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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Brexit is teaching the UK that it needs immigrants

Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past.

Why did the UK vote to leave the EU? For conservatives, Brexit was about regaining parliamentary sovereignty. For socialists it was about escaping the single market. For still more it was a chance to punish David Cameron and George Osborne. But supreme among the causes was the desire to reduce immigration.

For years, as the government repeatedly missed its target to limit net migration to "tens of thousands", the EU provided a convenient scapegoat. The free movement of people allegedly made this ambition unachievable (even as non-European migration oustripped that from the continent). When Cameron, the author of the target, was later forced to argue that the price of leaving the EU was nevertheless too great, voters were unsurprisingly unconvinced.

But though the Leave campaign vowed to gain "control" of immigration, it was careful never to set a formal target. As many of its senior figures knew, reducing net migration to "tens of thousands" a year would come at an economic price (immigrants make a net fiscal contribution of £7bn a year). An OBR study found that with zero net migration, public sector debt would rise to 145 per cent of GDP by 2062-63, while with high net migration it would fall to 73 per cent. For the UK, with its poor productivity and sub-par infrastructure, immigration has long been an economic boon. 

When Theresa May became Prime Minister, some cabinet members hoped that she would abolish the net migration target in a "Nixon goes to China" moment. But rather than retreating, the former Home Secretary doubled down. She regards the target as essential on both political and policy grounds (and has rejected pleas to exempt foreign students). But though the same goal endures, Brexit is forcing ministers to reveal a rarely spoken truth: Britain needs immigrants.

Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. On last night's Question Time, Brexit secretary David Davis conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall following Brexit. "I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants."

Though Davis insisted that the government would eventually meet its "tens of thousands" target (while sounding rather unconvinced), he added: "The simple truth is that we have to manage this problem. You’ve got industry dependent on migrants. You’ve got social welfare, the national health service. You have to make sure they continue to work."

As my colleague Julia Rampen has charted, Davis's colleagues have inserted similar caveats. Andrea Leadsom, the Environment Secretary, who warned during the referendum that EU immigration could “overwhelm” Britain, has told farmers that she recognises “how important seasonal labour from the EU is to the everyday running of your businesses”. Others, such as the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, and the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, have issued similar guarantees to employers. Brexit is fuelling immigration nimbyism: “Fewer migrants, please, but not in my sector.”

The UK’s vote to leave the EU – and May’s decision to pursue a "hard Brexit" – has deprived the government of a convenient alibi for high immigration. Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past. Brexit may have been caused by the supposed costs of immigration but it is becoming an education in its benefits.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.