You may, given some of my other political comments, be expecting me to have a go at Ruth Kelly and her decision to send her son to a private school. Well, I am having a mellow day (no, I am not mellowing, just a mellow day) and that is despite losing three hours work on Excel and a letter that has scuppered some plans we had for later in the year. She made a choice defined by the fact that she is parent first, minister second. Her son has needs and she has to respond in any way that she can. She would be a worse person for putting her politics before her family.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Schools Out
You may, given some of my other political comments, be expecting me to have a go at Ruth Kelly and her decision to send her son to a private school. Well, I am having a mellow day (no, I am not mellowing, just a mellow day) and that is despite losing three hours work on Excel and a letter that has scuppered some plans we had for later in the year. She made a choice defined by the fact that she is parent first, minister second. Her son has needs and she has to respond in any way that she can. She would be a worse person for putting her politics before her family.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's tricky though, choosing a school for your child. Not having one, I don't have much experience of the process. But it feels to me that a lot of people talk about "finding the best school for their child". There are some childrem with specific needs. But surely, for most children in an area, the best school for them is going to be, by and large, one of the few good schools. No-one is going to choose the crappy school with poor teaching, results and discipline as the best for their child. It seems like the idea of choosing the best school for your individual child is an excuse for sending your child to the best school in the area. And those who have the resources or knowledge or skills to twist, bend or exploit the rules and appeal the decision get the best education, meaning that the status quo remains.
I couldn't disagree with any of that (I am being good now liz, don't send me after the rabbits again please). Seriously, that is entirely the problem and, of course, why she is floundering. Effectively she made the "selfish" choice and that is not the socialist position. You could say, knowing my general views, that for me to agree with something a Labour minister has done doesn't speak highly of them and how true they are to their principles. And politicians are in one of the best places to exploit the rules, no matter which party they belong to.
I agree with you, broadly, that socialism didn't work because it is idealistic and ignores human nature. And free-market-capitalism 'works' to an extent because it's based on the idea that humans are selfish. But it works for fewer and fewer people. And I still think it's going to eat itself one day.
Free market capitalism doesn't work for the world because too many people are selfish. It is strange that we appear to have less benefactors than existed 100 years ago. And I struggle with some of those celebs who tell us how we should all give because I doubt they give to the level that they can afford but tell us all how we don't do enough. We need to teach people about social responsibility, while rewarding people not fining them.
But...
I'm not sure that some things should be a choice because the need for people to do them is too great. Like with the impact of flying on global warming. I don't fly because of the effect it has on the climate (except for once in the past four years to go to a wedding in Belfast...). But if most other people do it makes my not flying pointless. I'd really love to fly all over the place. And I think a lot of people won't give it up because they don't think anyone else will.
Post a Comment