He went to Eton and his wife went to an exclusive private school. Both have done brilliantly well, so why are they sending their daughter to a state school, particularly as most London state schools are apparently a bit rough.
On the one hand, I applaud them, as they are showing support for the state sector, and of course the standards should be sufficiently high that no parent should feel they have to spend £££s on opting out. On the other hand, are they just using their child for their political agenda.
Miriam Clegg has also made similar comments ie that their DC will not be educated privately, as why would you pay so much for the privilege of your DC to take their maths exam in a tailcoat? For some reason, Miriam comes over as more sincere, but I still can't help wondering if this is part of the Cleggs' political agenda, given that Nick went to a top 'public school'. Miriam, not being British, probably can't understand why the Brits want to send their kids away to boarding school, in any event, instead of bringing them up yourself - it seems to be something peculiarly British, going back centuries to the days when the noble families would send their children to the households of other noble families to be brought up.
Anyway, I've digressed. Do you think the Camerons are being responsible parents or being unreasonable to use their child to further their political agenda?