IT'S funny, isn't it, how sometimes you end up sympathising with people you have generally disliked in the past?
Take Ruth Kelly, for example. On a professional level, as a journalist, I've met her twice. I've found her to be generally off-hand, unhelpful and ever so slightly patronising of anyone who hasn't signed up to the New Labour belief-sphere lock, stock and barrel.
So how odd that I find myself feeling sorry for the semi-mauling she's taken in the papers - simply because she's put one of her children - with special needs - into a private school because she doesn't feel the right education is available in the state sector.
Ok, so she's an MP, and more than most MPs, has had the chance to influence education policy. But the Government's push towards placing as many special needs pupils in mainstream education as possible wasn't her idea.
No, it was that of David Blunkett MP, who writes in his Sun column today: "All politicians are vulnerable because they may not have made enough progress to avoid the accusation that what they expect for others, they don't expect for themselves."
That's a rather rich statement from Blunkett, who always insists he should never have had to resign from the cabinet - on either occasion - and who didn't believe the public should be so interested in his private affairs, before releasing a book detailing those affairs.
He goes on: "Surely the task we face is making major progress so we don't have to take these difficult decisions. Or more important, don't exclude those who don't have enough income to make these choices."
Again, rather rich - seeing as he has effectively created this situation by forcing special needs provision into the mainstream and, according to parents involved, diluted the ability of such services to be as specialist as each child may need.
And as for not excluding those who don't have enough income to make the choices - as the first education secretary following the 97 Labour landslide, can he explain where some of the support packages for getting youngsters into the private sector when they needed such support, went?
Funny how some people you should respect you end up disliking with a passion?
But, having established that perhaps David Blunkett is perhaps being more of a hypocrite - or, at best, forgetful - than Ruth Kelly, what should we expect from her?
Well, to my mind, it's not what she's done that is the problem - she, after all, is doing what's best for her children within her means - but what she now does in the future.
Within her means is the ability to rattle cages in Cabinet and point out that the system is wrong. To point out she is one of the lucky ones, who can fund a private education, and not one of the parents who have to fight for support to help their child.
Old Labour hands who want to hit out at her for appearing to say 'what's good enough for you is not good enough for me' have got it wrong. Three of her children are in state schools - which is more than can be said for the likes of Mr Blair's children - so, where possible she's shown she is perfectly happy to use state schools.
And perhaps the fact she has only turned to a private school now is an even greater ringing endorsement for state schools - that she felt they were so good for her other children that she didn't feel the need to put them into private schools, and only turned to one in desperations. That does rather contrast with Blair's determination to keep his sprogs away from the unwashed public.
Ruth Kelly now has the chance to make sure other parents don't face the same tough choice as her - or the even tougher fight to get what's right for their child when they don't have funds at their disposal - but to have David Blunkett telling her this when he's the one to blame for the problem shows where the real charge of hypocrisy lies.
Take Ruth Kelly, for example. On a professional level, as a journalist, I've met her twice. I've found her to be generally off-hand, unhelpful and ever so slightly patronising of anyone who hasn't signed up to the New Labour belief-sphere lock, stock and barrel.
So how odd that I find myself feeling sorry for the semi-mauling she's taken in the papers - simply because she's put one of her children - with special needs - into a private school because she doesn't feel the right education is available in the state sector.
Ok, so she's an MP, and more than most MPs, has had the chance to influence education policy. But the Government's push towards placing as many special needs pupils in mainstream education as possible wasn't her idea.
No, it was that of David Blunkett MP, who writes in his Sun column today: "All politicians are vulnerable because they may not have made enough progress to avoid the accusation that what they expect for others, they don't expect for themselves."
That's a rather rich statement from Blunkett, who always insists he should never have had to resign from the cabinet - on either occasion - and who didn't believe the public should be so interested in his private affairs, before releasing a book detailing those affairs.
He goes on: "Surely the task we face is making major progress so we don't have to take these difficult decisions. Or more important, don't exclude those who don't have enough income to make these choices."
Again, rather rich - seeing as he has effectively created this situation by forcing special needs provision into the mainstream and, according to parents involved, diluted the ability of such services to be as specialist as each child may need.
And as for not excluding those who don't have enough income to make the choices - as the first education secretary following the 97 Labour landslide, can he explain where some of the support packages for getting youngsters into the private sector when they needed such support, went?
Funny how some people you should respect you end up disliking with a passion?
But, having established that perhaps David Blunkett is perhaps being more of a hypocrite - or, at best, forgetful - than Ruth Kelly, what should we expect from her?
Well, to my mind, it's not what she's done that is the problem - she, after all, is doing what's best for her children within her means - but what she now does in the future.
Within her means is the ability to rattle cages in Cabinet and point out that the system is wrong. To point out she is one of the lucky ones, who can fund a private education, and not one of the parents who have to fight for support to help their child.
Old Labour hands who want to hit out at her for appearing to say 'what's good enough for you is not good enough for me' have got it wrong. Three of her children are in state schools - which is more than can be said for the likes of Mr Blair's children - so, where possible she's shown she is perfectly happy to use state schools.
And perhaps the fact she has only turned to a private school now is an even greater ringing endorsement for state schools - that she felt they were so good for her other children that she didn't feel the need to put them into private schools, and only turned to one in desperations. That does rather contrast with Blair's determination to keep his sprogs away from the unwashed public.
Ruth Kelly now has the chance to make sure other parents don't face the same tough choice as her - or the even tougher fight to get what's right for their child when they don't have funds at their disposal - but to have David Blunkett telling her this when he's the one to blame for the problem shows where the real charge of hypocrisy lies.
1 comment:
Blunkett is one of the most monumental hypocrites in the entire New Labour pantheon. Remember his 1995 conference speech "read my lips, no selection by academic ability..."
Post a Comment