Questions about Kelly
It's a heady brew. Not just the painful and sensitive issue of protecting children from sexual abuse but, and let's be clear about this, the circling of the political pack when they sense a minister is weak and vulnerable. The memories of Soham are too recent and raw, the role of bureaucratic bungling too familiar, the legitimate questions left unanswered for too long, the minister's performance too hesitant, for Ruth Kelly not to be at the centre of a storm.
But it is the fact that Kelly is in charge of Tony Blair's most controversial reforms - the ones whose defeat could spell the beginning of the end of the Blair years, and even the normally loyal - that has got Westminster's pulses racing.
The delay of a ministerial reshuffle - due since David Blunkett resigned and pencilled in diaries for Monday - and the news that government whips were asked whether it would be easier to get school reforms passed if Kelly were moved, have added to the tension. That's why a story that Westminster virtually ignored for three days has turned into a feeding frenzy.
Kelly has ignored the rule-book for dealing with these sorts of crises. Rule One is make an early parliamentary statement revealing all you know and admitting what you don't know but promising to come back with all the facts. Yesterday she made a written statement, was then forced into making a televised one and has now been forced into one before the Commons.
All her statements have so far looked nervy and defensive. Enough to have her sober opponent David Willets ever-so-politely wondering if she can stay in her job and his Lib Dem equivalent Ed Davey calling for her head. Yesterday Downing Street tried to still the frenzy by making an unprecedented statement that Kelly's job was safe whenever the reshuffle came. To lose her now would be a defeat for Number 10.
Remember then when you hear all the noise today at Westminster that all minds are not simply on the undeniably very serious issue of child abuse.
I'm 
Comments
The support of No 10 has proven to be the kiss of death in the past. If i were Ruth i would be planning for more time with the family.
Has anyone considered that perhaps this guy's offense was such that it didn't warrant his placement on List 99? I mean, technically Two consenting teenagers of 15 who had sex would be considered sex offenders!
Interesting final line from Nick. It must of course be that all the MP's minds are on their own interests and opportunities for promotion or cross party criticism rather than publis safety, oh the horror the horror to paraphrase Conrad.
Appreciating the views of Ruth Kelly's counterparts is one thing, however would this really have been top of their things to do list? There is a bigger underlying issue in the the complexity being built into governance appears to frequently lose sight of which element has primacy - is this a problem for education dept or criminal justice or elsewhere, and does the safety of children (or adults for that matter) have to be made as complex as the spin doctors would have us believe?
In reply to Jonathan Davies:
yes, but 15-year-olds go to school, they don't work in them.
Re: Will Dawson in reply to Jonathan Davies:
I think the original point was probably that therefore they could conceivably be put on the sex offenders list for life, and therefore never be able to work in a school (although clearly in practice that wouldn't happen). Point being that maybe there should be similar discretion and common sense in terms of who is on 'List 99'?