Sorry to come late to this (I know Gareth misses me.)

In the UK, so-called parental choice is an illusion invented by the Tories, and "new" Labour has been happy to continue the deception. In practice parents are able to express preferences but for a majority of them meaningful choice is non-existent. A few - typically the most articulate and pushy - do manage to hold out for the best, and this inevitably is at the expense of the rest.

The children of such parents tend to prosper. The more a school can attract these youngsters, the higher it rises in the "league tables." And the higher they go in the tables, the greater their attraction to such families.... Thus a virtuous circle is created into which neighbouring schools cannot break. Instead they sink into decline and often end up being closed. This system is wasteful, and massively damaging for those cohorts of students who, through no fault of their own, are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Such was the fate of students at St Richard of Chichester school in north London when Tony Blair chose to bypass that and other catholic schools near his home in favour of one much farther away, that could afford to be more selective (Brompton Oratory). It was a huge signal to thinking parents that if they could afford to do so, they should avoid St Richard, and St Richard closed within a year or so. I said on BBC Newsnight at the time that Blair should have resigned as Labour leader on the basis that the party was at that time still promoting the "old" Labour education policy. Diane Abbott was vociferous in her criticism of Blair on the same point, as she was too about Harriet Harman.

Contrary to Peter T's assumption, Abbott lives in an area that has some of the worst deprivation in Britain, and in which some of the state schools are admittedly, and almost inevitably very poor. She has used some of her own money to buy her son out of that disadvantage, and I agree with McG of H that there may be nothing intrinsically wrong in that (beyond the hypocirsy that she condemned others for the same thing).

But Abbott is still urging other parents to continue supporting the state schools, for the sake of the kids in those schools - even if they can afford to follow her own example. This is ludicrous.

Both Blair and Abbott could have afforded to move to other areas before their children's secondary-school education became an issue. They would still have been exposed to accusations of hypocrisy, and of thrusting on others what they would not accept for themselves. But they would have done greatly less damage to the state schools on their doorsteps, and the children who have no alternative but to attend those schools.