Comments on: What’s good for the gander is not necessarily good for the goose… http://www.edelmangraduatescheme.com/2007/01/08/whats-good-for-the-gander-is-not-necessarily-good-for-the-goose/ The 2009 Edelman Graduates Blog Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:14:53 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Tom http://www.edelmangraduatescheme.com/2007/01/08/whats-good-for-the-gander-is-not-necessarily-good-for-the-goose/comment-page-1/#comment-83 Tom Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:08:28 +0000 http://blog.edelmangrads.co.uk/?p=69#comment-83 How do you mean unbalanced? I think all the comments made are well thought out and reasoned. What is your take on the situation? How do you mean unbalanced? I think all the comments made are well thought out and reasoned. What is your take on the situation?

]]> By: shoes-news http://www.edelmangraduatescheme.com/2007/01/08/whats-good-for-the-gander-is-not-necessarily-good-for-the-goose/comment-page-1/#comment-84 shoes-news Wed, 07 Feb 2007 01:13:39 +0000 http://blog.edelmangrads.co.uk/?p=69#comment-84 Hallo! ;) hey... what unbalanced comments! what do you consider about it? Hallo! ;)
hey… what unbalanced comments!
what do you consider about it?

]]> By: Charlotte http://www.edelmangraduatescheme.com/2007/01/08/whats-good-for-the-gander-is-not-necessarily-good-for-the-goose/comment-page-1/#comment-82 Charlotte Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:27:42 +0000 http://blog.edelmangrads.co.uk/?p=69#comment-82 I agree that Ruth Kelly has to make her decision as a parent first and politician second, however, the irony of the situation would suggest that something has to be done to improve inner-city schooling. I agree that Ruth Kelly has to make her decision as a parent first and politician second, however, the irony of the situation would suggest that something has to be done to improve inner-city schooling.

]]> By: Mark Hadley http://www.edelmangraduatescheme.com/2007/01/08/whats-good-for-the-gander-is-not-necessarily-good-for-the-goose/comment-page-1/#comment-81 Mark Hadley Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:42:30 +0000 http://blog.edelmangrads.co.uk/?p=69#comment-81 I think Ruth Kelly has done the right thing by sending her child to private school, Kelly has simply chosen what she believes the best option for her child who has special educational needs, any mother would surely do the same. I also think it is natural that Kelly should put her family and her role as a mother first above that of her political career. I doubt her career will suffer from this incident; she has not totally snubbed state education and indeed sends her other children to state schools. Also luckily for her, she is no longer education secretary! I think Ruth Kelly has done the right thing by sending her child to private school, Kelly has simply chosen what she believes the best option for her child who has special educational needs, any mother would surely do the same. I also think it is natural that Kelly should put her family and her role as a mother first above that of her political career.

I doubt her career will suffer from this incident; she has not totally snubbed state education and indeed sends her other children to state schools. Also luckily for her, she is no longer education secretary!

]]> By: Jamie http://www.edelmangraduatescheme.com/2007/01/08/whats-good-for-the-gander-is-not-necessarily-good-for-the-goose/comment-page-1/#comment-80 Jamie Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:30:03 +0000 http://blog.edelmangrads.co.uk/?p=69#comment-80 I have no problem with what Ruth Kelly has done. She has not chosen to educate all of her children in the private sector -- which would be quite remarkable for a Labour former cabinet minister (not to mention former education secretary) after 10 years in power. In the case of one of her children it seems that she did not feel that local state provision adequately addressed a special educational need for that child and has found a private alternative which does. However, on one level Labour have no right to complain. Many Conservative ministers and MPs sent their children to private schools during their 18 years in office -- and were attacked strongly by Labour for doing so. As you say in your blog "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". I have no problem with what Ruth Kelly has done. She has not chosen to educate all of her children in the private sector — which would be quite remarkable for a Labour former cabinet minister (not to mention former education secretary) after 10 years in power. In the case of one of her children it seems that she did not feel that local state provision adequately addressed a special educational need for that child and has found a private alternative which does.

However, on one level Labour have no right to complain. Many Conservative ministers and MPs sent their children to private schools during their 18 years in office — and were attacked strongly by Labour for doing so. As you say in your blog “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”.

]]> By: Charmaine http://www.edelmangraduatescheme.com/2007/01/08/whats-good-for-the-gander-is-not-necessarily-good-for-the-goose/comment-page-1/#comment-79 Charmaine Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:06:06 +0000 http://blog.edelmangrads.co.uk/?p=69#comment-79 As the presenter at BBC News at 10 last night puts it, the debate here does not necessary lie in the fact that a Labour MP has let a child go to a private school, but that it's about "special needs". These two small but significant word in the now overly politically correct focused society means that Ruth Kelly is almost forgiven with sympathy. That being said, why should the public decide which school a child should go to - whether he/she is the offspring of a MP or not? As the presenter at BBC News at 10 last night puts it, the debate here does not necessary lie in the fact that a Labour MP has let a child go to a private school, but that it’s about “special needs”. These two small but significant word in the now overly politically correct focused society means that Ruth Kelly is almost forgiven with sympathy.

That being said, why should the public decide which school a child should go to – whether he/she is the offspring of a MP or not?

]]> By: Tom http://www.edelmangraduatescheme.com/2007/01/08/whats-good-for-the-gander-is-not-necessarily-good-for-the-goose/comment-page-1/#comment-78 Tom Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:50:15 +0000 http://blog.edelmangrads.co.uk/?p=69#comment-78 Whilst i realise it's not exactly the 'done thing' to comment on one's own blog, I just thought i'd add a brief afterthought in light of the coverage this story gained in the papers today (09.01.2007). Some of the papers (<a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1985939,00.html" rel="nofollow">The Guardian</a> and <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=1020" rel="nofollow">The Daily Express</a> to name but two) list other MPs that have gone down the same route as Ms Kelly, amongst them, Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman, Diane Abbott (who had peviously criticised Ms Harman for the very same thing...pot...kettle...), Paul Boateng.....the list goes on. There is plenty of opinionated commentary throughout all the papers on this issue, civilian firebrands giving their tuppence worth and general discontent with the move made by Ms Kelly. Despite this, i still find myself in support of her move. To me, for her to choose to send her child to a private school because of his disability is not a vote of no confidence in state schools. What Ms Kelly has done is in essence, no different from one person buying one particular brand of car over another - it is not indicative of their lack of confidence in the sidelined brand, rather their preference for the other, for a potential legion of reasons. To extend this metaphor to its very limits - one could suggest that Ms Kelly has favoured a 4x4* over a motorbike - it's larger, more capable and provides better protection to its passenger. In any case - Ms Kelly has made it quite clear that once her son is no longer in need of such specialist care and education, she will return him to a state school or, i guess, at least let him ride pillion... *no comments about who should/should not drive 4x4s etc etc ;o) Whilst i realise it’s not exactly the ‘done thing’ to comment on one’s own blog, I just thought i’d add a brief afterthought in light of the coverage this story gained in the papers today (09.01.2007).

Some of the papers (The Guardian and The Daily Express to name but two) list other MPs that have gone down the same route as Ms Kelly, amongst them, Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman, Diane Abbott (who had peviously criticised Ms Harman for the very same thing…pot…kettle…), Paul Boateng…..the list goes on.

There is plenty of opinionated commentary throughout all the papers on this issue, civilian firebrands giving their tuppence worth and general discontent with the move made by Ms Kelly.

Despite this, i still find myself in support of her move. To me, for her to choose to send her child to a private school because of his disability is not a vote of no confidence in state schools. What Ms Kelly has done is in essence, no different from one person buying one particular brand of car over another – it is not indicative of their lack of confidence in the sidelined brand, rather their preference for the other, for a potential legion of reasons. To extend this metaphor to its very limits – one could suggest that Ms Kelly has favoured a 4×4* over a motorbike – it’s larger, more capable and provides better protection to its passenger. In any case – Ms Kelly has made it quite clear that once her son is no longer in need of such specialist care and education, she will return him to a state school or, i guess, at least let him ride pillion…

*no comments about who should/should not drive 4×4s etc etc ;o)

]]>