to the end’ nytimes.com, 20 October 2011  [2] BBC News South Scotland, ‘Colonel Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie Shooting’, bbc.co.uk, 23 February 2011


Intervention was approved under the doctrine responsibility to protect and it aimed at protecting civilians in Libya [1]. While toppling Gaddafi was successful, it did not help in stabilising Libya. Many would prefer stability under a dictatorship than chaos. The situation today is even worse than during Gaddafi’s regime, with insecurity and chaos across the country, increased reports of human rights violation and terrorism [2].  Intervention however did not restore peace and did nothing to help or protect civilians in the longer term.  [1] The economist, ‘The lessons of Libya’, economist.com, 19 May 2011  [2] The fault lines, ‘Libya; state of insecurity background reading’, Aljazeera.com, 14 February 2014


Ushered in the liberation of Libya.  The uprising sparked off as a concern for freedom in the country, people were tired of the oppressive regime and wanted to be liberated. This could not happen by people power alone; Gaddafi was willing to crack down to prevent it like Assad in Syria did.  Western intervention in the civil war helped the citizens gain power and force to fight for their rights, by providing them with training, intelligence and logistics among others hence ejecting the oppressive leadership a symbol for liberation.  After the civil war, people were able to participate in an election of the national assembly considered free and fair for the first time in Libya[1]. The part of the Mo Ibrahim index that rates participation and human rights rose from 20% in 2010 to 30.5% in 2012 [2]. More democratic and accountable government institutions have been set up, NGO’s welcomed and civil society empowered. Libya is becoming much freer with freedom house upgrading the country from ‘not free’ to ‘partially free’ [3].  [1] BBC news Africa, ‘Libya election success for secularist Jibril’s bloc’, bbc.co.uk, 18 July 2012  [2] Mo Ibrahim foundation, ‘Ibrahim index; Libya’, moibrahimfoundation.org  [3] ‘Freedom in the World 2013’, Freedom House, 2013


Russia’s long standing antagonism with the west is not new [1] and Libya is not the cause. Its reaction towards the Syrian conflict is driven by a complex mixture of political and economic interests including having a naval base in the country [2].  The UN security council has also continued to ensure that its operations are successful and have acted on the Syrian crisis too.  It approved a mission to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles in Syria and evacuate people from Homs. This shows how the UNSC usually works; where the major powers can agree they do and act, where they can’t the council does nothing. This would have happened in Syria regardless of what occurred in Libya; Syria is simply worth more strategically to Russia than Libya was.  [1] Con, Coughlin, ‘While Putin still believes the west is still an enemy, Russia will not change’, telegraph.co.uk, 3 December 2010  [2] Nicholas, Kosturos, ‘What Drives Russia’s Unrelenting Position on Syria?’, americanprogress.org, 13 August 2012


The no-fly zone on its own was not sufficient to protect civilians on the ground. It was the responsibility of NATO to take further action aimed at protecting people whose lives were at risk from gaddafi’s soldiers. This NATO did by attacking military targets such as artillery. This was also part of the UNSC agreement “permit all necessary measures to protect civilians”[1].  Specifically, NATO targeted military weapon stores and facilities not homes and camps as Gaddafi’s military did. 72 civilians were killed during this bombing campaign [2] a small number compared to the thousands of sorties. No one can know how long the conflict would have lasted without NATO intervention, it is therefore impossible to state that the conflict lasted six times longer than it would have without NATO involvement.  [1] Richard, Roth, ‘UN Security council approves no fly zone in Libya’, cnn.com, 18 March 2011  [2] BBC news Africa, ‘Nato hits back at Libya's civilian deaths report’, bbc.co.uk, 14 May 2012


It increased conflict and instability in Libya and its neighbours.  The toppling of Muammar Gaddafi has had unpleasant side effects. Gaddafi’s army involved a large number of mercenaries, many of them Tuaregs from northern Mali. When Gaddafi was overthrown they returned to their homeland without having given up their arms. These returnees helped spark a rebellion that deposed a democratically elected president under a coup and prompted yet another western intervention[1].  In Libya the situation never fully calmed down with the country left dealing with militia groups and terrorist attacks. The US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed, Prime minister Ali Zaidan was kidnapped and there are reports of ongoing insurgencies [2]. Previously Libyans may have lived under an eccentric dictator but at least they had order and stability.  [1] Owen, Jones, ‘The war in Libya was seen as a success now here we are engaging in the blowback in Mali’, independent.co.uk, 13 Jan 2013  [2] Chris, Stephen, ‘Assassination pushes Libya towards civil war, two years after Gaddafi’s death’, thegurdian.com, 19 October 2013


Created a large divide in the UN security council.  The UN security council approved humanitarian intervention in Libya that ensured a no fly zone to protect civilians from government attacks. However, the west went beyond the resolution’s intent and turned it into a de facto campaign for regime change [1].  This made Russia and China who initially had opposed any intervention feel cheated. The divide has affected the response of the security council to other crises notably in Syria where over a hundred thousand people have been killed and an even larger number displaced. Russia and China have vetoed resolutions on Syria three times [2] fearing that it may end like the Libyan case a fact that Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov stressed; “Russia will not allow a repetition of the Libyan scenario in Syria” [3].  Such divisionism has destroyed the credibility of the security council [4] and created an unintended casualty of the Libyan intervention.  [1] David, Blair, ‘Putin thinks Cameron conned him over Syria, he won’t allow that to happen again with Syria’, telegraph.co.uk, 2 August 2012  [2] Rick, Gladstone, ‘Friction at the U.N. as Russia and China Veto Another Resolution on Syria Sanctions’, nytimes.com, 19 July 2012  [3] Global research, ‘Russia Will not Allow Repetition of “Libya Scenario” in Syria’ globalresearch.ca  [4] Mick, B. Krever, ‘Why won’t the UN Security council intervene in Syria?’, cnn.com 14,January 2012


The intervention backfired.  NATO’S action increased the conflict’s duration about a six fold and the death toll at least sevenfold, but also increasing human rights abuses, humanitarian suffering, and weapon proliferation in Libya and neighbouring countries [1]. The UN security council approved the resolution for protecting civilians in Libya [2] but NATO just did the opposite. Their operation came at the expense of increasing harm to Libyans. NATO attacked Libyan forces indiscriminately including those in Sirte who posed no threat to civilians as Sirte remained in government hands right to near the end of the conflict and continued to support the rebels offering them weapons, military training, intelligence and troops on ground [1], even when they rejected cease fire offers from the government that would have helped end the crisis and spare civilians.  [1] Alan, Kuperman, ‘Lessons from Libya; How not to intervene’, harvard.edu September 2013  [2] Robert, winnet and Richard Spencer, ‘UN approves no fly zone as British troops prepare for action’, telegraph.co.uk, 17 March 2011


The Malian conflict is not new and has been on for a long period notably the 1960, 1996 and the 2006 rebellions[1]. It did not break up from the Libyan conflict and additionally the Tuareg were not the only rebels involved in this crisis. The insecurity reports across Libya is typical for every emerging democracy in transition and cannot be a reason to claim that it is not stable. Even the Libyan people accept it with 71% of the population being optimistic about the current situation [2].  [1] Mats,Utas, ‘The Malian crisis; Causes, consequences, responses’, wordpress.com 7 May 2013  [2] JMW Consulting, ‘Believing in Democracy: Public Opinion Survey in Libya’, National Democratic Institute, August 2013, p.6


A minor addition to what the UK has is hardly securing a special place for the UK. Moreover there is no reason to keep such a position if it is not working for Britain. The renegotiation deal did not succeed in making the EU work how Britain would like – a move back to greater national sovereignty – so Britain is better off out. Indeed some, such as former Conservative leader Michael Howard argue “There is only one thing that just might shake Europe’s leaders out of their complacency: the shock of a vote by the British people to leave… If the UK voted to leave, there would be a significant chance that they would ask us to think again [with greater concessions].” [1]  [1] Howard, Michael, ‘David Cameron’s reform bid has failed – it’s time to go’, The Telegraph, 25 February 2016,


Secures a special place for the UK  The renegotiation deal ensures that the UK has a special place in Europe. One where it is both a leading part of the club with a major say in the council, commission and parliament, and is also outside of those areas such as the Eurozone and anything relating to the Euro which the UK does not wish to join.  Donald Tusk, current president of the European Council, says that the deal "strengthens Britain's special status"; [1] the renegotiation document “recalls” the special position already holds listing previous opt outs on joining the Euro and Schengen among others. This deal adds to that an opt out from ever closer union.  With such a privileged position within the EU secured Britain should not rush to the exit so giving away such a status. As European politicians have made clear the UK will not receive such favourable treatment when outside the EU. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘EU deal gives UK special status, says Cameron’, 20/2/16   [2] Verhofstadt, Guy, ‘Message to Michael Gove: this deal is binding, and it’s the best Britain will get’, The Guardian, 24 February 2016,


The only way to ensure that the UK does not become part of a political union is to leave entirely. The European Scrutiny Committee of the UK Parliament has concluded that the “ever closer union” is largely symbolic so guarantees against it amount to little. [1] Meanwhile the pledges about competitiveness are vague. It leaves as an open question what are the administrative burdens that are going to be lowered or what legislation might be repealed. Without specifics is it likely that any such repeal will take place?  [1] European Scrutiny Committee, ‘Voters must know EU changes will require Treaty amendment’, parliament.uk, 15 December 2015,


A fundamental change to Britain’s relationship with Europe  It was too much to hope that the deal might involve a complete change for the EU as a whole. However it has the potential to fundamentally change the UK’s relationship with the EU by putting it on a much more secure footing.  The most fundamental change is the acceptance of two Europes. By accepting the UK opting out of ever closer union in perpetuity there is now an acceptance that the whole of Europe is not necessarily even moving to the same goal. As the deal states there can be “a deeper degree of integration among the Member states that share such a vision of their common future, without this applying to other Member States.” [1] The second change is increasing democratic accountability through increasing the power of national Parliaments. Now if 55% of national parliaments reject a European Council proposal the Council will need to think again. [2]  [1] Annex 1, P.17  [2] Annex 1, P.17


While it is quite correct that the UK should not have to be signed up to taking part in a European super-state the renegotiation does not represent a big leap forward. With its’ opt outs that are not time limited the UK was already not further integrating with the EU. The change to accepting the de facto truth is not a big one. Allowing national parliaments a say may have a long term impact, but under the current mechanism it means almost nothing. It seems unlikely that 55% of member states national governments (which of course signed the deal) are ever going to lose in their parliaments. The bar is raised even higher by their being a time limit of 12 weeks.


Ensures Europe stays of the track Britain wants it to be on  Britain’s ideal for the European Union is a union that is founded upon free trade; an economic not a political block. The agreement ensures that the European Union remains on this path in two ways. First through agreement on competitiveness where members pledged the “lowering administrative burdens and compliance costs on economic operators, especially small and medium enterprises, and repealing unnecessary legislation”. [1] Second it is explicitly stated “references [in EU treaties] to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom” [2] which ensures that the UK will never have to become part of a political union but can instead remain in an economic partnership with the EU even if the EU itself moves towards political union.  [1] Annex 1, p.15  [2] Annex 1, p.16


Neither are at all likely. Gove’s opinion has been rejected by the Attorney General saying “It has legal effect from the point the UK says it intends to remain in the EU, and the European court must take it into account. The job of the European court is to interpret the agreements”. [1]  Similarly the European Parliament is very unlikely to reject the deal which has been agreed by the leaders of all member states. MEPs have generally shown support for the UK remaining in Europe and the leader of the EPP, the biggest group, has stated “We support the core of the agreement.” [2]  [1] Mason, Rowena, ‘Attorney general rejects Gove claim that EU deal is not legally binding’, The Guardian, 24 February 2016,   [2] European parliament web team, ‘EU Referendum: MEPs Debate the UK's European Future’, Huffington Post, 25 February 2016,


This is the case in all negotiations. Both sides start out with their maximalist demands that they would like to have and both sides compromise and reduce their own demands until they meet in the middle. During this compromise many ideas and proposals are dropped or watered down until both sides get the core of what they want. Cameron was never going to get all of his demands and it is disingenuous to suggest this could have happened.


The deal makes no difference to migration  David Cameron failed to even negotiate on the area that the people of the UK most want changed; cutting migration. The only way to do this is to end freedom of movement through the Schengen agreement; something that was never on the table. As a result the changes are minor ones to benefits which the Office for Budgetary Responsibility has said “changes to benefit rules are unlikely to have a huge impact on migration flows” indeed “In my opinion: not much”. [1]  Polling by ComRes within days of the agreement showed that 53% of the British public believe there will be no change in migration as a result of the deal while roughly equal numbers think it will increase as decrease; 21% to 22%. [2]  [1] May, John, and Whale, Sebastian, ‘OBR: Four-year ban on benefits 'unlikely' to cut EU immigration significantly’, Politics Home, 8 December 2015,   [2] Slack, James, ‘A complete failure: Voters offer damning verdict on PM's Europe deal with three-quarters claiming migration will not change as a result of his reforms - and could even increase’, 24 February 2016,


The renegotiation agreement could yet fall through  At the moment is simply an agreement between the leaders of the states within the EU. Until it is written into treaties the agreement is vulnerable. There are two ways in which it could fall through or be changed. The first is for the European Court to declare part of it incompatible with the EU treaties. The Secretary of State for Justice Michael Gove has argued "The facts are that the European Court of Justice is not bound by this agreement until treaties are changed and we don't know when that will be". [1]  The second is that the European Parliament still needs to approve as would any legislature when given a proposal by the executive branch. [2] Members of the European Parliament have refused to rule out that it could be rejected. [3] Even then nothing is secure until there is treaty change as the only way the agreement can be legally binding “would be through Treaty amendment, or the equivalent agreement of a Protocol.” [4]  [1] ‘EU reforms ‘not legally binding’ – Michael Gove’, BBC News, 24 February 2016,   [2] Peers, Steve, ‘The draft UK/EU renegotiation deal: is it ‘legally binding and irreversible’?’, EU Law Analysis, 10 February 2016,   [3] Stone, Jon, ‘David Cameron’s EU deal can’t be legally binding, EU Parliament president Martin Schulz says’, Independent, 16 February 2016,   [4] European Scrutiny Committee, ‘Voters must know EU changes will require Treaty amendment’, parliament.uk, 15 December 2015,


The renegotiation makes little difference  Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg described the deal as “pretty thin gruel” which hits the mark. The British Prime Minister has not been able to go nearly as far as he would like for example with his pledge on migrant benefits where Cameroon failed to ensure that all who claim must contribute to the UK for at least four years. Instead there is a break that the UK can use if migrants are putting excessive pressure on public services. Meanwhile Cameron failed to get anything at all on the Working Time Directive that restricts working hours in the EU. [1]  More important is what Cameron did not even demand; greater democracy in the EU, bringing power back to national parliaments, or opting out or significant changes to common agricultural and fisheries policies.  [1] Foster, Peter, ‘EU deal: What David Cameron asked for… and what he actually got’, The Telegraph, 20 February 2016,


Migration is a benefit to the UK financially. Most migrants don’t claim benefits which is why such benefit rules changes will not make much difference. Cutting migration would be easier outside the European Union however even then there is unlikely to be scope to cut migration as far as skeptics want. Net migration from outside the EU in year ending September 2015 was 191,000 [1] far above the Conservative target to get migration below 100,000.  [1] White, Nicola, ‘Migration Statistics Quarterly Report: February 2016’, ons.gov.uk, 25 February 2016,


As an American state, Puerto Ricans would pay federal income taxes, which most currently do not. Some businesses would also lose tax breaks they currently enjoy. [1] This would harm not only the wealth of individual Puerto Ricans but also harm the country's economic standing, as it would become less appealing as an investment destination without these tax breaks and with the presence of federal income taxes. There is no guarantee that the extremely high rates of economic growth the pro-statehood optimists forecast will actually come about to balance out these increased costs for all Puerto Ricans. Historically statehood could have been disastrous for Puerto Rico's economy: the post-World War Two economic growth in Puerto Rico was the result of special treatment via exemption from Federal corporate taxes resulting from Puerto Rico' special non-state status. [2]  [1] Constitutional Rights Foundation. “BRIA 17 4 c Puerto Rico: Commonwealth, Statehood, or Independence?”. Constitutional Rights Foundation. Fall 2001 (17:4).  [2] Leibowitz, Arnold H. “Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations”. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1989.


Puerto Rico would benefit economically from statehood  American statehood would lead to significant economic growth for Puerto Rico. Statehood would mean that the island would shed its ineffective and costly reliance on preferential tax credits and more fully integrate into the national economy. In a study by Hexner, Jenkins, Lad and Lame, "Puerto Rican Statehood: A Precondition to Sound Economic Growth," the case is persuasively made that statehood is necessary for the island's economic growth. [1] [2] As an American state, the standard of living in Puerto Rico would profoundly improve for the average person. With average income going up, families would be able to pay their fair share of taxes while still improving their net income and standard of living. For those with low incomes, the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico would have the same access to tax relief and federal support programs as any other citizen of the country, unlike under the present status where significant disparities exist. This is particularly significant as approximately 50% of Puerto Ricans live under the federal poverty line. [3]  Many areas of US Federal funding to Puerto Rico would actually improve. For example, the current 50 states can receive up to 90% reimbursement through Medicaid for critical health information technologies; Puerto Rico is not eligible for these supplements. According to 2005 Congressional testimony by Governor Anibal Acevedo-Vila, had Puerto Rico been treated like the other states, it would have received $1.7 billion dollars in federal Medicaid support instead of the $219 million received. Translated to monthly amounts, federal Medicaid support in the states approximated $330 per month per participant; the amount in Puerto Rico was about $20 per month. [4] The US is one of the richest countries on earth, and being a full part of it would give Puerto Ricans a lot of practical advantages that the independent countries of the Spanish-speaking Caribbean lack. The right to move to the US-proper and work there legally, for example, is extremely valuable. [5] Overall, therefore, there is a compelling economic case for Puerto Rico to seek American statehood.  [1] Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association. “Statehood”.  [2] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [3] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [4] Frisse, Dr. Mark. “Puerto Rico”. Wellshpere. 7 September 2008.  [5] Yglesias, Matthew. “What is the Case for Puerto Rican Independence?”. Think Progress. 1 May 2010.


The foreignness of English in Puerto Rico is greater in magnitude than it was in any state at any time in our national experience, including the examples listed. Census data show that just 20 percent of the island’s residents speak English fluently. By comparison, California has the lowest proficiency rate among the 50 states, but its 80 percent proficiency rate dwarfs Puerto Rico’s. The deeply rooted preference for Spanish makes Puerto Rico’s 1993 elevation of English to “co-official” status practically irrelevant. Authentic “official English” policies increase English learning, but they will not work when English is merely an add-on to a pre-existing official language that is spoken in 95 percent of homes. [1]  [1] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.


Puerto Ricans deserve full political rights and citizenship  Currently, Puerto Ricans do not receive full political rights and equal representation, despite their American citizenship. Although it has its own Governor and legislature which handles some domestic matters, inhabitants of Puerto Rico receive no say in US federal matters or foreign policy, despite being heavily affected by them (more so than most current American states, as Puerto Rico sits in the Caribbean surrounded by other island nation-states). [1] If Puerto Rico became a US state, Puerto Ricans would then share as everyone else in full benefits from the US government, while paying taxes like everyone else.  The status quo perpetuates a semi-colonial situation in Puerto Rico, where American citizenship, which they have held since 1917, carries fewer rights than in the US proper. This has been the situation since the US captured Puerto Rico in 1898, and no other US territory has been held in limbo like this for so long. During this time Puerto Ricans have supported the US by serving in large numbers, both voluntarily and through conscription, in the US military in every major war since the Spanish-American War. [2]  However the island's current status still prompts United Nations to still debate whether Puerto Rico is a colony. [3] US congressional inquest into Puerto Rico's political situation has found that, despite the divergent views that Puerto Ricans have with respect to their preferred political status, “all factions agree on the need to end the present undemocratic arrangement whereby Puerto Rico is subject to the laws of Congress but cannot vote in it.” [4]  The former chief justice of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, Jose Trias Monge, has written a book on the political status of Puerto Rico entitled “Puerto Rico: The Trials of the Oldest Colony in the World.” Therein he argued that just prior to the U.S. invasion, the Island enjoyed greater freedom and rights in certain areas than it does now, including an insular parliament that could legislate in matters of monetary policy, banking, import/export duties, and public credit; the ability of Puerto Rico to negotiate its own commercial treaties; Puerto Ricans were Spanish citizens, equal in all respects to mainland Spanish citizens; the Spanish Constitution applied in Puerto Rico in the same manner as it applied in Spain proper; the Autonomic Charter of 1897, which governed Puerto Rico's relation with Spain, could not be changed except with Puerto Rico's consent. [5] The political rights currently enjoyed by Puerto Ricans, such as their right to elect their own Governor, are not even guaranteed to them in the status quo. In 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated that Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice. [6] To perpetuate this current second-class status is morally unacceptable in a nation which pledges itself to “liberty and justice for all”.  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [2] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [3] Constitutional Rights Foundation. “BRIA 17 4 c Puerto Rico: Commonwealth, Statehood, or Independence?”. Constitutional Rights Foundation. Fall 2001 (17:4).  [4] U.S House of Representatives. ‘Puerto Rico Democracy Act’, 110th Congress. Second Session. Report #597. 2007, Washington, D.C.  [5] Monge, Jose Trias. “Puerto Rico: The Trials of the Oldest Colony in the World”. Yale University Press. 1997.  [6] Hill, Fay and Edmondson, "United States v. Sanchez, 992 F.2D 1143 (1993) United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Paragraphs 44 – 46)"


Regardless of what Puerto Ricans may or may not “deserve”, the fact is that Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood many times now, making their voices heard on this issue many times since the late 1960's. The island has repeatedly voted to remain a commonwealth when votes were taken in 1967, 1993, and 1998. [1] If Puerto Ricans actually like their current status enough to vote for it when presented with the alternatives of statehood or independence, where is the injustice in that status continuing?  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.


English is not a problem for Puerto Rican statehood  Some have made the argument that Puerto Rico should not be a state because Puerto Ricans do not speak English, and that the US should not have a non-English speaking state. This argument does not hold up for the following reasons: English is already an official language on the island with the same status as Spanish. Puerto Ricans are already citizens of the U.S., and have been since1917. [1] There was no language requirement with the granting of citizenship then, so it makes no sense to ask this question now. In fact, there has never been a language requirement of territories entering the union in American history. English is a required subject in public schools through high school. English is the only language of the Federal Court system and all U.S. government agencies in Puerto Rico and is the common language in banking, commerce, real estate and the tourism industry. Learning English as well as Spanish just makes good sense. English is the international language of business, science, and increasingly, diplomacy. Puerto Rico should do all it can to increase English language capability. But, making it a requirement of statehood would ignore the precedents of Enabling Acts of Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arizona, all of which similarly had issues of large non-English speaking populations and gave or give these other languages some official status in law. [2]  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [2] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.


Firstly, Puerto Ricans have repeatedly rejected independence in referendums in 1967, 1993, and 1998, with the votes for independence always being fewer than those for statehood. But secondly, the reasons against Puerto Rican independence are myriad. If Puerto Rico were to vote for independence, it would be hugely costly. It is inconceivable that the U.S. would set Puerto Rico adrift without a large "transition package" and continued foreign aid of a large magnitude. This would be necessitated by the fact that Puerto Ricans are currently U.S. citizens, who would demand favourable treatment and help. Puerto Rico, as an island with 3.8 million people and no other significant natural resources, is not economically viable as a separate nation without significant external aid and free access to large markets like the US enjoys. With statehood, Puerto Rico can be economically viable and a contributor to the United States' wealth, but with independence it would be impoverished and isolated. [1] Moreover, the American 'melting pot' has always been about the fusion of different cultures together, not their disappearance, and this will be the same for Puerto Rican identity.  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.


The arguments regarding the loss of Puerto Rican culture under statehood do not stand up because Puerto Rican identity is strong and will continue to be so. Puerto Rico has been exposed to U.S. mainland cultures for over 100 years, and Puerto Rican culture and heritage has thrived and grown. Puerto Ricans and mainland citizens have moved freely between the island and the mainland with no resulting cultural dilution or weakening of Puerto Rican's strong identity, even with the large migrations of the 1930's, the 1950's and since then. There is no reason to believe this would change under statehood. Puerto Rico has adopted and adapted aspects of U.S. culture, just as we have incorporated much of Puerto Rican culture when exposed to it. Puerto Ricans, while citizens, in much the same way as Texans and others view themselves, are still Puerto Ricans despite the more than 100 years of the deep and strong relationship with the mainland United States. [1]  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.


Puerto Rican statehood is not economical for the US  If Puerto Rico were to enter the US in such a way as to harm the US economy or if it were to become a burden to the US, this could lead to resentment of Puerto Rico by the rest of the US and hamper integration. The unemployed in Puerto Rico will at least have higher welfare benefits to fall back on if statehood is granted, meaning more money lost to the U.S. treasury. [1] Puerto Rico's per capita income of $8,509 is less than one third of the US average, and about one half that of Mississippi, the poorest state. The government sector in Puerto Rico generates approximately 380,000 jobs, or 33% of total employment can be unfavourably compared to the percentage of the economy of Puerto Rico from tourism: About 6%. The average monthly per capita income in Puerto Rico $709 per month. Social Security Disability payments are at least $790 per month. Rank of a state of Puerto Rico as a state among states based on population: 25th. Rank of Puerto Rico currently if included among states based on persons receiving disability income: 16th. [2] Even with the gain to the U.S. Treasury of taxes now not being paid by Section 936 companies, the CBO put the cost of Puerto Rican statehood as $9.4 billion in the first four years. These costs do not include matters like government and court translation expenses should Puerto Rico declare itself to be a solely Spanish-speaking land. [3] [4] [5] Nor does it include the costs to the U.S. Treasury of as many as seven representatives and two Senators whose continuance in office will depend on their pleasing an impoverished constituency. Legislation to increase federal spending on social programs of all sorts need not fail narrowly in either house of the U.S. Congress, as it does at the moment, if Puerto Rico's delegation (twice the size of West Virginia's) enters the equation. [6] Clearly neither the United States nor Puerto Rico can afford Puerto Rican statehood, and it makes no sense for Puerto Rico to enter into such an unstable relationship where resentment against Puerto Rico (and Puerto Ricans living in the US) will breed fast.  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [2] NoPuertoRicoStatehood. “Puerto Rico Statehood”. 29 May 2011.  [3] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [4] Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association. “Statehood”.  [5] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.  [6] Fund, John. “Puerto Rico, the 51st State?”. The Wall Street Journal. 13 May 2010.


Statehood would prevent Puerto Rican independence  The US has treated Puerto Rico as little more than a colony for 100 years, and this has seeped into the Puerto Rican mentality in harmful ways. According to educational scientists Francesco Cordasco and Eugene Bucchioni, in their 1973 work The Puerto Rican Experience: a Sociological Sourcebook, the belief that Puerto Rico cannot survive on its own results from teachings since grade school. “Puerto Ricans here and in Puerto Rico are taught three things: Puerto Rico is small and the US is big, Puerto Rico is poor and the US is rich, Puerto Rico is weak and the US is strong.” [1] Popular author and Puerto Rican culture enthusiast Jesús Omar Rivera similarly argues that “in Puerto Rico, ever since you are a child, you are told that you live on a tiny island that has no natural resources, nothing. This is what they teach you in school, on TV, the media, and it’s always negative.” He argues says this perception is a by-product of the island’s political dependence on the U.S.. “There is this colonized mentality that everything from abroad is better.” [2]  None of this would change under statehood, and arguably would get even worse as Puerto Rican culture, still perceived as 'inferior' to all things American, would decline even further. Puerto Rican nationalist Juan Mari Brás has argued “Only through a great unified movement looking beyond political and ideological differences, can the prevalent fears of hunger and persecution be overcome for the eventual liberation of Puerto Rico, breaking through domination by the greatest imperialist power of our age”. [3] Attaining Puerto Rican independence us the only great cause which can unite all Puerto Rican people and allow them to break out of this colonized mentality and reclaim their dignity as a people and as a nation. To enter into US statehood would simply be to accept this colonized mentality and the denigration of all things Puerto Rican, to the advantage of the all-consuming American culture.  [1] Cordasco, Francesco and Bucchioni, Eugene. “The Puerto Rican Experience: a Sociological Sourcebook”. 1973. Littlefield, Adams, & Co..  [2] Martorell, Carlos Rodríguez. “Have a Puerto Rican question? Ask El Boricuazo”. NYDailyNews. 3 June 2008.  [3] Peacehost.net. “Juan Mari Brás”.


The language barrier and Puerto Rican identity  Puerto Rico should not become an American state because linguistic and cultural differences continue to divide the other 50 states and Puerto Rico. This would mean that Puerto Rico would either fit incongruously into the union, or it would lose its distinct cultural identity. Historically the US administrations of Puerto Rico have pursued 'Americanization' campaigns there, focusing especially around imposing the use of the English language and casting aside 'old values'. This policy was deeply resented and strongly resisted by most Puerto Ricans, and it failed. Thus, after 91 years of intimate association, Puerto Rico remains a separate cultural nationality. [1] [2]  Furthermore in terms of national identity, Puerto Rico joining the US would result in it losing the semi-independent (or at least distinct) identity which it currently has in the eyes of much of the world. To name but two examples, Puerto would no longer have its own representative in the Miss Universe Pageant (which Puerto Rico has actually won on three occasions) and they would not be recognized as an individual nation in the Olympic games, as it currently is. These international representations would be curbed under statehood, as Puerto Rico would be required to participate in the same manner as the other 50 states, and to compete to represent the United States collectively, and not Puerto Rico individually, in these international events. [3]  Changing language policies would also undermine Puerto Rican culture: the territories that became Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma (who all had large and historically rooted non-English-speaking populations) were all admitted to the union by congressional enabling acts that required that “schools shall always be conducted in English” in order to ensure assimilation. [4] This would likely also be the case with Puerto Rico, and could undermine the access of future generations of Puerto Ricans to their Hispanic heritage and culture, subsuming it within the overpowering tide of English-speaking American culture. Thus the Puerto Rican people are highly independent and have immense pride in their district and rich Latin culture and Spanish language, and they should not be deprived of that culture, which statehood would arguably contribute towards.  [1] NoPuertoRicoStatehood. “Puerto Rico Statehood”. 29 May 2011.  [2] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.  [3] Essortment. “Puerto Rican Statehood, the An overview of the pros and cons”. Essortment.com.  [4] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.


Much of this argumentation assumes that the Puerto Rican economy will not expand with statehood, which there are many good reasons to believe would occur. Look at what happened to the last two states admitted to the Union, Hawaii and Alaska. Both economies grew substantially after being admitted to the Union and became net contributors to the U.S. Treasury. Puerto Rico would receive equal treatment in both taxes and benefits, the same as the other states. Benefits to the island under the current system are limited by Congress. Those limitations would be removed. At the same time, payments of federal taxes would be phased in, as provided by the enabling legislation. It has been estimated Puerto Rico as a state will contribute nearly $2 billion to the U.S. Treasury each year. [1] How is that possible? Through economic growth. With economic growth there are more jobs, fewer unemployed, and less of a public assistance burden.  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.


It does not matter if think tanks are used in this way, so long as the conclusions that are reached by the think tanks are true. If there is objective value in an idea it should be communicated as well as possible. If this cannot be done with conventional marketing, it is good for it to be possible through a think tank. If the think tank’s idea and conclusion is wrong, the fact that it is presented objectively makes it no less falsifiable. Think tanks do not exist in a vacuum, and for every false idea presented as positive there will be another think tank to scrutinise it. In either case, the consumer is given useful information in an accessible way that can still be questioned.


Think tanks’ power of objectivity is the best form of marketing for biased views  Think tanks are considered more credible than corporate marketing. [1] In the case of corporate marketing the recipient is aware that he is being sold a product. In the case of think tanks, the recipient believes he is being given unbiased information. Therefore, it is tempting for corporations to finance think tanks and encourage them to reach the conclusions that they otherwise would promote through marketing. This way, think tanks can be powerful tools for promoting a biased agenda: if done successfully the same message is communicated but in the form of credible information rather than manipulative marketing. In fact, it is common practice for journalists to quote think tanks without labelling their political bias. [2] And they most certainly don’t say if there is funding from a particular interest for example with the supposedly free market Institute of Public Affairs in Australia that somehow ends up arguing for government investment and intervention in Northern Australia – a position suspiciously close to several big mining companies. [3] This violates people’s freedom to make an informed decision, and can give biased views disproportionate and undue influence. By forcing them to disclose, any corruption or bias will become obvious to all.  [1] Mayer, Jane. “Covert Operations”, A Reporter at Large, The New Yorker. 30 August 2010   [2] Dolny, Michael. “What’s in a Label?”, Extra!, FAIR. 1 May 1998   [3] MediaWatch, “Disclosing the funding of think tanks”, ABC News, 27 May 2013,


It is already in the interest of think tanks to be transparent. Think tanks exist in societies that depend on open communication and the free flow of ideas. Numerous organisations exist to criticise and unmask non-transparent think tanks: [1] this is sufficient incentive for them to reveal their funding. There may be exceptions in which the benefits of non-disclosure overrule the disadvantages in terms of trust, but these are rare, and it does not follow that it will be abused.  [1] Who Funds You, Political Innovation,


Think tanks may become smoke screens for criminal groups  In the status quo, the ability of think tanks to be non-transparent potentially provides a framework for criminal groups, or in extreme cases organisations, to handle large amounts of money without revealing where their money comes from or goes. We are allowing extremist groups to be exempt from answering to the government or shareholders in their management of money or information. In the US and Canada, think tanks are also exempt from tax. [1] By this mechanism, false think tanks can be used, for example, to channel money from openly extremist groups that could otherwise not access those parts of the world.  [1] 26 USC § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc., Legal Information Institute


People have a right to know where their information comes from  Democracies rely on transparency. Our commitment to transparency means surrendering part of our autonomy for the collective. This does not mean that our autonomy does not still belong to us; the institutions that affect our lives are under a constant obligation to justify their decisions and existence in relation to us. I do not have a right to know everything about the local football club (if I don’t play football and they are not a public company their decisions don’t affect me). Think tanks, however, are highly influential, and directly affect the society in which we live: some have, for example, lobbied successfully against action to prevent global warming. [1] Therefore they are to be considered a power in society, and the principle of transparency must be extended to them.  [1] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013,


Think tanks don’t have any legislative power. At the end of the day, what they do is merely make suggestions. If they were active lobbyists they would lose their privileged legal position as an academic organisation. [1] Even if there may be other benefits of them being transparent, the legal concept of transparency cannot be extended to them. That would open the door to forcing other independent private institutions to reveal details of their organisation. Furthermore, think tanks rarely claim to be completely impartial. They usually have an agenda and are aligned with a political party. This concession in terms of impartiality merits equal concessions in terms of demanded transparency. At the end of the day it is their work that influences the agenda and that same work shows where their sympathies lie.  [1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524.


There is no necessity to disclose think tank funding publically in order to circumvent this issue. As long as there are public institutions that scrutinise think tanks and are also bound to secrecy unless there are anomalies, the risk of terrorism can be successfully regulated. Being a think tank does not prevent an organisation from having to be transparent to government about their finances. It is unnecessary to expose think tanks that do not act illicitly to the general public.


Think tanks can choose transparency in the status quo anyway (as shown by nef): this benefit is relatively small. On the other hand, it harms the many other think tanks that need to protect the information of who funds them if, for instance, the funders do not wish to disclose it. It is a loss of freedom for the majority, not a gain.


The status quo promotes non-transparency  Non-disclosure can be perceived as objectivity. It is easier for the public to criticise a think tank that is openly associated with a particular funder. That kind of prejudice is stronger than the more general the prejudice against non-disclosure. A person might distrust a non-transparent think tank, but dislike a think tank that is funded by an organisation they are already prejudiced towards. [1] In any comparison between two such organisations the distrusted organisation will have greater impact than the disliked organisation. [2] This gives non-transparent think tanks an advantage over transparent and honest ones. Billionaires are then able to buy influence by secretly funding organisations such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation or the Institute of Economic Affairs that is then listened to, by the media and therefore the public, when their own views would simply be dismissed due to the personal motivations of the backers. [3] By forcing all think tanks to reveal their funding, we level the playing field.  [1] Bentley, Guy. “The state funding swindle: how left wing think-tanks are pulling taxpayer-funded wool over our eyes”, Commentary, The Commentator. 20 September 2012,   [2] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524.   [3] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013