Abuse of Power...and language

There was an odd section in Michael Gove’s speech yesterday in which he sought to play down the term “abuse of power”.

Gove was accused of doing just that by a High Court judge last week after cutting funding earmarked to rebuild schools. But when Andy Burnham brought it up Gove replied…

“He will be familiar with the fact that ‘abuse of power’ is a judicial term that has been in use since 1603 and, in particular, has been applied in judicial review cases since 1985.

“It has been applied to Cabinet Ministers on both sides of the House.

“It is a matter of open debate that judicial review is there to ensure that decisions taken by Cabinet Ministers can be reviewed in the Court.”

Gove’s intention was to negate the significance of the term by suggesting in the first sentence that it has been used for years, in the second, that it is something lots of politicians have been accused of, and in the third, that the courts shouldn’t even have the power to say such things.

Let’s take those sentences one by one. It’s rather banal to point out when “abuse of power” first came into use. After all, the terms theft, adultery and murder have all been around for longer, but have no less meaning for it.

I’m not comparing Gove’s abuse to murder of course – simply saying that offences do not ‘go off’ like milk or cheese, they do not become less important over time.

The second sentence is a political defence. He’s saying to Burnham – “Labour politicians abused power when in Government too”. Maybe they did, but the public will think “it’s you who’s doing the abusing right now”.

In the third sentence, it is as though Gove knows that directly questioning the judge’s power to review ministerial decisions is pushing it. So his words are carefully chosen and rendered a little inane.

That it is “open for debate” as to whether judicial review can be used in the way it has is neither here nor there. After all, everything is “open for debate”.

The fact is that judicial review has been used in the way it has. Gove’s decision has been overturned. The judge says an abuse of power has been committed.

So what does that term "abuse of power" really mean? Improper use of authority by someone who has that authority because he or she holds a public office.

That is the single fact that Burnham and Labour should have pushed home last night, they should not have strayed from that point.

As it was at times they played into Gove’s hands by getting into a debate about whether BSF was a good programme or not. That meant the Education Secretary got off lightly in what could have been a highly damaging encounter.

What Burnham got wrong and what he missed...

Andy Burnham has made a key mistake in his reaction to the decision at High Court today relating to cuts to the Building Schools for the Future programme.

At around 10.30am a judge said that Michael Gove’s decision to withdraw funding for school rebuilding projects in six council areas was “unlawful”.

In a piece on the Labour website the shadow education secretary writes: “The ruling calls into question every school building scheme cut by Michael Gove.”

That is not the case and the judge specifically said so. In fact Mr Justice Holman said: “The decision [to cut funding] is now over seven months ago, and in my view any other authorities would now be far too late to apply for judicial review.

“I do not mean to trivialise so important an issue, but it may be said that fortune has favoured the brave.”

In other words – if you’ve brought you case, well done you for having the gumption, but if you haven’t the door is closed.

I’ve already heard of councils thinking this case means something significant for them. It doesn’t, and it’s unfair of Burnham to stir hopes in the way he has.

What he has missed in his statement is that the case does open up the fundamentals of Government education policy to a clear line of political attack which will play very well with Labour supporters.

This case was brought by councils – big education authorities who had the financial and legal clout to push the Government back to the drawing board.

Would a free school set up by parents, or even a city academy run by education professionals, have the power to do the same? What would one free school be able to do if the Government decided to cut off its funding?

So this case says something very significant about the balance of power between local and national government and how that balance may shift massively if councils lose overall control of education.

Education questions gets catty...

There was a good old tit-for-tat verbal punch-up between Education Secretary Michael Gove and his new shadow Andy Burnham today in the Commons.

Burnham kicked off by claiming that Gove had lived up to his previous career as a journalist by displaying a “loose grasp of the facts” on the Building Schools for the Future programme.

Gove came back…

"Can I first of all congratulate him on his elevation to being shadow education secretary. Can I say that I admire the way in which he fought his leadership campaign. He was an advocate both for modernisation and aspirational socialism – which is why of course he came fourth out of five, neither of those values being entirely flavour of the month in the Labour part at the moment. Can I also thank him for his reference to my past as a journalist, it was a pleasure to spend some time in a job outside politics before I came into this House. I recommend it to the honourable gentleman."

Burnham came back with the sarcastic comment “I thank him for his characteristic graciousness” before telling Gove he had the “air of the self satisfied teacher’s pet”.

If the rest of their clashes are as much fun I’ll be turning up to education questions more often.

Balls looks ahead...

Since the Liberal Democrat defection rumours flew around at the weekend the Labour leadership candidates have been laying out the “welcome mat” for political switchers.

This morning it was still going on. Ed Miliband put out a release in which he said: "To those middle class voters who have switched to the Lib Dems, I say look again at how Labour is changing."

Andy Burnham had even ridiculously suggested yesterday that Lib Dem party members who wanted to switch to Labour should get their membership fees subsidized.

But today David Miliband struck a slightly different note. Yes Lib Dems are joining Labour, he told Lobbydog, but there was something more important not to lose sight of.

"We in the Labour party have got to be respectful and open for people who didn’t vote for us last time, but we’ve also got to insist that the main enemy is the Tories," he said.

"That is the absolutely key point. The Government is being run by the Tories. It is them who are going to be the big choice at the next election – Labour or Tory."

Focussing fire on the Tories is a good tactical call from D Miliband who, being the leadership contest’s front-runner, would probably like to think he is setting Labour’s agenda on this and other issues.

But I’ve often found that it is actually Ed Balls, being a natural pernickety political scrapper, who gets these tactical points right ahead of others.

True enough after a moment’s search I found this Times article Balls wrote on August 3.

"We risk falling into Mr Cameron’s trap by focusing our fire too much on the Liberal Democrats…while we must win back voters lost to the Lib Dems, we must not let the Tories off the hook," he wrote.

It’s not the first time either. When the Coalition was considering putting up VAT Balls had been going on about it for weeks.

When it actually happened, and the other candidates began criticising the Government, Balls stopped and moved on to slamming Gove for the BSF schools cock up.

With just a month or so to go before the Labour leadership contest ends, I’m hoping the fight will liven up a bit – a head on battle between D Miliband and Balls would be just the job.

Pay them to defect!

I was wondering this morning what colour mischief-maker was spreading the rumours about Liberal Democrat defectors over the weekend.

The rumour mill was already grinding on Friday – I ran into a Lib Dem communications man running into the press gallery to start throwing denials around.

Apparently a rumour that Charles Kennedy was going to defect sprouted from an American website and was then picked up over here.

Either way the whole thing whiffed of dirty tricks during silly season. Stories in this morning’s paper about Ed Miliband saying he’d put out the welcome mat for defectors do nothing to change the impression.

Andy Burnham’s suggestion of how Labour should be wooing Lib Dem switchers – by subsidising their party membership fees – was particularly comical.

Flaky fightback from Labourlist

Labourlist is fighting back against the Tory campaign slamming Gordon Brown’s so-called “death tax” – but their efforts look flaky.

In this piece Alex Smith claims the Tory poster is a bad move because it’s “nasty, macabre and wrong”.

The only one of those three adjectives which is significant, of course, is the final one. After all, if there is such a tax then people won’t be fussed how the poster attacking it looks.

As proof Smith writes: “Andy Burnham denied that this is Labour's policy at all hours before the slapdash poster campaign launched, remarking ‘I'm not currently considering that as a lead option for reform’.”

But this is a misrepresentation of what the Health Secretary said.

The quote is from a Guardian report of a Labour press conference at which Burnham was questioned about the death tax story, published in the same newspaper.



Burnham first claimed the Guardian story was inaccurate, when asked how, he replied: “The Guardian suggests a £20,000 flat levy. I'm not currently considering that as a lead option for reform.”

So it is not that Burnham isn’t considering the tax at all, as Smith’s piece would suggest, but that Burnham is not considering a £20,000 flat rate as a ‘lead option’.

That leaves the implicit indication that he is considering it, albeit not as a lead option. Indeed, it suggests that he also is considering other mechanisms, a variable rate or a different flat rate for example.

To confirm this, Burnham then denies the Government currently favours the tax but adds that it is “considering its options”.

The left would do better to hear what Burnham is saying and accept that if we want a National Care Service it means drastic measures to pay for it.

U-Turn

2008
Health Minister Ben Bradshaw on hospital car parking charges: "We don't think it makes sense to spend money that's currently being spent on patient care - getting people treated faster and better - on subsidising car parks."

2009
Health Secretary Andy Burnham on abolishing hospital car parking charges: "When you come into hospital it affects the patient experience if people can’t come in every day to visit because they can’t afford the charges.

"If you have friends and family around in hospital it helps you recover – this is about making the NHS more patient focussed."

Andy Burnham booed

I can't think of anything more daunting than giving a tricky speech to 70,000 emotional scousers.

This was the Culture Secretary speaking at the Hillsborough memorial service yesterday – at least they clapped at the end.