For sending her kid to a private school.
She was the one who closed special shcools in the public sector.
2007-01-07 23:07:41 · 14 answers · asked by Tony M 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Absolutely.
It would be bad enough for her to send a "normal" child to an independent-sector school but the Department for Education's attitude towards special schools [i.e. it has tried to close lots of them] means that her decision stinks, twice over.
I was surprised to learn that she had human offspring. There is something very simian about her. Grunt! Grunt!
2007-01-08 01:28:30 · answer #1 · answered by evie c 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes of course she is. Her lame excuse of 'dyslexia' doesn't wash. Dyslexia isn't really 'special needs'. I don't think that people should not be offered a private sector alternative if they are prepared to pay for it. It just goes to show that even Labour government ministers should really vote Conservative if that's really the kind of society they want to live in.
Notwithstanding that; In a society like ours the State should be able to offer a service as good as if not better than the private sector.
2007-01-08 09:34:28 · answer #2 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not really. New Labour is all about Private Finance Initiatives so geting rid of state schools, hospitals, and anything else they've had enough off, is high on their agenda. They have been run down so much that anyone wealthy enough would be daft not to send their kids private and pay for their medical treatment. They have us by the short and curlies.
2007-01-08 07:21:04 · answer #3 · answered by sammylamb 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Blair sent his kids to private schools too, remember the fuss?
Do as we say, not as we do, thats this governments motto.
Blair wants to save the planet so much he puts up the price of petrol and air tax, then flies to florida on holiday for 4 days.
Why couldnt he holiday in Britain? as the PM I think he should set an example.
The whole lot of them are idiots.
2007-01-08 07:12:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
Of course, I really don`t know how people like that can hold their head up. They may have money but they must live a very sad life.
2007-01-08 07:25:22 · answer #5 · answered by Spanner 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not at all. She knows the education system (for which she was until recently responsible) cannot meet her child's needs. The child must come first. It is just such a shame that others who cannot afford private education have to make the best of a bad job.
2007-01-08 07:16:18 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I don't think she is, only she has just realised that public schools don't offer better tution than private schools and hey, her son happens to have substantial learning difficulties. So like every mother, she is doing what's best for her son, wouldn't you?
2007-01-08 08:29:53 · answer #7 · answered by marizani 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Who wouldn't want to give their child the best start in life? If one of my children wasn't getting the teaching he needed (and let's be honest, there are so many rubbish schools out there) and I could afford to send him privately, then I would do it. It's not to do with politics, it's to do with your child's future.
Edit: for Crispy below: Tony Blair did not send his children to private school. That is a downright lie. His children went to local primary schools, then the Oratory, a state secondary school.
2007-01-08 07:11:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Yes and she's still in her job!Marvellous isn't it.What these people want to remember is that old saying, "You can fool some of the people some of the time................
2007-01-08 07:22:16 · answer #9 · answered by pageys 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
She must be if she's a Labour minister.
2007-01-08 09:35:20 · answer #10 · answered by Beau Brummell 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋