Ruth Kelly's decision to choose a private school

The Scotsman wrote:

Ms Kelly, the former Education Secretary, was named yesterday as the minister who is sending her son to an exclusive Home Counties boarding school after conferring with Tower Hamlets, her local education authority in inner London.

/discuss..

Personal view is that she will be a parent long after she has left the world of politics and if this is best for her child then I do not blame her for doing it.

The one issue I do have is that the policy of inclusion for all into secondary education is ridiculous as from my own very limited experience it is impossible to cater for all the needs of my pupils in a mixed ability class when some of the less able pupils have quite challenging educational needs and other more able pupils need to have extension work to keep them engaged.

I think that she really can't win. People who have the means to change their situation but don't are often criticised anyway.

I always wondered why the Queen Mother didn't get her teeth fixed... instead of spending it in Ladbrokes.

Seriously though... I don't think that Local Authorities are providing the best help for children with greater need and I can't criticise her for doing this. There have to be some benefits to being a high profile figure and she is simply putting to good use the money she earns.

At one time I would have been horrified but I didn't renew my party membership, realising that having to pay for what your family needs is now a reality and no government is likely to improve the situation.

I say 'leave the poor woman alone' - and I suspect this one will blow over. It's hard to have a go at someone who's kid has problems. Even David Cameron is going easy on her.

She rode out the Opus Dei issue and I'm sure she'll ride out this one.

As for the QM's teeth - I think Camilla's aren't that great either.

fizzywizzy wrote:

At one time I would have been horrified but I didn't renew my party membership, realising that having to pay for what your family needs is now a reality and no government is likely to improve the situation.

Yes , I agree with this part in particular, the reality is no government can provide everything we need and want, (not when one of our wants is lower taxes..and I speak generally, some would argue they don't mind paying more - but we could all tip our entire salaries into the pot and there still wouldnt be enough cash to go around). It's the same with health I guess.

I don't think she has done wrong at all by doing what she did, I think it is another example of the media trying to create a scandal.

koshkha wrote:

Even David Cameron is going easy on her.

.

Yes, I guess he is in a similar position, and he is a father first, politician second.

I think the most-recommended comment on the BBC Have Your Say forum says it all:

Quote :

She wishes to do what is best for her child, which I understand and respect. She is also a political hypocrite, which I expect and hate.

I have no problem with people doing best for themselves and their family, but when they in the business of dictating policy that helps prevent others from having those same benefits and is a member of the labour party, I think they should expect to be tarred with the brush of hypocrisy. Its like these ex-communist party members in labour how seem to have become arch capitalists, Michael Meacher and his seven houses for example.

I understand that peoples views change but politicians often change their world view only when there is something in it for themselves.

I agree that it looks pretty crass - telling parents there's nothing wrong with state schools and that standards are improving, etc, etc and then sending your child to a private school. However, I think what is needed is just a pretty thorough overhaul of what the Labour Party stands for. After all, I think that most people would agree that we can't really expect the taxes we pay to provide all that we want.

Maybe this is a case of Ms Kelly thinking aloud?