I RECENTLY heard about comments by David Cameron regarding interns. He said he was “relaxed” about giving his and his neighbour’s children an advantage when it comes to opportunities.

Clearly, everyone would want to help their children get on in life and access as many opportunities as possible, that is how society operates.

But it’s not necessarily “natural” to promote progression at our neighbours’ expense.

Arguably, since the 1950s governments have been consistent in fostering a “rise in meritocracy”, most famously championed by John Major.

There is both a moral obligation and a social imperative in this shared political consensus. For the Prime Minister to work against this and protect generational privilege is both morally regressive and socially irresponsible.

David Cameron is happy to entrench the status quo because he, his neighbours and their friends, have overwhelmingly benefited from it.

The simple reason why he and his chums are at the top of the tree is because that’s where they started.

J Irvine, Stephens Road, Brighton

I READ with interest the comment piece by Anne Aughwane of Burgess Hill School For Girls (The Argus, April 8).

I never realised our privileged youth suffered so much.

Not only do they have to endure a superb education guaranteeing them entry to top universities; not only will daddy make them miss out on the rough-and-tumble of student digs by buying them a luxury flat in Cambridge for the duration; not only will daddy deny them the joy of jobhunting afterwards by fixing up a nice sinecure at his office in the city (not to mention taking care of that student debt nonsense); but they may now have to compete with some oik from a council estate for that place at Oxbridge.

As the family manservant no doubt will say: “Lawdy lawdy, Massa James, what is de world comin’ to?”

Paul Sutcliffe, Whitegates Close, Lewes