Olympics: Cameron and Johnson show their class

10 08 2012

If nations won Olympic medals for the stupidity of their leaders, Team GB would be a prime contender.  It’s difficult to conclude anything different following the comments of David Cameron – a Prime Minister whose attempts to hitch a ride on the bandwagon of British sporting success have been increasingly risible – and London’s part-time mayor Boris Johnson.  But it’s the casual assumptions these comments reveal that make them interesting.

First, Cameron on school sport, and his much-quoted remarks about Indian dancing on ITV’s Daybreak programme:

“The trouble we have had with targets up to now, which was two hours a week, is that a lot of schools were meeting that by doing things like Indian dance or whatever, that you and I probably wouldn’t think of as sport, so there’s a danger of thinking all you need is money and a target.

Now I know precious little about dancing – Indian or otherwise – as my friends and acquaintances who have never seen me on a dance floor will testify; but it’s surely obvious that dance provides excellent exercise and, when undertaken by groups, involves disciplines of co-ordination and team work.  What is fascinating is not just the casual racism of the India reference, but the claim that this is not sport; because, of course, it’s not inherently competitive (although we all know that it can be).  That failure to distinguish between exercise and competition seems to me (like the casual racism) to be one of those moments when Cameron’s mask slips and the easy assumptions of his class background comes through.

Now to Boris Johnson, and his assertion that state schools should be required to undertake two hours of compulsory sport per day, like he did at Eton.  It’s tempting to wonder whether this is one of those carefully-scripted casual asides that are apparently the hallmark of Brand Boris; but it’s an idea that is both inherently deeply stupid and, once again, reveals much about Johnson’s understanding of the world.

State schools aren’t Eton, obviously.  For a start, the students go home at night. And how on earth do you fit two hours a day of sport into the school day?  And where do you do it, given the long Tory history of selling off school playing fields?  And who do you pay to lead it, since relying on big society volunteers to staff a mandatory activity is an act of lunacy? The playing field can be a cruel and traumatising place for sensitive children – are we now being told by Old Etonians that we must return to the ideology that bullying toughens you up and makes a man of you?  Above all, are we being told that working-class children should have their energies focussed on sport rather than academic study, because that is (the subscript goes) what they are fit for?

Boris Johnson’s stupidities have long been given an easy ride by the media (witness the barking idea of moving Heathrow to the Thames Estuary); in almost any other politician this would have been career-finishing stuff.  That it isn’t is a rather sobering commentary on the state of political discourse today.

In making these comments, Cameron and Johnson show their profound ignorance of how the vast majority of people live and are, whether they realise it or not, consciously returning to the nineteenth-century origins of organised sports in Britain, with Dr Arnold’s model of work among the slum poor to create sports clubs which kept those on the margins of society out of Godless and criminal activity.  And Cameron’s reference to competitive sport fits closely with the social Darwinism that underpinned that ideal; the belief that life is a race in which the most able win, while conveniently ignoring the fact that a small minority of the populace are equipped by birth and wealth to run the race so much faster than their peers.  It’s the old reactionary game of, to use Ivan Illich’s phrase, rationalising the head start as achievement.  And of course we know that modern management jargon is laced with the language of competitive sport – the presiding ideology of a thousand management courses and team-building exercises.

Britain is a country with an exercise problem.  We read almost daily of the childhood obesity problem; of coddled children parked in front of TV and games console, parents mesmerised by traffic and tabloid hysteria about paedophiles into keeping children indoors, while in term ferrying them across town to school by car in the name of school choice.  The Government whose leaders mather about competitive sport is the same one that is busy selling off school playing fields and degrading the nutritional standard of state school food.

Behind Cameron’s and Johnson’s statements are the old, desperate ideology that sports are really about producing the right school of chap, and the assumption that the public schools should teach the rest of us how to do it. Britain’s Olympians deserve better than to have their achievements hijacked in the name of class politics.





Is the Coalition simply bad at Government?

19 07 2011

I don’t have any intention of adding to the ocean of cyber-ink spilled over Murdoch, phone hacking and the Metropolitan Police.  But my jaw had to be winched from the floor after reading the exchange of emails between Ed Llewellyn, No 10 Chief of Staff, and then Assistant Commissioner John Yates, concerning whether the Prime Minister should be briefed on the appointment of Neil Wallis as a PR adviser to the Met.

The email exchange between John Yates and Ed Llewellyn 10 September 2010:

Ed,

Hope all well.

I am coming over to see the PM at 12.30 today regarding [redacted: national security] matters. I am very happy to have a conversation in the margins around the other matters that have caught my attention this week if you thought it would be useful.

Best wishes,

John

Response:

10 September 2010: Ed Llewellyn to John Yates

John -

Thanks – all well.

On the other matters that have caught your attention this week, assuming we are thinking of the same thing, I am sure you will understand that we will want to be able to be entirely clear, for your sake and ours, that we have not been in contact with you about this subject.

So I don’t think it would really be appropriate for the PM, or anyone else at No 10, to discuss this issue with you, and would be grateful if it were not raised please.

But the PM looks forward to seeing you, with Peter Ricketts and Jonathan Evans, purely on [redacted: national security] matters at 1230.

With best wishes,

Ed

Source

It’s that paragraph about being clear that Yates and Llewellyn had not been in contact – the very fact of recording it in an email demonstrating of course that they had.  It’s both self-defeating and desperately unprofessional. As a Civil Servant for many years before leaving the service at the end of 2010, I had always been guided by the eminently sensible doctrine that you should never write anything in an email that you would not be content to have read out in court.  It’s a powerful antidote to the Blackberry culture of simply dashing down your immediate thoughts in a quick email without really thinking through the consequences – in much the same way that one suspects Damian McBride, as Gordon Brown’s media adviser did.

But it seems to me to be part of a trend – in fourteen months of office Coalition Ministers have been caught out time and again by a lackadaisical attitude to governance.  I’ve blogged before about the apparent lack of grip on the machinery of Government, but there are plenty of other incidences – Michael Gove allegedly misleading Parliament over the level of interest in Free Schools , the allegations that Eric Pickles’ special advisers  smeared the head of the Electoral Commission.  More generally, there seems to be a wholesale abandonment of evidence-based policy making – Government under the Coalition appears so often to be about the implementation of an ideology regardless of the facts.

And, in an administration that is almost defined by cronyism, it’s hardly surprising that Llewellyn is not a career Civil Servant but one of Cameron’s old Eton and Oxford chums.

It’s a change from the day when the Conservative Party was supposed to be the natural party of Government, made up of men, broad of mind, beam and acreage, who knew how to make the system work.  It’s far from being a non-ideological approach to Government and there are plenty of objections to it as a political programme. But it’s ironic indeed that the most socially privileged Cabinet of modern times seems to find the natural assumption of the traditional role of their class so difficult.  It’s even more surprising when one considers the growth of a political class of people who have never done anything other than politics.

Perhaps that’s the problem:  Cameron, Osborne, Clegg et al don’t do Government; they do politics instead. In their inability to tell the difference may lie the seeds of their downfall.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers