All schools and hospitals should be privatised and run by profit-seeking firms. I suspect that some politicians agree, but none would dare admit it. The policy is an instant election loser. The British public has a visceral distrust of private enterprise in healthcare and education.

How did things come to this? How can a policy that should be obvious sense to anyone who has compared the British Telecom of today with its state-owned ancestor, or a North Korean farm with a New Zealand farm, strike the public as unspeakably wrong? How did socialism get into the public bones?

I blame teachers. Resist as we may, they influence us. They have our little minds at their disposal from the ages of 5 to 18, and they are institutionally socialistic. Most are state employees. And most are women. For evolutionary reasons that I will leave you to gather, women are more risk-averse than men and, hence, congenitally disposed towards the nanny state. In the battle for hearts and minds, what chance have we free-marketeers when 90 per cent of the population is educated by female government employees?

Yet the problem with teachers seems to be even deeper than their sex and employment contracts. On Tuesday, Sir Eric Anderson, the Provost of Eton, explained why independent schools should be charities: “Charitable status is a guarantee that the schools are out to do the best for their pupils, not make the most money.”

This displays an almost aristocratic ignorance of economics. It is precisely because competing private enterprises aim to make money that they also try to do the best for their customers. Does Sir Eric really believe that supermarkets, car manufacturers or law firms would serve their customers better if they were charities? A customer must be satisfied, whereas the recipient of your charity ought to be grateful.

Charities are also expensive providers. The absence of profits is not the cost saving that many believe it to be. If it takes an hour of labour and £100 of capital to make a widget, then that is the cost, whether these resources are donated or provided in return for payment. The difference lies in who bears the cost. When donated, the cost is borne by the donors. When invested for profit, the cost must be passed on to the paying customer. This means profit-seeking firms have an incentive for efficiency that charities lack. Whose money will you spend more carefully: a donor’s or a customer’s?

Sir Eric’s sophistry inadvertently provides a reason to remove independent schools’ bogus charitable status. If they were openly commercial enterprises, their headmasters might divert their energy to defending the profit motive. It is more in need of charitable attention than are the children of investment bankers.

Times Recommends

• Never believe Demjanjuk is a ‘victim’
• A strong City is not just good for Britain
• Class warrior ready for one last battle