The Labour Party’s Tumultuous Return under Sir Keir Starmer
The Labour Party’s return to power under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer has not been without its challenges. Internal conflicts within Downing Street, a series of scandals, and unpopular policy decisions, such as the means-testing of winter fuel payments, have contributed to a decline in Labour’s poll standings. While the entire Cabinet has encountered turbulence, certain ministers have faced a more tumultuous journey than others.
Among these, Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, has experienced one of the most turbulent starts. Her decisions regarding school policy and free speech in higher education have attracted significant criticism, prompting several U-turns in her stance. This flip-flopping has been compounded by hostile briefings against her, reportedly originating from high-ranking officials within her own government. In January, a national newspaper suggested that Phillipson had fallen “out of favour” in Downing Street due to her controversial changes to academies, with No 10 expressing shock at the backlash against the related bill.
What is Happening in the Department for Education?
Phillipson’s name is frequently mentioned in discussions about potential cabinet reshuffles, despite No 10’s denials about any impending changes. The internal dissent surrounding her continues to simmer. Recently, speaking to The i Paper, a government insider criticized Phillipson for overseeing dysfunction within the Department for Education. Reflecting on her recent U-turns, they pondered, “What is going on in the Department for Education?”
Several underlying issues contribute to the pressure Phillipson is facing. Firstly, the ongoing party politics play a significant role. The Conservative Party, despite a mixed record in government from 2010 to 2024, often points to education as one of its key successes. The reforms initiated by Michael Gove, which granted greater autonomy to state schools by converting them into academies outside local government control, are often hailed as a major triumph. Any attempts to alter this Govean framework were bound to provoke fierce criticism from Conservative Party members and right-leaning media.
Indeed, Phillipson has taken steps to challenge this framework with considerable zeal. Last year, she introduced a Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that, if passed in its current form, would significantly roll back the academy revolution. This legislation proposes that academies adhere strictly to the national curriculum and limits their flexibility regarding teacher recruitment and pay.
Backlash Over Attempts to Regulate Academies
The backlash against her proposals was not only anticipated but seemed to take Phillipson and her government by surprise. Following significant criticism, she issued a clarification stating that a provision in the bill requiring academies to comply with national pay rates would create a “floor but no ceiling” for teacher salaries. Supporters of Phillipson argue that the bill aims to promote excellence nationwide and to meet parental expectations for “core standards” across all schools.
Alongside the political dynamics, the contentious nature of the schools bill has reignited a long-standing debate within the education system between “traditionalists” and “progressives.” Traditionalists advocate for teacher-led instruction, knowledge acquisition, and discipline, while progressives promote a more skills-based, child-centered approach. Traditionalists view the Tories’ education reforms favorably and now accuse Phillipson of capitulating to a resurgent “Blob”—a term coined by Gove to describe the coalition of teacher unions, academics, local councils, and civil servants who he believed resisted his reforms and the significant expansion of the academies program.
The Resurgence of ‘The Blob’?
Many question whether “the Blob” is indeed back, exerting influence over education policy. Proponents of this theory point to Phillipson’s centralizing legislation, which bears similarities to a schools bill proposed by former Conservative Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi in 2022. Zahawi’s bill, which sought to grant the Department for Education excessive powers over academies, was ultimately retracted following backlash from within the Conservative Party. Observers have drawn parallels between the two bills, suggesting that the Department for Education is quietly pushing its own agenda to impose new regulations on academies.
- A government source shared with The i Paper: “Ministers can propose X or Y, but officials may often suggest an alternative plan they have ready to implement.”
- A former DfE source mentioned that provisions allowing councils to compel academies to expand their student admissions were frequently proposed under the Conservatives but were consistently rejected.
A second factor fueling the narrative of a revived Blob is the close relationship Phillipson appears to have with teacher unions, particularly the National Education Union. The NEU, led by left-leaning general secretary Daniel Kebede, has long been critical of academization. A former DfE source accused Phillipson of relying heavily on the NEU for information, asserting, “Unlike previous Labour governments—like Blair—she comes in with an arrogant view that the past has been a disaster.”
However, Phillipson’s supporters dismiss the notion that she is simply pandering to the NEU. The union’s threats of strikes over the DfE’s recent teacher pay proposals and its strong opposition to Phillipson’s proposed changes to Ofsted inspections indicate that their relationship is far from harmonious.
Clash with Britain’s Strictest Headmistress
This ideological struggle was brought to the forefront during a recent meeting between Phillipson and Katharine Birbalsingh, the founder and head of the high-performing Michaela School in Wembley, West London. Birbalsingh, who has branded herself “Britain’s strictest headmistress,” published an open letter following their encounter, accusing Phillipson of harboring a “Marxist dislike of academies.” According to minutes from the meeting obtained by Schools Week, Phillipson requested Birbalsingh to “lower her tone” and “allow her to finish her sentences,” although this account has been contested by Birbalsingh.
Phillipson and her team are acutely aware of the political challenges she faces and have begun a concerted fightback. Earlier this month, she delivered a speech at the Centre for Social Justice, filled with references and language aimed at reassuring traditionalists in education, praising Gove as a “great education reformer.”
Staunch Commitment to Standards
A former DfE source interprets this move as an urgent attempt to mitigate the damage caused by the bill, stating, “No 10 is furious and alarmed by the narrative that has emerged suggesting this government is not pro-standards, and that’s what she’s trying to address.” Conversely, a source familiar with Phillipson’s work argues, “There is no justification at all for calling her ‘woke’ or soft on standards. She is deeply committed to academic rigor, to the point of obsession.”
In her address at the CSJ, Phillipson recounted her upbringing in poverty by a single mother in a challenging neighborhood in Northeast England, where “crime was a significant issue,” yet “great schools” provided her with opportunities to succeed. She emphasized that this background formed the “core” of her political beliefs and her commitment to ensuring that other children receive similar opportunities.
According to the source, this commitment is crucial to understanding Phillipson’s motivations: “She is genuinely dedicated to preventing working-class children from being let down. Any implication otherwise stems from a deliberate misinterpretation of her position.” Nevertheless, they conceded that both Phillipson and the government could have communicated their intentions regarding the bill more effectively.
They also noted that her speech at the CSJ was not merely a “lazy reset” but a genuine expression of her personal views and values, asserting, “I believe we will see more of this in the future.”
Challenges with Ofsted Reforms
While getting the schools bill through Parliament may be Phillipson’s most pressing challenge, she is also facing scrutiny in other areas. Her proposed overhaul of Ofsted inspections has encountered significant resistance. Although education unions welcomed her decision in September to eliminate one-word ratings for schools, her alternative system—a five-point grading scale across up to 11 areas—has been met with disapproval from the sector.
A sympathetic school leader remarked to The i Paper that the proposed report cards “have not resonated well at all.” They added, “There is widespread agreement that they will not operate in a consistent or valid manner; it’s just too convoluted.” On a more positive note, a poll conducted by the More in Common think-tank revealed that 65 percent of parents preferred the new system.
Phillipson’s funding decisions have also come under fire. A £4 million Latin Excellence Programme intended to broaden access to the subject has seen its funding cut, provoking backlash from prominent public figures, including historians Mary Beard and Tom Holland. Additionally, funding for the Advanced Mathematics Support Programme, designed to encourage students to pursue higher-level math, has also been reduced.
Confronting Unexploded Tory Bombs
The Department for Education maintains that these “difficult decisions” are essential to address the £22 billion “black hole” they claim to have inherited. An ally of Phillipson claimed that the Conservatives had strategically engineered programs to conclude mid-academic year, leaving “unexploded bombs” for Labour to deal with. However, critics argue that these decisions convey a lack of concern for academic excellence among state school pupils. The former DfE source claimed that Phillipson exhibited “naivete” in her dealings with the Treasury.
They explained that after teacher pay increases, the Treasury attempts to reclaim any funds they can from the department every year. “Most DfE spending is ring-fenced and allocated to schools according to a formula, making it challenging to adjust. Therefore, DfE civil servants often resort to cutting smaller, impactful programs to comply with Treasury demands,” they stated.
Phillipson has also faced difficulties in higher education. Labour’s decision to raise the cap on tuition fees, which had been frozen since 2017, was framed by her allies as a courageous political move. However, experts have questioned the real impact of this increase on the financial health of institutions. Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute think-tank, remarked, “Ministers claim they’ve been bold in raising tuition fees, but the increase merely aligns with inflation, and every penny is offset by higher National Insurance Contributions, yielding no financial benefit for institutions.”
Moreover, he noted that higher education institutions feel increasingly sidelined by the Department for Education, suggesting they might be better positioned under a different department within Whitehall, as they are not merely “larger schools.”
Another U-Turn?
Free speech on university campuses has also emerged as a contentious issue. Shortly after the general election, Phillipson announced a pause in implementing the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act, hinting at a potential repeal. This legislation, passed by the Conservatives, aimed to combat “cancel culture” on campuses by granting the higher education watchdog the authority to fine institutions that fail to protect free speech. The decision to pause the act drew sharp criticism, with nearly 700 academics, including Richard Dawkins and multiple Nobel laureates, signing an open letter warning that many university staff had faced harassment, censure, or even termination for exercising their free speech rights.
In January, the DfE reversed its course, announcing that implementation of the act would proceed with certain amendments. Hillman described the entire situation as “a puzzling series of U-turns,” noting, “It reflects a lack of a coherent plan or vision regarding the purpose of higher education in contemporary society.” However, Phillipson’s supporters argue that the pause was not a U-turn but a necessary step to ensure that the system is workable, ultimately saving universities significant funds that would have been spent on unnecessary litigation.
As Phillipson’s allies suggest, navigating criticism is an inevitable part of any minister’s role when attempting to initiate change. They assert that her confrontation with Birbalsingh is unlikely to be severe, as the headmistress’s aggressive critique may have undermined her own argument. However, criticism from other sources may pose a more substantial threat. A recent editorial in The Times asserted, “If there were an award for the minister overseeing the most misguided policy agenda, it would undoubtedly go to Bridget Phillipson.”
The former DfE source warned, “Considering the headlines she has generated, there’s no way she can afford to expend that level of political capital. It’s not a sustainable approach in politics to generate such significant public backlash, so I believe her tenure is limited.” A government source countered, asserting, “Bridget Phillipson has accomplished more in eight months as Education Secretary to enhance children’s life opportunities than the Conservatives did in 14 years. The Tories’ education record is one of failure: one in three children leave school without a solid foundation in English and Maths, one in five children face persistent absenteeism, and 300,000 children are trapped in ‘stuck’ schools that are permitted to underperform year after year. Nothing will hinder this government from delivering the change voters expect: better life chances for every child, not just the fortunate few.”
