Blunkett goes, Clarke takes his seat and a “working mum” is put in charge of education.
“Working Mum” – that’s how Blair would like us all to think of her. In fact, if you looked in some newspapers at at some online sources, Ruth Kelly does indeed appear to be the “wholesome woman” some of the blinkered media portray. But that’s crap really isn’t it ?
Firstly though, doesn’t this appointment make a complete and utter nonsense of some aspects of our political system ? Here’s a woman who is now in charge of the education of virtually all children in the country, yet the closest she’s been to a school will have been a Parent’s Evening. That’s a bit like putting me in charge of Ferrari because I stood near one once. When we look at the education of a child – any child – it needs to be broad, questioning, all-inclusive, challenging and probably lots of other things. Add into that the multi-cultural needs and that’s one huge recipe for teaching our little people. Now add into THAT the fact that we are in an imperfect world which means both time and money are limited, so tough decisions have to be made on what can be taught / when / by who etc. Not an easy task. Damn hard task in fact. There’s a good argument for having the person in charge of a huge project knowing little about the actuals ‘hands-on’ of a task involved – it means they can question and challenge practises from a ‘fresh’ (read that as “wet behind the ears”) approach – but this isn’t a task is it ? This is our children’s minds, their future, their lives. It’s important. So why on earth is the woman in charge of this not in the least bit qualified to do the job ? And I’m not the only ones asking either.
If it means that she will have no impact due to her advisors and the way the system is working, that then raises more issues:
– if her advisors (civil servants) run the show, why do we need – and pay – her ?
– if she will have an impact, why choose someone who has no background in the dept ?
(I suspect it’s option #1 there …. think “Yes, Minister”)
The other issue is the religion of Ruth Kelly, and her belonging to the Opus Dei cult. Here is a woman who belongs to a cult which has views that other people may not like, but she is in charge of how and what their children are being taught. Now I’m certain that someone reading this will now think “But what has her religion got to do with it ? It doesn’t matter”. Okay, so if that’s the case, then if Blair got rid of every current Cabinet member and replaced them with equally qualified people who were all fully paid-up members of the Unification Church you’d think about that wouldn’t you ? If it applies in one case, it applies in both.
Opus Dei is one of the most powerful and reactionary organizations in the Roman Catholic church today
This is most evident in the organizationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s opposition to a modern understanding of sexuality and reproductive health Source
Among liberal Catholics, Opus Dei has an image somewhat like that of the Masons in earlier times — a malign secret organization with controlling tentacles moving in all directions. Source
It is our blessing and privilege to be at war with Opus Dei and to do as much damage to them as possible. They have destroyed and persecuted thousands, both in the Catholic Church itself, and in Christendom at large. OPUS DEI– Deadly Force for God
There’s a woman in charge of educating our children. She knows nothing at all about education. Given her views, and that her own children will not be receiving full information regarding sex (to say the least) she shouldn’t really be there should she ?