We hate Ruth

HERE'S a thought. Imagine a very orthodox Muslim man became an education minister and then decided that the Government shouldn't fund college education, post-16, for Muslim women because it conflicted with his beliefs.

Or a health minister who was a Jehovah's Witness trying his best to give doctors the power to deny blood transfusions to patients because it might interfere with the medic's beliefs?

What would happen? There would, I hope, be moral outrage, an absolute refusal for it to happen. It's the sort of thing that couldn't happen, could it?

But is it so far removed from having a hardline Catholic running the department responsible for equality legislation trying her best to make sure said legislation is equal for all as long as you are not gay?

I don't think so. Two weeks ago, for what it's worth, I felt a tad sorry for Ruth Kelly over the hoo-harr about her son being sent to a private school because she felt it was the best solution for his 'special needs.' For the record, that sympathy vanished when she decided to report The Daily Mirror to the Press Complaints Commission on the grounds that her son's privacy had been invaded.

Bobbins Ruth. By reporting it to the PCC you've made it look as though your son should be embarrassed by his dyslexia, and should try and hide it. You've stigmatised your son when you could have become a champion for better mainstream education.

She's one of those ministers who seems to attract trouble wherever they go. In the 'communities' department, you'd expect her to keep a low profile - and not try and torpedo equality legislation the department is promoting by demanding an opt out for the Catholic church.

Although Tony Blair - whose relationship with the Catholic church is, like most things associated with the great man, a tad odd - has since ruled there will be no opt out for the Catholic adoption agencies when it comes to giving gay couples equal status when placing children, questions still remain about the role of Ms Kelly.

The MP for Bolton whose children go to school in Tower Hamlets, wasn't voted in by the good people of Bolton because she is a severe Catholic. She was voted in because she represented Labour, which has made a great point of putting equality close to the top of its agenda.

She needs to remember that point. Perhaps the people of Bolton were pushing for her to put the boot into the gay community on adoption. Do gay couples make good parents? Probably as guaranteed to do so as a straight couple - surely it all comes down to the individuals involved.

And if the people of Bolton are telling her to push this point, then she needs to resign from her position. She's rather like the chief executive of Barclaycard, who famously said he'd never have one of his cards because the interest rate is too high.

But as with most things New Labour, Ruth Kelly is able to continue in her role largely due to the fact those around her are able to ignore certain parts of the equation. Does Hazel Blears, the party chairman and rule enforcer actively campaigning against a Government policy in her constituency not mean she is in conflict with her party? Apparently not. Does the fact the deputy prime minister was humilated after having a fling mean he now doesn't have the gravitas to continue in office? Apparently not.

And does all this pretty much guarantee Labour will get a good kicking at the next election? When you look across the floor at Cameron and his mob, and ask yourself if they'd be any better, there is only one answer: Apparently not.