LondonSays

Though it’s beginning to sound like a broken record (as mentioned on here recently), talk of a renewed emphasis on elected mayors by the government is very much on the cards with the imminent publication of its ‘empowerment’ white paper. Community empowerment is very much a stock theme of Hazel Blears’ entire ministerial career, having progressed to the green benches of Westminster from the ranks of local government on both the officer and elected member side and written a pamphlet or two on the subject along the way.

Today’s FT is the recipient of some pre-white paper briefing from DCLG, suggesting that rather than the carrot and stick approach envisaged by some as a means to entice more cities to opt for what the press always refer to “London-style” elected mayors, the government simply intends to flatten the legislative hurdles and make it simpler to introduce them (something it already did in the 2007 Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act). In Bury last week voters in the Northern town became the latest to say ‘no’ to the idea of having an elected mayor, with Torbay being the last council to opt for one three years ago this month. Campaigns for referendums in cities such as Birmingham and Liverpool, very much the kind of authorities long envisaged to go down the mayoral route, have failed to get off the ground. The government however believe that allowing petitions to be held online could see this tide stemmed. It remains to be seen if this white paper and any subsequent legislation will once again fall victim to the conundrum of how to deliver change without being centrally prescriptive. As elected mayors don’t play too well with backbench MPs, ministerial demands for better local leadership often remain just that.

For their part, the Conservatives last week (Local Government Chronicle, 3 July) hinted that their forthcoming green paper on local government would be “pro-mayor”, signifying a shift in policy (as first suggested by David Cameron during his leadership campaign in 2005.) As Dermot Finch of the Centre for Cities outlines, the Tories are clearly shifting on the question of Regional Development Agencies towards a more regionally bespoke approach, which might see them retained for regions such as the North East but phased out elsewhere (the South East would be a good bet here.) As with emerging Tory policy in the Greater London Authority (and therefore the London Development Agency), they would scrap RDAs’ overseas offices. As he also points out, Tory thinking is completely reticent on city regions, which is where a coherent policy on local government could actually emerge, from London to Newcastle.

What might these Tory (and Labour for that matter) policy shifts mean for London? Currently there are just three elected mayors among the 32 London Boroughs, all Labour and all in the East London sub region. Following the Local Government Act 2000, a further three referendums were held in London on the question (Ealing, Harrow and Southwark), all of which said ‘no’ (less people in Ealing voted to have a mayor in the referendum than in the initial consultation.) The remaining London Boroughs avoided having any referendum by confirming local support for the retention of the Leader and Cabinet model, though Hackney’s journey from basket case to strongly improved three-star authority suggests that direct election has benefits currently denied to other councils in the capital.

Whoever forms the next government, we are not likely to see much in the way of legislative change affecting the capital’s governance, with most action on this front taking place around the edges and via soft politics. Cases in point:

* parish councils — the 2007 Act lifted the 40 year old legislative bar on their creation in London but there are few signs of any emerging, with most boroughs resolutely opposed to a lower tier which potentially undermine it. Yet the benefits of having government closer to the people and a potential route for more people to get involved in running the capital (something London Councils concerns itself with today)
* ’super boroughs’ — guaranteed to raise most councillors’ blood pressure, the concept (reducing the number of boroughs from 32 to 14, 10 or even as few as five) remains a damaged currency. Yet ‘virtual super boroughs’ could play a part in pooling leisure provision (an issue which played out in the 2006 elections) and social care and alievating pressure on parents in the secondary transfer process. Conservative Kensington and Chelsea are already cooperating with (newly Conservative) Hammersmith and Fulham on traffic management but how else could this be applied?
* political leadership — it won’t go away. Where else might elected mayors work in the capital? A clear sign of who’s in charge might be appreciated in those eight London Boroughs currently under No Overall Control. Where are those referendum campaigns then?
* the City of London — another anorak favourite. The government suggested a few years back that after the 2009 City elections might be an opportune time to examine if the 2002 reforms to the franchise are working and if some form of ‘commuter vote’ might be the answer to the vexatious question of how to allow democratic oversight in a (highly rated) local authority with just 7,500 residents.

One good point in the forthcoming white paper though. The dreaded Widdicombe rules, introduced to stop the Derek Hattons of this world rather than everyone else, look set to be scrapped.