MORE NEW LABOUR HYPOCRISY - "DO AS I SAY ....NOT AS I DO.."

chimera

LE
Moderator
#1
Do these people have no shame:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6240165.stm

Nice to see Blair (educated Fettes College (private school) and Oxford) defending Kelly (educated Westminster School (private) and Oxford) over her decision to send one of her children to a private school. Those things to which the Labour Party is institutionally and ideologically opposed.
 
#2
It's akin to Mr Ratners bollock drop remark about his products a few years ago.

Clearly not confident in what she was supposedly in charge of when in office.
 
#3
No. Even though I have absolutely no time for and frankly worry about the influence Kelly, a member of a fundamentalist christian group, has on our education system, for once I think we should back off this.

The child in question is special needs. Some areas have excellent special needs schools (my sister was lucky enough to attend one of these). Some are poor.

However, the needs of the child must come first. I don't know what level of special needs her child has but I can't blame her for using the best around to maximise her child's happiness and well being.

The deliberate policy of closing special needs schools and placing children back into mainstream schools, which has not worked and probably is the reason she doesn't have a good state spec needs school close to hand is something we could speak about instead.
 

elovabloke

ADC
Moderator
#6
in_the_cheapseats said:
No. Even though I have absolutely no time for and frankly worry about the influence Kelly, a member of a fundamentalist christian group, has on our education system, for once I think we should back off this.

The child in question is special needs. Some areas have excellent special needs schools (my sister was lucky enough to attend one of these). Some are poor.

However, the needs of the child must come first. I don't know what level of special needs her child has but I can't blame her for using the best around to maximise her child's happiness and well being.

The deliberate policy of closing special needs schools and placing children back into mainstream schools, which has not worked and probably is the reason she doesn't have a good state spec needs school close to hand is something we could speak about instead.


A Labour policy I believe.
 

Ex_ex

War Hero
#8
Mong offspring? Surely not!

 
#9
Ex_ex said:
Mong offspring? Surely not!


Fuck me with a fish fork. There is deffo several more chromasones than the norm in that one. She has the classic dribbly bottom lip and lazy eye. No doubt super human strength too. Hardly suprising her sprog is a cabbage.
 
#10
in_the_cheapseats said:
No. Even though I have absolutely no time for and frankly worry about the influence Kelly, a member of a fundamentalist christian group, has on our education system, for once I think we should back off this.

The child in question is special needs. Some areas have excellent special needs schools (my sister was lucky enough to attend one of these). Some are poor.

However, the needs of the child must come first. I don't know what level of special needs her child has but I can't blame her for using the best around to maximise her child's happiness and well being.

The deliberate policy of closing special needs schools and placing children back into mainstream schools, which has not worked and probably is the reason she doesn't have a good state spec needs school close to hand is something we could speak about instead.
Isn't this what every parent who sends their child to a private school is trying to do? Are you supposed to not want the best for your child because they're not special needs?

I'm afraid Kelly is still a hypocrite. If she had morals she would practice what she preaches, special needs or not.
 
#11
Although it is good to see Labour hoisted by its own petard, I feel some sympathy for Ruth Kelly.

Firstly, it is a shame that the State system cannot provide her child with an education that meets its needs, even when those reported needs put it outside the normal boundary of State education. Secondly, if she wants to spend her dosh on private education, that is alright and is her choice. The public funds that would have been spent on her child will now help towards the overall budget elsewhere.

It is the rank hypocrisy of the Labour Government that gets to me; they dismantled a perfectly good system that provided a state education system based on ability, and invented an education system that depends on how much money, or political influence, parents can wield. Where is the sense in that? The smart child, born of poor parents who live in the catchment area of a poor school, now has great difficulty escaping from that background - because the parents cannot afford to move to the catchment area of a better school or to pay for private education. Even the Assisted Places scheme has been destroyed, and Northern Ireland is about to lose its grammar schools (courtesy of Martin McGuinness....).

Is this Socialism? It isn't what I understand to be Socialism. This is part of the "I'm alright, Jack" culture that I abhor.

Hypocritical? Yes, and she therefore deserves the opprobium that will be heaped upon her.

/and breathe....

Litotes
 

elovabloke

ADC
Moderator
#12
According to the news this morning the child was ryxlexic which, if true, hardly requires a special school - is the private school a specialist one? Our college deals with at least a 100 dyslexic students all the time.
 
#13
Surly there must be other kids with the same, or worse, conditions that have to stay in state education. What of those poeple that can't afford to send their children to a private school. It might come as a blow to Mrs Kelly but not everyone earns £100,000 a year with a nice fat expense account on top.

Remember, we are all equal, but some are more equal than others.
 

elovabloke

ADC
Moderator
#14
bobath said:
Remember, we are all equal, but some are more equal than others.
Labour speak - at least the conservatives and our senior hofficer brigade never hide their contempt of us.
 

chimera

LE
Moderator
#15
in_the_cheapseats said:
However, the needs of the child must come first. I can't blame her for using the best around to maximise her child's happiness and well being.
Why does the fact that the child has special needs suddenly shift the political position on education? The Labour Party is ideologically opposed to any form of private or selective education - you either agree or you don't. Your quote above could be applied to ANY parent seeking the best for their child.
 
#16
Never mind double-standards on education - what about that lilac jacket she had on the other day? Oh my dears, she has special needs in the fashion department herself!

She is a typically "do as I say not as I do" New Labour apparatchik, with the moral bottom of a fish-slice and the charm of a dung-beetle. She has actively progressed an edication policy which appears to be bankrupt and failing but has the cheek to say her child's needs come first. first as in before those of your child and mine that is...
 
#17
The Lord Flasheart said:
Ex_ex said:
Mong offspring? Surely not!


Fuck me with a fish fork. There is deffo several more chromasones than the norm in that one. She has the classic dribbly bottom lip and lazy eye. No doubt super human strength too. Hardly suprising her sprog is a cabbage.
Maybe she had something going with her brother or father - explain the mong child wouldn't it....
 
#18
Any mother in Ruth Kelly's position would want the best for her child. If the financial resources are there, and private education is the best solution, go for it! I would. Unfortunately, most people do not have the luxury of choice. So much for egalitarian socialism. Reminds me of the Soviet era, when Communist Party hacks enjoyed the best of everything, while the proletariat made do.

What especially annoys me is that New Labour has made it harder for parents of Special Needs children to get the provision they require. Specialist schools have been closed, and those who benefited from them have been consigned to local comprehensives. Doesn't work, does it Ruth?

I hope that in the days ahead the former Education Secretary announces that the policy she championed is wrong. As a good Catholic, I am sure she will want to exhibit some integrity!
 
#19
Winstanley said:
....I hope that in the days ahead the former Education Secretary announces that the policy she championed is wrong. As a good Catholic, I am sure she will want to exhibit some integrity!
A good Catholic she might be, but she is also a Labour Minister and integrity therefore comes way behind The Party and The Plan!

Litotes
 
#20
It could have been worse.
Tony Bliar pulled strings to get his kids in the the posh Oratory school. Not exactly private, but Grant Maintained- which is against New Commie thinking. Why? There were catholic schools in his catchment area.
The school he chose "just happened" to be predominantly white/ British/ middle class.
At least the journos are starting to ask pertinent questions nowadays
 

Similar threads


Top