I was glad that Andrew Marr gave a much better grilling to the Chancellor yesterday on Sunday AM.
Compared to the cosy chat that accompanied the last interview during the September leadership crisis,at least this time Marr tried to hold the Chancellor to account.The main questioning was over "the education education education" strategy with Marr continually trying to question Brown over how, despite money thrown at the education service over the last ten years,there was still littel eveidence of improvement.

The interview is making the news this morning but more as the Chancellor putting his mark in the sand over his future foriegn policy and his recation to the Saddam hanging which finally prompted a Downing Street response

The Mirror broke the story on its front page this morning over the former Education Secretary Ruth Kelly sending her children to a private school.The Story now is the lead on most of the paper's web sites

Kelly embroiled in private school row per the Telegraph

Kelly embroiled in private school row per Guardian unlimited

Blair defends Kelly over school on BBC news.

Interesting after the first story that Tony Blair has been quick to comment on this but not on Saddam .

Interestingly this story is just breaking on Press Gazette

The Press Complaints Commission looks set to decide whether the Daily Mirror breached the Editor's Code today by naming Ruth Kelly as the Labour minister said to be sending one of her children to private school.

In a leader column, the Mirror said: “Ruth Kelly yesterday attempted to stifle public knowledge of her decision, in effect to keep secret a politically explosive move from the voters who elected her as an MP and from the Labour Party she represents as a member of the government….

“In a democracy it would be in intolerable to gag the media when the Communities Secretary advocates a policy in public then behaves differently in private.”

Clause Six of the PCC Editor’s Code of Practice states: “Young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.”
It also says: “Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.”