[0:00]If you think back over the that tenure period, what would be what would be a thing? Not the thing, but a thing. A decision made, a reform introduced, a policy that was pursued, that sort of encapsulates, you know, best, not the best, but best what you mean by Manchesterism, which is about trying to bring social and economic progress and help them work together rather than be pitted against. What what would be the sort of example or examples that you would you would point to if you think about over that tenure period. It's the one I mentioned, Andrew, it's public control of the buses. An issue that Westminster completely neglected actually when I was, when I was there, and I was part of that as well. But that is the one, because I'm obviously the first person to take a completely deregulated system. I've seen what happened to it in the 40 years of deregulation, which wasn't good. Um, obviously the fares that were being charged, public investment, the depots were in some cases a disgrace. Yeah. And bear in mind, these were depots that GM Buses was forced to give away for a few pounds in the 1980s. I have to buy them back for millions. Does that not get in your throat somewhat? Well, it did mine. Um, but it's when you get that control, you've got a transport system that supports people into work. that, you know, means people aren't late getting into work. It's the foundation for a productive economy, a good functioning public transport system. Um, you know, one where you can just tap on any bus rather than what we used to have is you could only get on this bus if you've got this ticket, unbelievable how we we let that happen. But then you get the fair policy that supports people as London has had and we're now we're now emulating. But also, we've brought in a good employment charter, so no one runs buses in Greater Manchester unless they are a full member of the Greater Manchester Good employment charter. What does it mean? Means every single driver out there on the network today has got coverage of sick pay from day one. You go back to the pandemic six years ago, that was not the case. So, if you yeah, if you look at that example, buses, bread and butter, you know, people laugh when we go on about it, and I'm not going to stop going on about it, because it's the vast majority of people use that as their main public transport option. It is so it is supporting the Greater Manchester economy. And it looks better for a start, it looks like it's a more, you know, a more modern system. gives investors confidence, but crucially, it helps people both working in it, people using it to travel to get around. And I, so the Manchesterism bit then is that control, isn't it? You're intentional about things. You are intervening where you need to. We would say, the public control of housing has been largely lost, particularly when the golden share was abolished, so the councils have no meaningful role now in housing associations. That, I think, was a very damaging step. How can you, how can you be in control of your place if you don't control housing? Um, utilities, obviously, we all know at some of those those issues as well. It it's not about, you know, because people will say, oh, this is hopeless sort of left-wing stuff. Well, it's not at all. The economy needs those things to work and work properly for everybody. And if they don't, the housing crisis that emerges, in the end, damages the, the whole productivity of the whole city region, doesn't it? If people are in such poor housing, or worrying themselves to sleep every night because of the cost of the rent, they're hardly going to be productive in work the next day, are they? And you see those two things together, in a sense, because you get control of buses, or you get control of housing, and then you are more able to make the decisions that you want to make. So just follow that through and then what, what would what would, I mean what have been, or what are those decisions? I suppose then what's the, what would you see as being distinctive about the, the nature of the decisions that you are then making as opposed to you get more control, but you could have done what was going on before, right? Okay, that's a really good question and I've got a good answer hopefully, which is, um, uh, which is the drive to a net zero carbon neutral Great Manchester, which we're still 100% committed to, by the way. I talked about future facing, you know, these kind of right-wing politicians here and around the world who are turning their back on, we heard it in the Portman Denton by-election. You're basically turning your back on the future if you turn your back on that. Manchester has never turned its back on the future. If anything, it's going to try to drag it, drag it closer, that's what it's always done. So we are absolutely committed to a carbon neutral Greater Manchester by 2038. The summary from the Green Summit yesterday was, we can still do it just, although it's really challenging, and why can we do it? Because particularly transport, the public control allows you to set the pace of decarbonization. So, we'll we'll have an all-electric bus fleet by 2030, so we will have a carbon neutral public transport system at street level. The trams run on renewable energy, the buses will, zero emission, fantastic for people's health. That, that's it, that's happening. I can't do the same about housing, though, you see? That's the point about public control, because you can't set the pace for retro fit when you the large chunk of it, the worst housing is in the private rented sector.
[5:43]Um, and then you have all of the poor health issues that come out of that, and also energy as well. So the point being, if you have the control, you can dictate the pace of the change that you want to see. And it's always been my view, I want to make Greater Manchester the country's leading green city region, not politically, I might say, but, uh, I've said that all the time because I still see this as the as pure economic and social progress. That that is what it is in in in essence, isn't it? You change people's homes, their transport, their energy systems, and therefore you're changing people's lives and you're creating good jobs. So to me, that I am absolutely will take on those who who argue against that. It's it's the path to, you know, a a better, fairer, uh Greater Manchester and indeed country. So that that's the point though. There's it's a risk 2038 because of the lack of public control over those other essentials. So one other thing, well, many things you've said, but we've talked about this before, some of our own work shows this as well. You you've always said, and you said it again in your in your talk about putting place before politics, or place first as a as a principle. Just expand on that. And I suppose, you know, to what extent is that you, in the sense that is your philosophy, that that is your principle, that's how you want to to be the mayor of a place Greater Manchester. Vis-a-vis, you think there is something inherent in the in the nature of the job or in the nature of the role that to do it effectively, that is what is required. And I the reason I ask that partly because I'm just interested in your answer to that question. But obviously, you alluded to this, the complexity of who are, who are mayors and where they come from is increasing rather than narrowing. And if it's more of the of if it's more of the former it's down to the individual, then we're likely to get quite different, different types of responses, different ways of working, in different places, which may happen anyway. But I'm interested in whether you think there is something inherently about the role itself or the job itself that actually requires a place first, a place before politics perspective, because we may not get that if that isn't the case. I think the, the role does require that if you're to do it properly. But I just want to share with you just something of why I've really changed my thinking about all of these things, particularly proportional representation. So I left Westminster in 2017. And bear in mind, that was just after the 2015 general election, which I think the first feeling of the Brexit referendum was in the air, and UKIP doing well. It was a really, I really did not enjoy that election in any way, shape or form, and it really tough and didn't feel there was a connection, you know, I felt it really going at that point, the connection to the extent I was one with the public. So, play it forward two years, and I'd made the decision to leave, and, you know, with Steve established devolution. And I arrive in a proportional system of some might say perfect, but you know, at least the alternative vote allowed a different conversation. And this this is the thing, you had a reason to stop on every doorstep. That was the thing that I really, you know, really stuck with me from that kind of time. Because you're after a second preference from a Lib Dem or a Tory or a Green, and so you're trying to find a point of agreement on a doorstep. And to me, that was like a complete revelation from the Westminster thing. It was like, hang on a minute. I can speak to every voter, and I'm trying to find some common ground with every voter. Isn't that a great thing? And actually, doesn't that then align with how they think politics should be? That you're just looking for solutions, and you're looking to find ways of working together and. And that's what came over to me. And I I do contrast it with kind of the campaigning style, certainly Labour's campaigning style, but I think it's true of all parties, where now, those of you who go out campaigning, many of you will, I'm sure. You know, there's a clipboard, oh, walk past these 10 houses, then knock on that one because like four years ago, they said they were possibly going to vote Labour. You know, what do the other people think looking behind their net curtains as all these people are like, why are we knocking on my door, you know? That that's the sort of bankruptcy of of that system, I think. It's kind of chasing like a machine sort of votes that it thinks might be there, but it's just walking past everyone, everyone else. And that left left the whole thing in major doubt, and I had to take a decision, was I prepared to put Greater Manchester equity into this scheme, public equity into this scheme to allow it to go ahead? And it was a really big decision. But basically, the question was this, in some ways it wasn't a hard question, because the question was, was I going to let the markets decide what Stockport could be in the future?
[17:07]Well, no, we were going to back it. We we had confidence in the place, we were going to back the place, we did back the place. Those flats are all completely left. Only been open about a year, but completely left, completely, you know, fulfill. So my point is, I come back to it when I said before that the national level never sets ambitions for the places. Only the places will have the ambition and the belief in their own place. And so you have to be take control of your investment strategy and be prepared to step in. So the good growth fund is the Stockport thing times a hundred. It's a, you know, it's a billion pound fund, made up of some of our own grant funding from Westminster, we're grateful for that through our integrated settlement and the changes that they've brought through that. But it's then linked to our own borrowing, which we're doing in a significant way for the first time. Cautious. It's predicated on business rates retention receipts down the line, which we we are very confident we will get. Greater Manchester pension fund has come in as a partner. Um, other public financing institutions, they're called Puffin, aren't they? I almost refuse to use that phrase, but anyway, I think I'm going to have to because everyone is using it. Um, you know, they're they're starting to come on board with us. And then you've got the ability to take the Stockport model to Bolton as we're about to do, and a colleague we were just talking about that before, to Middleton, where I started my career on the Middleton Guardian. So I've got a special place in my heart, and Steve Coogan, would you believe, is cheering our mayor development Corporation with Rose Marley from Properties UK. Uh, Steve, son of Middleton, we're taking Steve to MIPIM next week, which is going to be an interesting, uh, experience. He'll have enough material I think for several sitcoms and feature films, but anyway, that's next week. Um, Stayley Bridge, Ashton. So, the next decade, I said it's going to be really exciting, because it's the, the town's turn. That's how I put it, you know, the city's kind of power ahead. But now it's the turn of the towns, and that's going to be just brilliant. But it's got to be intentional. If we don't go in and invest in all of these places, and an old and town center where we're, where we're investing, who else will? But if and again, I say it, if we don't do it, they'll forever be neglected, won't they? We, we, the public sector has to start the turnaround. And you have to go in with with again what Westminster doesn't do, you go in with ambition. You go in and put something really impressive, like we've done with Stockport Interchange, and you put that back in, and then the confidence comes from that. And yeah, that it, so, long answer, Andrew, but it's that is it literally your question is at the cusp of where Greater Manchester is right now. And one more from me, which starts from the specific but then broadens out, and we'll come to you and I'm going to ask you about more broadly about what you think about future devolution, I'm sure, but hopefully, I say hopefully, because we don't actually quite know. But we are hopeful that you along with, um, the other metros at least, will have, um, the ability to introduce a visitor levy in the not too distant future. Uh, common place in most European cities, big, small, etcetera, but obviously unique in England at least, although we have versions and variations in Scotland and in, and in Wales. So, less about that, but it it's a small step, I suppose, on this fiscal question about where does that ultimately take us? I'm interested in just your thought on that, particularly, you know, there are always challenges and arguments to be won with HMT on fiscal and tax issues. Rightly, because they're important we should be serious about any arguments in that kind of space. Do you see this as the first step in a longer road, or how do you think about this? And, you know, that's partly future oriented, future framed as well, but I'd just be interested in your thought. Yeah, I definitely do see it see it that way. And I always positioned it as the first step for everybody. You know, for Whitehall, well, I can understand I'll be nervous, but this is the right, the right place to start. The argument for it is when you have growth, how do you pay for the consequences of that growth? The extra buses, the extra trams, the later trams, the extra policing that we want we do need in the city center of Manchester. Is it fair to go to the Council taxpayers always and say, well, you have to pay for it all, you know, for the extra things that needed because we've got more visitors in the city region. And here's another thing, you know, failure to revalue council tax, since it came in, is another shocking abdication of Westminster's responsibility to local government that I've learned more about in my, in my time as as mayor. But you cannot do that from a regressive tax, can you? You can't fund all of this from what is an essentially regressive tax. So there has to be a fairness there with residents and visitors, both benefit from the the better transport. And actually, you know, if you focus the overnight visit to Levy on things that improve the visitor experience, then I don't think businesses should, you know, have anything to worry about. Yeah, we all pay a few pounds in France, Germany, Italy, don't we when we go? Does anyone resent that? I never have done. You're just in a place, aren't you? You're enjoying it, and you're using its amenities. Who who actually objects to that? I don't think many people do. Maybe some do. Uh, I I don't think they do. And that's just a, you know, just a sensible thing to do. But you're absolutely right. It's a principle then, isn't it? You know, already, you know, you talk to Steve about what he's got planned, uh, on the back of the visitor levy. And it involves the Beatles, I won't I won't spoil it, but it's, uh, it's a pretty, pretty good plan.
[22:54]It when we can borrow against revenue streams, you just you don't quite have to go on bended knee anymore to Whitehall, you know what I mean? You're not waiting for a budget, oh, can we have, can we have this grant? It's just going to be much better and the other, the other mechanisms then I would talk about would be land value capture where infrastructure lifts land values. Of course you should capture some of that money to pay for the infrastructure itself. Retain business rates, you know, we absolutely should be going further down, uh, that path, you know, where businesses, but where we bring in inward investment and you capture permanently that that uplift rather than the Treasury take it back. So there's there's lots of things you can do as a sort of journey towards a fiscal devolution. But when the day comes, because we're going to get Cheshire and Warrington combined authority next year, got Liverpool City region, I think Lancashire's coming through soon. So when the time comes when the Northwest of England can just borrow itself and support each other, and, you know, not have to go down pleading for money, then then as a country we're getting somewhere. We're getting serious, aren't we? We're we're back in the game in a in a meaningful way when the regions can work like that.
