Boris outflanks Cameron on school sport

Mayor calls for return of two-hours-a-week target scrapped by the government.

Boris Johnson's call for all school pupils to do two hours of sport a day, following the news that the government has scrapped the relevant target, is yet another example of him using his platform as Mayor of London to make a national intervention.

Here's what he told a press conference earlier today:

The government totally understands people's appetite for this, they can see the benefits of sport and what it does for young people.

They understand very, very clearly the social and economic advantages.

I would like to see, frankly, the kind of regime I used to enjoy - compulsory two hours' sport every day.

I've no doubt that is the sort of thing that would be wonderful for kids across this country.

It is of profound importance for the happiness and success of this country that we have more sport in schools.

David Cameron has defended the decision to abolish the target on the grounds that "if you just simply sit there in Whitehall and set a target but don't actually do anything to help schools meet it, you are not really solving the problem". He added: "By just saying 'Look, I want you to do this many hours a week' some schools think 'Right, as I've hit that minimum requirement, I've ticked the box and I can give up."

Yet, as ever, Boris has not missed an opportunity to kick Cameron while he's down. As Mayor of London he enjoys the luxury of being able to comment on national affairs with little fear of consequences, while the PM is constrained by the coalition, his own MPs and the government's deficit reduction plan. If today's intervention is a sign of things to come, the next three years could be very uncomfortable for Cameron.

David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson cheer on athletes at the Olympic Games. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496