Gove tries to flatter Miliband into submission

Education secretary says the Labour leader is "charming, intelligent, eloquent, thoughtful, generous and chivalrous".

Michael Gove's favoured modus operandi of flattering his opponents into submission (before sticking the knife in) was on full display in his speech on Ed Miliband and the trade unions today. The Education Secretary said of Miliband: 

The sad truth is that, charming, intelligent, eloquent, thoughtful, generous and chivalrous as Ed Miliband may be, in this critical test of leadership he has been uncertain, irresolute, weak. To the question [of] who governs Labour, his answer would appear to be, increasingly: the unions.

It seems that Gove was undeterred by John Bercow's brilliantly accurate mockery of his style during a Q&A with German students at the Hertie School of Governance in February (revealed last week). Bercow observed:

Michael Gove has got a capacity for referring to other members in terms that are elaborate and nominally polite, but which if reflected upon will be seen to be pretty damning," he said. "Now some people think he's patronising.

He has got a habit of saying: 'Well, that's a typically acute observation by the honourable gentleman; well, I congratulate the honourable gentleman, he's certainly brought to my notice a matter of considerable import' – even though the matter brought to his notice is as banal a matter as can possibly have been raised at any time that afternoon.

Michael will sort of lavish the person with superficial praise and then will proceed to explain 'why in this particular case, not withstanding my very real and deep-rooted admiration, he does suffer from the quite notable disadvantage of being wrong'.

Education Secretary Michael Gove holds a paint sponge as he helps paint a picture of Canary Wharf during a visit to Old Ford Primary School on June 25, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.