Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
Good God, I just saw an utter cretin on the news..

I don't get all the 'scandal' to do with Ruth Kelly sending her child to a private school - is she supposed to lie and pretend that state schools are somehow better? Because they really aren't, and I don't see why somebody should be punished for working in government by being prohibited from sending their child to a better school that costs money..

But there was this awful old man on BBC Breakfast, thankfully I didn't catch his name.. One of his points, in answer to the (perfectly valid) argument "Everyone would send their children to private school if they could", was that most people can't afford it, therefore how dare she? So basically it's some sort of anger over the fact that MPs can afford to send their children to private school whereas the public can't.. Why is she being singled out exactly? Surely she gets paid the going rate for an MP in her position - the only difference between her and anybody else is that she's forking out fifteen grand per year on her child's education - clearly she must be burned as a witch..

It's a stupid argument though - of course most people can't afford it, but that's no reason to get so pissed off at the ones who can.. Either they're entitled to the money they earn or they're not - if not, then it's their salary that's the issue, not what they're doing with it.

Then he went off on one about how politicians need to serve their constituents first, and their children second. What the Hell is that about? I wouldn't vote for somebody who put their job ahead of their children, and I don't think that's what politics should be about. We're electing representatives, and I would want my representative to be a human being. Anybody who sends their child to a second rate school to please the electorate would never get my vote..

I'm not saying that I'm necessarily a supporter of private schools, but I know that if I had the money to send my kids there, I would.. And I don't see why the job somebody does should mean they have to reconsider the choices they make about their children's upbringing.

  • 1
I suspect its the die hard lefty labourites who border on communist who are stirring this one up.

Having said that though, the debate also centres on the fact her son has learning difficulties. If this is the case her utilisation of a private school could be seen as an indication that state schools cannot adequately provide for such individuals in her locale.

She has the money therefore she has the choice BUT, it must seriously dent her ability to a) play up the capabilities of state schools to parents in similar situations and b) spout ANY socialist ideals in the near future. Having said that - whats socialist about "new" labour anyway!

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account