The outrage over Ruth Kelly's decision to send one of her children has echoes going back through the years. Within recent memory Diane Abbott, Harriet Harman and Tony Blair have all faced a similar hue and cry. In the past Labour politicians have had to defend their personal behaviour on other issues - crossing picket lines, green issues, and in one or two cases (Denis Healey's wife springs to mind) private medical treatment. David Cameron came in for something similar over the green-ness of his regular travel arrangements, but by and large it's been Labour politicians who are called to account for allegedly failing to practice what they preach.
In one sense this is slightly surprising. There was certainly a time when democratic socialism had the character of a moral crusade, where no self-respecting Labour politician would have banked with Barclays or bought a News International paper; but that era was comprehensively buried by Tony Blair almost as soon as he became leader. Whether or not we like the fact, the Labour Government has deliberately encouraged private sector involvement in health and education, and you'd have thought we'd all have stopped being surprised by ministers' actions of this sort. Ruth Kelly is availing herself of something that most of her Bolton constituents could not afford, it is true; but as Tony Blair’s spokesperson stated yesterday, the Labour Government is in favour of a "mix of provision" of state and private schooling and that parents have a right to decide on schools regardless of their job. As David Cameron rather magnanimously pointed out, the Labour Government has absolutely no plans to abolish private education, and in the circumstances there's no real reason why a minister (and certainly one facing particularly difficult personal issues) should not avail themselves of it, if that seems appropriate.
Yet we do remain a little surprised; why? Despite all that has been written and said about the convergence of Labour and Conservative policies, we do still think of Labour as being, well, a little more high-minded than its opponents. Even if New Labour's target voter is not so much a blue collar worker in a council house, as Mondeo man or Worcester woman, the fact is that £15,000 a year fees would be far beyond the reach of normal people. There probably are circumstances in this case which make Ruth Kelly's decision acceptable, where in other circumstances it would have been intolerable. But most Labour politicians and activists would still probably prefer to think of themselves as belonging to a party which thinks twice about such things.
Surely the main problem with Ruth Kelly’s actions however, if she really was offered financial support by her LEA, is that she failed to use public funding to support her child’s special educational needs. We don’t know the full details, and there may have been difficulty in accessing funding, but it gives the impression that Ruth Kelly felt the added financial costs of her child’s education was undeserving of public support. It risks undermining efforts by other parents, with children who have substantial learning difficulties, who have been trying to lift mountains to get the extra funding to enable their children to fulfil their full potential no matter what their disability. As Chair of Governors at a special school I know how much extra money this Government has put our way, but funding barriers remain. Children who need extra tuition or support for their learning difficulties should not be portrayed as a burden on society or the taxpayer. It would have given a much needed boost to the movement if Kelly had made a decision to accept public funding to provide the sort of personalised education that the Government has been promising for children with special needs.
Good piece Jessica.
But the problem with a 'mix of provision' is that private schools are not (or hardly ever) free at the point of use.
Your point about Kelly's choice undermining other, less well off parents in the same position is surely closely linked to this.
If the Labour party is about anything, it's about ensuring everyone - including disabled children - get a fair start in life.
If it costs parents £15,000 to educate their child adequately, then clearly our society is extremely unfair and unequal. And clearly private schools are a major part of the problem.
Posted by: Tom | Tuesday, January 09, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Not sure I understand the argument that it would have been better if Kelly had accepted public funding in this case. Surely she would have then been accused of using public money that could have been spent more appropriately on a poorer family. Another case, I'm afraid, of New Labour ministers just not being able to win whatever they do.
Posted by: Stan | Tuesday, January 09, 2007 at 06:49 PM
Kelly should have resigned. She shut umpteen schools for children with special needs, telling parents that their kids should integrate. I've always supported the Labour party, but no longer. Its been taken over by career politicians who are without principle. I look forward to massive Labour losses in the regional elections. The sooner we get rid of these hypocrites the better
Posted by: Helen | Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Ruth Kelly had a difficult choice-thats agreed. Its being portrayed that she made the correct choice by putting the interests of her child ahead of politics. Thats sounds good, but she got elected by people who, for the most, would not be able to afford to exercise that choice. Its sophistry to suggest that Kelly is not a hypocrite simply because the Labour Party is not opposed to private schooling. The Labour movement has always opposed education in exchange for cash. I do not buy the argument that Kelly saved the state cash by paying for her own childs education. Most kids with dyslexia get a bit of one-to-one with a classroom assistant rather than 17 grands worth of private education in an oak-pannelled listed building in Oxfordshire. The suggestion that kids with mild dyslexia get anything more is risible. Kelly is a hypocrite-its a horrible word, but the cap fits.
Posted by: Di | Saturday, January 13, 2007 at 06:43 PM
Its unacceptable that it takes about 18 months to get a child 'statemented' when the maximum time should be 3 months. Why do we allow this situation to continue?
Posted by: swatantra nandanwar | Monday, January 15, 2007 at 03:16 PM