Conservatives should learn from Labour

Whether it’s DEI, gender identity or obstructionist quangos, the British right never stops complaining that the left has taken over. Yet over 14 years of Conservative-led governments, all these problems became more entrenched. Ironically, if they want to reshape the state and its institutions in their image, centre-right politicians of all parties should look to their left for inspiration — specifically to Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson. 

In office for just under two years, Phillipson has, despite minor pushback from the right, managed to reverse some of the Conservative Government’s signature achievements, and even policies, like academisation, started under New Labour and dramatically expanded after 2010. Under Phillipson’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, the rights of Academies to deviate from the national curriculum, hire teachers without formal education qualifications, and make their own pay arrangements, were all curtailed in the name of nationally consistent standards. 

While Phillipson’s critics, including prominent Headteacher Katharine Birbalsingh, blasted the plans as “Marxist”, the Act was warmly welcomed by the National Education Union (NEU). Having long opposed academisation, which it saw as a threat to pay and conditions, it was hardly surprising that the NEU found the Act “exciting”.

In further swipes against the right, Phillipson overhauled the national curriculum. Under Education Secretary Michael Gove’s 2010 reforms, the curriculum stressed the importance of traditional academic subjects, requiring pupils to study maths, English, two sciences, either geography or history, and a foreign language at GCSE level. Phillipson’s revised curriculum scraps that requirement, leading to fears among educationalists of “dumbing down”. Once again, this represented, in the NEU’s words, “a win for our union”, which had long complained that the old system was too narrow.

To add insult to injury, Phillipson even axed the Latin Excellence Programme, introduced by the Conservatives in 2021, which provided state-funded support for around 1,000 pupils across 29 schools to take a GCSE subject traditionally seen as reserved for the elite. 

Crucially, aside from pledging unspecified changes to the curriculum, little of this agenda was flagged in Labour’s 2024 election manifesto, or during that year’s election campaign. In other words, she let her actions speak louder than her words.  

To be perfectly clear, I strongly oppose most of what Phillipson has done. Scrapping the Latin Excellence Programme, which cost just £4 million, was an act of pettiness that made it even harder for state-educated pupils to study classics at top universities.

It isn’t Phillipson’s ideas that show the path forward for conservatives but her methods

More substantively, although the evidence on academisation tends to be more mixed than proponents like to admit, further centralising control in Whitehall hardly seems like the solution to turning around struggling schools. Different schools in different regions serving different communities will inevitably have different needs, and they should be encouraged to experiment, even if that means accepting that some will do poorly. It also risks undermining the schools that have thrived under the Academy system, Birbalsingh’s Michaela school being an obvious example. 

It isn’t Phillipson’s ideas that show the path forward for conservatives but her methods. For example, if the right really wants to eliminate DEI, a future centre-right government should just take action to get rid of it. Some of this could be done without even needing to legislate. For example, as one Policy Exchange paper noted, you could amend the Regulators’ Code to stop regulators imposing arbitrary diversity targets on private firms. While some opposition would be inevitable, as Phillipson shows, you can just stare it down. 

Not only would this more practical approach actually get to the heart of the problems the right correctly identifies — like divisive programmes that sort candidates based on inalienable characteristics rather than merit — but it would do so without unnecessarily raising the political temperature around sensitive issues. Finally, it might also show disgruntled voters that change is, in fact, possible. 

Obviously, there will always be situations where politicising an issue makes tactical sense, both to give voters a sense of choice and to give one’s own side something to rally around. However, there is no point campaigning for change unless you’re prepared to enact it. On this at least, the left has got it right.