PETER Luff and Mike Foster are exchanging letters again.

The current topic, as with previous exchanges, is school funding.

Peter wrote first after being criticised by Mike in an Evening News story last month.

Peter, who was making the point that Worcestershire gets very little money from special Government funding pots, forgot to ask Ministers a question about Specialist School status.

Mike was unhappy as the county does benefit under this scheme and he had indicated this was why Peter had not asked the question.

In his letter, Peter assured him this was "not a deliberate error", and asked Mike if there was anything else he should be asking about.

The last paragraph then read: "I want to have a debate on the facts and strictly on the facts.

"The fact seems to be that inequality under your Government has grown as far as Worcestershire is concerned, but if I am wrong I will say so."

Clearly, this last bit upset Mike because his reply - seen by the News - is a little more pointed in tone.

It smacks, in fact, of the sort of thing Gordon Brown might say over the despatch box in the Commons.

"The answer to your question about 'inequality' needs to be looked at carefully. The starting point needs to be: "What is meant by "inequality" and how do you measure it"?

"I am pleased to read that you accept the average per pupil formula spending share (the average amount spent on each child in the county) is not a proper basis for "inequality"", he says.

Then he gets to the Brownite bit.

"One comparison that could be made, although I haven't as yet done it myself, is to compare say, all funding per pupil with that paid for a child entering a private school in the county, say the Royal Grammar.

"Then we can see whether the "inequality" between state schools and private schools has grown or not."

Funding gaps between public and private schools? The Chancellor himself would be proud.

He then goes for a suspiciously tongue-in-cheek sign-off.

"As ever, I'd be happy to help out with any statistical evidence needed for such an assessment".

Peter's reply, when it comes, should be well worth reading.