Ruth Kelly's child at 'private school'

Former Member

CptCoatHanger wrote:

Dude, you’re going to have to elaborate on this one for me. Do you honestly believe that state run schools, which offer free (paid for with taxes, yes) education to everyone below the age of 18, are in fact a “socialist abomination and a national disgrace”?

Buoyed on by interest, I've looked into this a bit. The old grammar school system worked pretty well, though I admit it wasn't perfect. For instance, I don't agree that university should be something that is open only to a tiny number of people who have been through the education system. Grammar schools were, for many, a step up. A chance to better their lot. A chance for people on run-down estates to make something of their lives. The secondary modern system wasn't perfect either, but it seems better to me than the comprehensive system, introduced by Labour and Tory MPs, claiming the previous system was "elitist". These people, of course, wouldn't know what elitism was if it kicked them in the arses.

What hope does a comprehensive school with demoralised teachers, poor facilities and poor discipline offer to a child on a run-down council estate who probably hasn't seen his father for years? Britain has substituted a far from flawless system which helped social mobility for a system which has brought it crashing to a halt. In Blair's Britain, if you're born poor, you're more likely than ever to stay that way. I agree that it isn't solely Blair's government's fault, but he has done absolutely nothing to deal with this national disgrace.

Former Member

Grammar schools are still state schools

Former Member

It's interesting that the LEA are denying all knowledge of "agreeing to it", and in fact are saying that the local schools are more than adequate and that they don't understand Kelly's decision. Who'd have thunk that a NewLabour cabinet minister would lie?

Hopefully it will cost her her seat in Bolton.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

Hopefully it will cost her her seat in Bolton.

1997 -
Labour Election Pledge = "Education, education, education"

2007 -
Labour minister pays for private tuition because local school cannot meet her child's needs.

Always nice to see progress.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

It's interesting that the LEA are denying all knowledge of "agreeing to it", and in fact are saying that the local schools are more than adequate and that they don't understand Kelly's decision. Who'd have thunk that a NewLabour cabinet minister would lie?

Hopefully it will cost her her seat in Bolton.

it looks like she might be 'parachuted' to a safe seat :S ie south bolton

Former Member

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

it looks like she might be 'parachuted' to a safe seat :S ie south bolton

I don't think Ruth Kelly need worry about losing her seat over this. A few years ago, Diane Abbott took her child out of the state system, to the howls of dogmatic MPs from the Neanderthal, sorry I mean, Labour Party. It's done her no harm in the long run.

Former Member

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

it looks like she might be 'parachuted' to a safe seat :S ie south bolton

Not if the Party acitvists have anything to do with it.

Sadly though, under Blair and Brown they don't.

Former Member

And now the spoiled little Catholic nutjob is complaining against the paper that revealed to the puiblic the full extent of her hypocrisy and lies:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6253935.stm

She's just like the rest of them.

Former Member

What's her being Catholic got to do with anything?

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

Her actions now will be just as important. Her child should not suffer, being as innocent as all others in this position.

If she uses the "case" to support a push for better state funded support then great, if she doesn't then she is saying "well fuck you lot, I can afford it but you're on your own".

She has to take responsibilty for her lack of action as Sec State and, as she is paying from her own pocket, it could be argued that she is. Her failure, which this highlights, is for all those children whose parents cannot afford the level of education which she, herself, is able to provide for her child. Those ar ethe people we should focus on. Condemn her for failing them, not for supporting her child.

Well said. :yes: