Urban warrior

More elected city mayors and high-speed rail are just some of Andrew Adonis’ bold ideas for a Labour fourth term, discover Jessica Asato and Mark Day

Apparently Andrew Adonis is one of the most popular transport secretaries ever, according to transport journalists. His popularity shouldn't perhaps come as a surprise, given that he recently undertook a tour by train travelling the length and breadth of the country, talking to passengers and staff as he went. As outreach goes, it was incredibly successful. We ask Adonis why other ministers didn't get out and about like he did, and he gives a characteristically modest reply: ‘Every time I speak to Andy Burnham he is visiting a different hospital. Ed Balls is up and down the country visiting schools and children services departments. We are out and about a lot. I think I'm just lucky that travelling around in a train captures the imagination in a way that going and visiting other institutions doesn't.'

It is clear that Lord Adonis has approached transport policy with the same zeal he displayed as education minister, where he is credited with creating the concept of academies and trust schools. Did he worry that now he's moved from education, the Tories have stolen the initiative on education reform? ‘We just opened the 200th academy. That is a phenomenal achievement. That is 200 brand new, secondary schools established in areas where educational standards have been historically low.' He continues: ‘Look at Hackney, which was a byword for educational disaster 10 years ago. It now has one of the highest performing schools in the country, the Mossbourne Community Academy ... and instead of people fighting to get their children out of Hackney for secondary education, people are now fighting to get their children into Hackney.' ‘So we don't need to take any lessons from the Tories on radical education reform and setting up new schools.'

Given that shadow education secretary, Michael Gove, said in 1998 that the Tories were ‘on the same page as Andrew Adonis' regarding their education plans, it looks like the Tories at least are willing to take lessons from Labour. So what's the difference between the parties? ‘We will invest in the education of the many; the Tories will cut it. Does anybody seriously think that if the Tories had been in for the last 10 years that education spending would have been higher than right now?'

Adonis stresses that he is ‘an ardent public service reformer' but that he believes that one can only bring about ‘fundamental reform with substantial investments in areas that have been under-resourced in the past. What made possible the introduction of academies and the transformation of standards in our schools was a 10-year programme of investments.' Labour has pushed ‘radical reform to empower front-line managers, to promote choice and diversity and to significantly increase the supply of good quality provision in both health and education, in traditionally under-privileged areas'. But unlike failed Tory policies such as GP fundholding and grant-maintained schools, the extra investment has prevented the development of a ‘two-tier system'. The fact that ‘some of the reform principles are held in common,' he suggests, ‘shouldn't disguise the reality that the systems which have been created are fundamentally different between us and the Tories.'

The transport secretary also has pretty clear dividing lines with the Tories on the big economic question too: ‘Virtually no one, no serious political party in the world, besides the Conservatives, believes that starting to cut now, in the middle of the recession, is a credible policy. Our combination of clear commitment to fiscal discipline after the recession with a determination to maintain the fiscal stimulus during the recession is the right policy for the present time.' So can Labour win the next election? ‘Of course we can win. It's going to be tough. And we're on uncharted territory. Labour's never come up for a fourth term before. We're in the middle of a recession. Providing we have the most convincing manifesto, and I believe we will, then we have the basis on which to get re-elected. I'm a great believer of the best arguments winning in politics and we do have the best arguments at the moment. This is not the 1970s where a period of economic downturn is seen as the fault of the Labour government and that we have an unconvincing response to it. On the contrary, pretty much everyone accepts that the downturn has been caused by global factors and factors largely beyond the control of government, and our response has been not only strong, but convincing. Gordon and his response to the financial crisis led the world.'

As you would expect from a former policy guru to Tony Blair, and fellow of Nuffield College Oxford, it is Labour's future policies which Adonis believes will win the day, saying that the next few months must be dedicated to building a ‘bold forward-looking programme for the fourth term'. He's certainly taking this seriously in his own portfolio: ‘I'm seeking to put high-speed rail at the centre of the political debate not just as a transport policy, but as a social and economic policy. I believe passionately that high-speed rail could be one of our principal policies for creating a fairer and more united society. It could do as much as any other policy in bridging the north-south divide, in linking together prosperous and less prosperous regions and in cementing the union between England and Scotland.' Adonis believes his vision fits in with other social democratic governments across Europe: ‘[Felipe] Gonzalez started the high-speed rail programme in Spain and [Francois] Mitterrand gave it its crucial impetus in France and I believe we can do the same here.'

Constitutional reform is another area which Lord Adonis has a track record of supporting, and where he is anxious that ‘we don't lose our vertical edge'. ‘I think we should be looking seriously at introducing elected mayors across Britain', he says. ‘Few people would deny that London has been transformed as a result of the Greater London authority and the mayoralty.' He surprises us by arguing that Ken Livingstone ‘did as much as any other figure in the last 10 years of the Labour government to bring about public service reform and change for the better: the congestion charge, the transformation in London transport and the self-confidence which London has, including the winning of the Olympics. Ken Livingstone was a key figure in all those developments. Why? Because we created the mayoralty, gave him the opportunity to mobilise Londoners and the democratic legitimacy necessary to introduce big reforms like the congestion charge. I believe that if we had elected mayors in other major cities of Britain, they could bring about similar change.'

He recognises that ‘this is a difficult and controversial issue inside the party still' but if we are to overcome the ‘huge challenge we still face to promote greater inclusion in other major cities and dramatic impetus in tackling some of those big infrastructure issues', more mayors are the way forward.

So what does Andrew think of Progress' own reform campaign to introduce primaries in the Labour party? He agrees that we need to be ‘prepared to think quite radically in this area' and ‘be ready to experiment with methods of selection which engage the wider public. It's very important we're not behind the Tories on this.' Adonis also declares to be ‘keen on citizen's juries. They clearly have been a constructive way forward at a local and national level in helping to engage the public and also to ensure that decisions better reflect educated public opinion. Anything that seeks to promote genuine participation is to be looked at.' High speed rail, city mayors, and opening up democratic participation - this is Adonis' prescription for a fourth term, and it's a genuinely bold and exciting one.

Jessica Asato and Mark Day

Comments

Posted by David Robertson on 05 November 2009, 3:19:42 PM
On elected mayors, I disagree with Andrew Adonis fundamentally. Let me restrict myself to one major objection here. He cites the London mayoralty as a good example. I think I might agree. There is a good reason why the London Mayor works well, and why it is fundamentally different from a Mayoral system in provincial cities and towns. That reason can be described as the huge amount of public scrutiny that is visited upon the capital city's Mayor. Parliament & Press pay relatively colossal attention to the conduct of Livingstone & Johnson, effectively giving citizens voice, and keeping them more or less honest. No such voice or scrutiny is available to the same extent in provincial cities like mine. The local Press is weak; the national Press largely disinterested; and citizens have scant opportunity to know what is going on, never mind dissent. In cities like Liverpool, a Mayoral system will return us to the worst kind of 'bossism' and corruption, a political culture that is never far from the surface anyway. Don't forget: had elected Mayors been around in the mid-1980s, we'd have had Derek Hatton or worse - but Hatton with added executive power. It was bad enough as it was. Citizens here shudder to think how bad it would have been under proposals like this. Should we hold up elected Mayors just because of Liverpool's particular circumstances? To answer that question, you have to decide just how much bossism & corruption you can tolerate. If a Mayoral system worked well in, say, Manchester & Leeds, would that offset disasters in, say, Liverpool, Newcastle & Stoke? In the absence of effective means of citizens' scrutiny, against the background of a declining local Press and limited public voice, Mayors could be a recipe for the worst kind of provincial politics. Andrew Adonis and others need to address such questions.

Posted by David Robertson on 05 November 2009, 3:22:53 PM
On elected mayors, I disagree with Andrew Adonis fundamentally. Let me restrict myself to one major objection here. He cites the London mayoralty as a good example. I think I might agree. There is a good reason why the London Mayor works well, and why it is fundamentally different from a Mayoral system in provincial cities and towns. That reason can be described as the huge amount of public scrutiny that is visited upon the capital city's Mayor. Parliament & Press pay relatively colossal attention to the conduct of Livingstone & Johnson, effectively giving citizens voice, and keeping them more or less honest. No such voice or scrutiny is available to the same extent in provincial cities like mine. The local Press is weak; the national Press largely disinterested; and citizens have scant opportunity to know what is going on, never mind dissent. In cities like Liverpool, a Mayoral system will return us to the worst kind of 'bossism' and corruption, a political culture that is never far from the surface anyway. Don't forget: had elected Mayors been around in the mid-1980s, we'd have had Derek Hatton or worse - but Hatton with added executive power. It was bad enough as it was. Citizens here shudder to think how bad it would have been under proposals like this. Should we hold up elected Mayors just because of Liverpool's particular circumstances? To answer that question, you have to decide just how much bossism & corruption you can tolerate. If a Mayoral system worked well in, say, Manchester & Leeds, would that offset disasters in, say, Liverpool, Newcastle & Stoke? In the absence of effective means of citizens' scrutiny, against the background of a declining local Press and limited public voice, Mayors could be a recipe for the worst kind of provincial politics. Andrew Adonis and others need to address such questions.

Posted by Russell Miller on 06 November 2009, 1:31:16 AM
Advocating elected Mayors is just part of the Fuhrer/Celebrity syndrome the political elite, of all parties, are trying to enforce. Political ideas are trivialised so that the cult of personality can be advanced. Yet all history proves there are no super men or women and their supporters are soon disillusioned when they realise their saviours are fallible. Democratic government is a corporate affair with active participation by a team of elected representatives. Otherwise there is no control over the executive. ‘Elected’ dictators are even more dangerous when the composition of the cabinet or portfolio holders is entirely dependant on their patronage; the out come, a nest of courtiers not a power house of ideas. The proper status for a leader is first among equals Was Ken Livingstone any less effective when he was leader of the pre Thatcher London authority? At one time Ken was himself critical of elected mayors, claiming that such power could lead to corruption. Hardly surprising that both his own and his successor’s administrations have been marred by suggestions of cronyism and patronage.

Posted by Yorkshire Warrior on 06 November 2009, 1:13:09 PM
Of course we need more elected Mayors. We must champion the Mayoral system and encourage more English Democrats (Toriies) to stand and win more control of Labour councils. Just like in Doncaster. Nice try Andrew. You nearly caught me out. The Tories and English Democrats are teamed up together in the Yorkshire region. Three good candidates against Flint, Miliband and Winterton will leave Doncaster with no Labour Party representation in Parliament. Similar to the destruction of the Labour Mayoral candidate last year by the English Democrat representative. That is by no means defeatist but real. Andrew you really need to reconsider your your role in the Labour party. You are as bankrupt of ideas and policy as the bankers are of integrity and transport secretaries are of intellect. You really have no idea. Especially for you Andrew. Advisers advise and ministers have to make the decisions" Gordon Brown. The Prime Minister intervening and passing a rather ironic comment on the row over the sacking of the drugs advisor. Lord Adonis - Policy Advisor on Transport and former Education Advisor. Unaccountable and not elected Policy advisors are now appointed Peers by Brown. So policy advisors advise then become peers, the Ministers decide whether their advice is good enough to make a decision. Brown then decides to appoint unelected and unaccountable Peers to sit alongside Ministers in the Cabinet. (Mandy) Right, lets see, they no longer advise but are in a position to make decisions based on collective responsiblity. They still remain unaccountable to the people (they don't serve) and unelected and reside alongside the Ministers who are accountable within the framework of the Core Executive and decide to advise those who are not allowed to make decisions not to advise and but only make decisions when the Ministers and Gordon Brown say so So that's clear then, The Ministers can now sack each other. Ministers can now sack peers? Gordon Brown needs to get a grip of his Government and the Labour Party That is my advice. Now somebody make a decision. To give you a little bit of credit Andrew I hear from a RELIABLE source that you are doing a much better job at transport than you ever did at education. You obviously have too much time on your hands. Nice choice of candidate Jessica.

Posted by Walter Smith on 07 November 2009, 2:18:47 PM
Elected Mayors will not benefit our democracy. The office of Mayor in Britain is held in very high regard by the public at large - i know this as a former mayor myself. Then reason for our esteem for the office is the good works that Mayors of all political party's do in the community, most have a charity fund, they pay visits to old folks homes, schools, residents special occassions and organisations who do good work in the community. An Executive Mayor would not have the time or inclination to perform these functions. We have a leader of the council who could be elected to Executive office if people feel that a focal point leader is needed - but lets leave one of the few political positions that the electorate dear alone.

Posted by Andy Ray on 07 November 2009, 11:28:03 PM
OK, if we don’t like Executive Mayors, we might need to ramp up the Council Leader’s role as a more hands-on, executive, full-time, one (with commensurate compensation) -- because presently the unelected council mandarins seem to have a field day by unnecessarily bureaucratising their work and thus wasting tax-payers’ money!

Posted by David Robertson on 09 November 2009, 11:55:54 AM
Ramping up the Council Leader's hands-on capacity would likely lead to more mess. Why should we expect our Council Leader, no matter how professionally gifted, to be competent in running a large civic administration? That's not what we elect them for. We elect politicians to set policy, and monitor its implementation. We employ professional staff to put policies to work. The minute politicians stray over that boundary, troubles arise. And it goes without saying, the minute civic administrators start shaping policy, they breach the democratic process.

Posted by Andy Ray on 10 November 2009, 12:49:49 AM
David, shouldn't your logical objection then be extended against the executive role of the London Mayor and even against the PM's???