Red Tory: Gove on his union days

The Education Secretary "was an active striker" at the <em>Press and Journal</em> during its bitter

As teaching unions and the Department for Education go head-to-head over a proposed strike this Thursday, it is worth looking at Michael Gove's past involvement in industrial action. In an interview with the New Statesman in 2010, the education secretary discussed his role in the National Union of Journalist's fight against the Press and Journal in Aberdeen in the late 1980s. Gove's former union activities certainly gives the recent dispute an interesting context.

Gove was a trainee reporter at the Press when the industrial dispute broke out, which, he argues, tied his hands when it came to whether or not he should take part.

"I didn't think the dispute was a good idea. I was against going on strike, but I'd only just arrived. The majority of friends and colleagues felt very strongly about this. I was the new kid. There were people whom I liked and admired who felt they were being mistreated. I had joined the union. I felt that if you were in an organisation, you should generally respect the rules and the quirks of decision-making. I thought it was wrong to go on strike but I didn't feel that the principle was an ignoble one.

Critics have levelled charges of hypocrisy at the Education Secretary. This amusing photo of a young, bespectacled Gove on the picket line adds to that feeling. Gove, however, defends NUJ's strike as it had - he claims - legitimate grievances, something which he appears to think that the teachers lack.

"We weren't striking because we were demanding a massive pay increase at an inappropriate time. There was an issue. The strike ringleaders were victimised. We can argue whether this was provocation on the management's part or the union's naivety. We were all dismissed and it became a very bitter dispute. And in the end most people never worked for Aberdeen Journals again. Some chose to cross the picket line, some were selectively re-employed."

Gove's days as a rabble-rousing, unionised hack are, however, well and truly over. He left the NUJ in 2007 - two years after he entered parliament - because of the union's stance on Israel. "Tory leaves union" is not exactly headline news. But, as Francis Beckett points out in the excellent profile, going on strike for union recognition as a trainee journalist in 1989 "required. . . courage". It is somewhat surprising, then, that Gove has taken such an aggressive stance on the teaching unions. Rather than using his own experiences to try and reach a compromise, Gove has gone in looking for a fight. He'll certainly get one. Whether anyone will win remains to be seen.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era