In praise of Michael Gove

He’s wrong on free schools but right to ban BNP teachers.

I'll try not to make these "In praise of . . ." blog posts too common, but some Conservatives do deserve plaudits from the left – yesterday, Peter Oborne of the Telegraph, and today, Michael Gove, the Education Secretary.

He might be wrong and misguided on free schools and academies but Gove is absolutely right to give head teachers the power to dismiss teachers who are members of the BNP. (Remember: police and prison officers are already banned from joining the far-right party.)

The Labour government failed to take action against BNP teachers in our schools and, in my view, Gove's predecessor Ed Balls was wrong to endorse the verdict of an official review, chaired by the former chief inspector of schools, Maurice Smith, which concluded back in March that a ban on BNP teachers would not be "necessary" and would instead be "taking a very large sledgehammer to crack a minuscule nut".

Gove, on the other hand, takes a harder line, and points to the risk posed to innocent "young minds" from fascists and extremists in positions of authority. From today's Guardian:

The pledge by the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, follows the case of a BNP activist who used a school laptop to post comments describing some immigrants as "filth". Gove said he would allow school heads and governing bodies to sack teachers for membership of the far-right party. Members of the BNP are barred from working as police or prison officers.

The minister told the Guardian: "I don't believe that membership of the BNP is compatible with being a teacher. One of the things I plan to do is to allow headteachers and governing bodies the powers and confidence to be able to dismiss teachers engaging in extremist activity.

"I would extend that to membership of other groups which have an extremist tenor. I cannot see how membership of the British National party can coexist with shaping young minds."

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.