At Comment is Free, Judith Williamson seems to miss the point about extending choice in education:
Blair's rhetoric implies that if only there was more "choice", everyone could choose the "top" institutions - just like the middle-classes do. The logical impossibility of this doesn't seem to have made itself felt.
Of course, this is a logical impossibility. But this is not the argument for extending choice. The argument is that, if parents can genuinely choose schools, schools will have to improve in order to attract customers. Over time, that will raise standards everywhere.
Now, there are many problems with this argument. Will the parents of the most disadvantaged children really be able or willing to make informed choice? Will the government really allow good schools to expand and bad ones to fail? Will there be enough capacity in the system to allow for genuine choice? Might schools compete without raising genuine standards (say by "teaching to the test" or selecting pupils)?
For an informed assessment of these sort of issues, this site at Bristol University's CMPO is essential. What is not essential is knocking down silly straw men.
Comment is free? It's over-priced even at that rate.