Differing agendas
| 17:57 UK time, Tuesday, 9 January 2007
The story that got our audiences going yesterday was the decision by cabinet minister, Ruth Kelly, to move one of her four children that could provide better for his special educational needs.
Interestingly our audiences across radio, TV and don't seem to see this as a political story - most were sympathetic to Ms Kelly - which is at odds with many of the headline writers in the press and political journos, as well as some MPs who accused her of hypocrisy.
The thing that's really generated interest is the way children with special needs are catered for in our education system with many people offering moving personal stories. It's part of the brief of The World Tonight to offer a different take or angle on the big stories to our Radio Four sister programmes, Today, The World at One and PM. They had already looked at the political side of the story, so we decided to look at the substantive issues relating to special needs provision highlighted by Ruth Kelly's case (you can listen to the programme here). In the event this seemed to chime with our listeners and, in my opinion, shows the strength of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Radio news which has part of its editorial mindset that each programme should offer listeners something different and - dare I say it - new.
This editorial remit meant The World Tonight was the only programme on Radio Four yesterday to cover the interruption of energy supplies from Russia to the EU via Belarus, as a result of the row between Russia and Belarus about the price Russian companies charge Belarus for its gas and oil. Although there is no imminent danger of the lights going out around the EU, the story is important as it raises the question again of the reliability of Russia as an energy supplier, on the eve of the European Commission announcing its plans to ensure energy security in the light of our increasing dependence on Russian fossil fuels (which the World Tonight will also cover).
The story also challenges assumptions made by journalists and commentators last year that Russia was using its energy supplies to former Soviet states as a tool to punish those - like Ukraine and Georgia - who are pro-western. Belarus is in no way pro-western - indeed its leadership is subject to sanctions due to their human rights record - but has now fallen foul of the Kremlin as well - though in the event the EU is caught in the crossfire so to speak.
Comments
Well, it must be the 'nightmare scenario' for any conspicuous politician to be faced with a traditional 'party line' and then to opt differently - for personal interest and beliefs - for their own family's well-being.
Clearly, Ms Kelly has greater choice in her alternatives for best support for her special needs child. I'm afraid that this is where the conflict is seated, for me. If the Government made such provisions for the needs of all challenged children, then there could be no objection.
But New Labour sculpts a very unequal playing field - despite the steanrollering that prevails!
Its all very well for Ruth Kelly 'making the best choice' but in truth its not a choice the majority of people have. From what i have gathered her claim that the state system did not meet her childs requirments and the council would of paid for her childs private education but she chose to pay is frankly a load of rubbish. I work in a school that has many children with learning difficulties and major disabilities and they do very well.
In fact the fact he has learning difficulties is irrelevant. Just as if he was a normal child there was a very good state solution available but an even better solution in the private sector, so she chose private. Which is all very well for her but not most.
Considering this is meant to be the labour party this action disgusts me. I am of the view private education should be banned anyway simply because education is a basic human right and just becuase your parents have money doesn't mean you should have an unfair advantage over children of poorer families. Afterall what did you do? Get pushed out of the right mother? Education above all else should be 100% equal for all.
This is yet more proof that Tony Blairs party do not believe in equality and support the idea of a class system and certain people in society 'knowing there place'.
RUTH KELLY
When we have a perfect world with equal and ample provision for everyone there might be a case for politically orientated people to criticize: but then there would have been no need for the move.
Any parent in the position of Ruth Kelly would have done the same: good luck to her and her child.
What do you find so interesting in the fact that normal people do not see this as a political story? Normal people have always known that, in this sort of situation, the media loses sight of reality in its lust for blood.
J, Westerman #3
So you think private education is acceptable? You think the children of wealthier familys deserve a better opertunity in life to achieve somthing and make somthing of themselves becuase you deem them in some way genetically superior than say a child born on a council estate?
So you believe in the wealthy elite and the mass unwashed? A system of hereditry peers and working class people knowing there place?
The UK needs less of people like you.
Re Sam :3 10 Jan 2007
Sam,
Read my memo again and see whether you find anything remotely like the statements you have made.
We live in the world as it is. Until it can be made as we would like it to be, mothers will do what they think best for their own children in the circumstances of the time.
You may be interested to know that I was brought up on a council estate many years ago. The facilities and education available were better than in earlier years and I made full use of them. Conditions now are a further improvement and I think that I have played my part in that.
It is now up to you to make the further improvements that you wish for. There is one thing certain; they will not just happen and no one will give them to you on a plate.
Re #4
Yes, I do believe that if I study and work hard and earn good money I should have the right to spend this on the education of my family. Why not? It so happens I was born on a council estate. I studied hard and now am in a good job so can afford to do this. Why should I be forced to send them to the local (rubbish) school when I do not have to.
Communism does not work, or haven't you grasped this yet?
JG
If you make money you can buy a nicer car a nicer house nicer clothes go on nice holidays whatever you like.
But your children should not be given an unfair advantage in education just becuase you have the money. They didn't work hard did they? They were just born. Not that 'working hard' has anything to do with how much money you have anyway.
It isn't communism its equality. Its about equal oppertunity for all a system where we don't have a ruling class whos children end up ruling the country just becuase of who there parents are.
Its the same reason we no longer have the royal family ruling the country or hereditary peers in the house of lords.
All private education should be banned.
If Ruth Kelly was a Labour minister then in my opinion she would be well out of order.
The thing is, Ms Kelly is not a member of a Labour government. She is a member of New Labour, which is just another way of saying NEO-CON.
Bernard.