Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Ridley's shame haunts Respect hypocrites
Well here is the most remarkable thing.
If we check the Respect web site we find the following article, under the title: “Ruth Kelly - New Labour's latest hypocrisy”
Apparently, according to Respect: “Ruth Kelly's decision to purchase educational provision from the private sector for her son who has special educational needs is yet another sign of New Labour hypocrisy. One of the Kelly's justifications for this decision is that she wants the best for her child. Perhaps we should ask Ruth Kelly which parents do not want the best for their children? I can certainly assure her and New Labour politicians that all parents of children with special educational needs feel the same as she does. The difference is that not all of us can afford to pay for private provision, nor should we have to.”
But who are the hypocrites?
As I revealed in July 2004, Respect parliamentary candidate, and national steering committee member Yvonne Ridley, sends her own daughter to Windemere St Annes, where the fees are £16380 per year.
At the 2004 Respect conference, John Nicholson moved an alternative slate for the steering committee, trying to remove Yvonne Ridle, for this very reason. SWP leading member, John Rees, defended Ridley being on the steering committee as “Respect’s most successful electoral candidate” – which was true at that time.
George Galloway MP describes Kelly’s decision as “a slap in the face for the hardworking teachers and dedicated support staff in east London who have an excellent record of including children with special needs into mainstream education.” Yet he supported Yvonne Ridley being both a parliamentary candidate fro Respect, and a national steering committee member, despite Ridley offering exactly the same slap in the face to the state education sector.
Perhaps someone can explain to me why it is OK for Yvonne Ridley, but not for Ruth Kelly? New Labour are less hypocritical than Respect, because at least New Labour do not have a policy of opposing private eductation, while simulataneoulsy allowing their leading members to take advantage of it.
As I wrote back in 2004: “Surely Respect needs to be different from the mainstream parties, not fall into the same trap of making statements for public consumption while the candidates contradict party policy with rank hypocrisy in their lifestyle choices?”