George Orwell didn鈥檛 have anyone as anodyne as academy trust leaders in mind when he wrote that 鈥渘o one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it,鈥� but the sentiment is apt nonetheless. Since New Labour created academies and Michael Gove gave the policy rocket boosters, huge swathes of public money have been handed over to unelected trusts, many of which are the private fiefdoms of CEOs who earn vast salaries. Last year, as well as the approximately 拢22 billion handed over to academies under per-pupil funding, millions more was spent on specific grants to grow academies (TEG and TCAF) as well as capital projects. Trust chiefs, who before 2010 were relative unknown figures with little influence over education, now appear to wield considerable power. Their 鈥榝reedoms鈥� mean they have the power to decide on curriculum, staffing and financial matters in their own chains, but they also have a stranglehold on national policy. The Conservatives made sure they were heavily represented in the wider system. Ex-chiefs of trusts run Ofqual, Ofsted, and the National Institute of Teaching, and they are heavily represented in government working groups, even under Labour. So it鈥檚 no surprise to see the Confederation of School Trusts (CST) and the reborn New Schools Network lobbying hard against Labour鈥檚 schools bill. It鈥檚 equally unsurprising that they have the parliamentary support His Majesty鈥檚 official opposition, who are calling it 鈥榓n act of vandalism鈥�. What is somewhat surprising is that they also appear to have recruited Siobhain McDonagh MP to speak on their behalf within Labour. The hysterical reactions to the bill鈥檚 mild reforms has already been called out in these pages. If there鈥檚 a thread to be found in them, it is probably best articulated by United Learning CEO, Sir Jon Coles, who accuses Labour of a lack of narrative on school improvement. And perhaps there is a case for improved clarity in Bridget Phillipson鈥檚 approach, though strong components are in place: an emphasis on inclusion, a curriculum that promotes all talents, more place-based collaboration, a plan for the many struggling schools where academisation has not worked. What they really mean by 鈥榝reedom鈥� is 鈥榩ower鈥� If Coles best voices the opposition鈥檚 view, then Labour鈥檚 opportunity mission champion, Sarah Smith MP best sums up Labour鈥檚 priority: to deliver happier children. The question the DfE must ask itself is whether Sir Jon, Lord Harris et al. will ever come on board with this new narrative without changes to their responsibilities under the law. It鈥檚 all a bit of an own goal for Labour. Instead of playing more offensively from the start, they鈥檝e sat back and let the opposition come onto them. By failing to attack the myth of some kind of education renaissance under the Tories, they are now on the proverbial back foot. But there are plenty of weaknesses in the opposition鈥檚 defence. The shocking rise in absenteeism. Growing numbers choosing home schooling. Spiralling exclusions. An alarming decline in reading for pleasure. The SEND crisis. The recruitment crisis. Crumbling school buildings. Not to mention the unhappiest children in Europe. Unchallenged, academies and trusts still glory in the mythical success of Conservative reform. It is staggering hubris on their part to assert that their 鈥榝reedoms鈥� are why the system is working well, against all the evidence to the contrary and when study after study shows that academy status 鈥渋s to differential attainment results鈥�. What they really mean by 鈥榝reedom鈥� is 鈥榩ower鈥�: to employ unqualified teachers, to pay staff as they choose, to renegotiate pensions, to vary curriculum, control admissions, limit access to SEND pupils, top-slice funding and to pay themselves handsomely. Labour鈥檚 mistake was to ingratiate themselves with this lobby when coming to power instead of asking probing questions about their role in our broken system. Having been invited in, they are now crying foul when their power is being marginally reduced. A more rigorous dismantling of their record in the lead-up to the election would have left them grateful for retaining the powers the Children鈥檚 Wellbeing and Schools Bill leaves them with. It鈥檚 not a stronger narrative Labour needs; it鈥檚 a stronger negotiating position. And here it is: All these powers should lie with the democratically elected local and national governments who raise the funds, not with unaccountable trusts and their CEOs.