黑洞社区

Tessa Jowell probably won鈥檛 read this interview. The Olympics minister seems to know what the press will write anyway. 鈥淭here are three headlines we will see between now and the opening ceremony,鈥� she says. 鈥淥ne is that the budget鈥檚 out of control, the second is that the venues are late and the third is that everyone involved in the project is useless. Well, it isn鈥檛, they aren鈥檛 and first-class people are working on it.鈥�

Strong words indeed, but sitting in her rooms in the Cabinet Office, Jowell seems more genteel than some of her colleagues. Like most senior politicians, she is well briefed, but she appears to have a genuine enthusiasm for her job, which helps combat the negativity surrounding the Olympics.

鈥淲hen you鈥檙e involved in such a wonderful project, you put on a fire-proof jacket and get on with it,鈥� she says, breezily. 鈥淭he media is free to write what it wants, but the chances are I won鈥檛 read it. Why bother?鈥�

Jowell came to prominence in the New Labour Cabinet of 1997. An original 鈥淏lair鈥檚 babe鈥�, she was health minister and culture minister during the party鈥檚 first two terms. After Gordon Brown took charge last year, Jowell became Olympics minister 鈥� a crucial position, she would say, but some see it as an attempt to marginalise a key ally of the former prime minister who once said she would 鈥渏ump under a bus鈥� for Blair.

Games people play

These days, Jowell is all about the Olympics. When we meet, she is preparing to go to Beijing for the Paralympic Games鈥� closing ceremony. China spent 拢25bn on its Games 鈥� more than twice London鈥檚 own budget of 拢9.3bn. One may have expected this daunting scale to have increased the pressure on Jowell, but she says London should not try to compete. 鈥淟ondon鈥檚 purpose in hosting the Games is different,鈥� she says. 鈥淲hen the time comes it will be just as exhilarating.鈥�

The media can write what it wants, but the chances are I won鈥檛 read it

Though she may be able to ignore negative press coverage, there is no escaping the fact it is not just the media that has been criticising the preparations for 2012. The parliamentary committees monitoring the Games鈥� progress have issued critical reports, too. In April, a department for culture select committee said the 鈥淕ames鈥� organisers were prepared to spend money like water鈥�. In the same week, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the original budget of 拢4bn was 鈥渦nrealistic鈥� and accused the government of being 鈥渆conomical with the truth鈥�. Jowell says the criticisms were printed out of context. For example, Edward Leigh, chairman of the PAC, was quoted as saying ministers had misled the parliament. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 about the worst accusation that can be levelled against a minister. I have never done that,鈥� she says.

Leigh, a Tory MP, also said he had been misquoted, and apologised. This hands-across-the-divide approach is typical, says Jowell, of parliament鈥檚 increasingly non-partisan approach 鈥� which is just as well, given there is every chance the Conservatives will be in power by 2012.

Of course, Jowell has already been working with a Tory regime in the form of London mayor Boris Johnson. Is he doing a good job so far? 鈥淗e鈥檚 been true to the platform to which he was elected,鈥� she says, carefully. 鈥淭here are extraordinarily good relationships in the Olympics leadership. Boris is as responsible for that as much as everyone else.鈥� Her use of the mayor鈥檚 first name stands out. In April, Jowell famously banned her colleagues from referring to him as such.

Her comment, too, is comparatively high praise for a man she dismissed as being 鈥渢oo much of a risk鈥� during the race for the mayoralty. Johnson, in return, has said there would be a place for Jowell in the Greater London Authority if Labour loses the next election. 鈥淚 didn鈥檛 know that!鈥� she says. She seems flattered. Would she accept? She laughs. 鈥淭his is wandering into the realm of the hypothetical. I鈥檓 not going there.鈥�

Future perfect?

Although Jowell鈥檚 long-term role on the Olympics is unclear, there is plenty to focus on in the short term. While the sporting venues seem to be progressing smoothly, the athletes鈥� village is at the centre of negotiations about the level of private money that will be invested. Jowell refuses to be drawn on when this will be finalised, saying that negotiations are continuing. 鈥淚 expect financial close to be around the end of the year,鈥� she says, 鈥渂ut the minute you pin down a date, you鈥檙e at a disadvantage.鈥�

There are extraordinarily good relationships in the Olympics leadership. Boris is as responsible for that as much as everybody else

And although work on site has begun, developer Lend Lease has been hit hard by the credit crunch. What if it can鈥檛 afford the amount it is expected to contribute? 鈥淚f a further draw on the contingency is necessary, we will do that,鈥� she says. Does that mean the government could underwrite the scheme, with Lend Lease as project manager? 鈥淣o, no, no,鈥� she says, firmly. 鈥淟end Lease will bear substantial risk.鈥�

The government may dip deeper into its pocket to build the village, but it has no intention of doing that for the sports venues. In fact, the culture department has hired consultant KPMG to examine the financial case for three temporary venues 鈥� a basketball arena, an equestrian track and a shooting range.

Reports that the permanent venues could be scrapped are inaccurate, says Jowell. 鈥淛ust because we鈥檝e commissioned this report does not mean we鈥檙e changing decisions we鈥檝e already made. I have to make sure we鈥檝e considered value for money.鈥�

黑洞社区 temporary venues instead of permanent ones makes sense, she says, for fringe sports such as shooting. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 want a shooting venue with an expensive physical legacy. It isn鈥檛 a sport that needs that kind of investment.鈥�

On the other hand, Jowell suggests that the basketball arena could be a more permanent structure than originally planned, owing to the sport鈥檚 popularity in the UK.

A permanent basketball arena would be good news, not only for Wilkinson Eyre, the scheme鈥檚 architect, but also those who say the Games鈥� legacy has not been properly examined. This is a shortcoming Jowell recognises. 鈥淭he argument we still have to make is about legacy. We must communicate that as a specific detail of the plan.鈥�

You could be forgiven for thinking that good news is in short supply on the Olympics project, but Jowell ends the interview with some media coverage of her own. 鈥淭he real headline here is that we鈥檙e exhilarated by the Olympic challenge after Beijing, and not in the least bit overawed,鈥� she says. 鈥淭hese will be the British games in London, and they will be different. We expect to take lots of flak, but we are absolutely passionate about it.鈥� If that is what the headlines say, the Olympics minister might read the papers after all.