Tag Archive for 'mayors'

Bringing on the heartache?

Published by Andrew on July 9, 2008 in LondonSays. 3 Comments

Those who predicted that today’s local government white paper would be devoid of substance won’t have been disappointed by being proven wrong at least, though there is plenty to be disappointed about otherwise. As Dermot Finch also added in the comments of my last post on the matter, it’s tantamount to tinkering around the edges really. In essence it’s the third relaunch of the elected mayors policy, which seems to be dusted off after every cabinet reshuffle but without much progress. The removal of certain legislative impediments on their establishment is to be welcomed, but it’s hardly a rallying call to embrace elected mayors. As Simon suggested yesterday, the desired clout for the policy to make a real difference simply isn’t on offer.

In a letter to the local government trade press after the last local government white paper in 2006, one think tank director asked “Why is everyone being so polite about the local government white paper?” It’ll be interesting to see how polite the reaction is this time around, given the how anaemic it is in comparison. Those think tanks who invested so much energy in assuring the policy world that elected mayors were back and the government was in listening mode will be equally as disappointed (unless you view allowing online signature gathering for a referendum and halving the period after which you can hold a referendum as considerable progress, that is.)

Self-confessed “local government geek” and London councillor Luke Akehurst has penned an analysis of the white paper for the New Labour think tank Progress and even he seems to think the document is weak on the issue of mayors, which suggests that Ms Blears may have disappointed her closest allies (he was on her campaign team for the deputy leadership contest.) He also makes a salient point that many of the concerns raised by the recent Councillors’ Commission (which the government formally responded to today) could be tackled at a stroke were the government to embrace electoral reform for local councils. This seems to be an issue that many Conservatives, who were firmly die-hard in defence of First Past The Post for many years, now concede may be necessary at local level. Half a decade or so ago, Lewisham Council in South London decided that it favoured electoral reform as a means of enhancing scrutiny of the new elected mayoralty and approached the government about the possibility of piloting this. Then as now, the government was definitely not in listening mode. Might London work as a pilot region to test the idea in the 32 boroughs in 2010? It’s worth a thought.

As also mentioned this week, cross-party frontbench consensus appears to have broken over the mayoral question, with Eric Pickles suggesting his party supports that part of the white paper. So that’s another non-prescriptive policy announcement to look forward to after the next election. However, mindful of the fact that his party introduced the ‘Widdicombe ban’ (David, not Ann) in 1989 in response to ‘loony left’ councillors appointing each other to posts all across urban England at the time (teachers were exempt from the ban because of the knock-on effect in the Tory shires though), he did pipe up against that particular proposal. This reform does have raised significance for London, where councillors and candidates overwhelmingly tend to have public sector backgrounds and have long been affected by the indiscriminate ban and its effects on their careers, on and off the council.

Of course, we’re only two years or so away from a general election and given how long it took the Blair government to make good on its proposals in its first white paper, the legislative timeframe simply wouldn’t allow for much in the way of radical reform. But given how in the war of words at Westminster all three parties are preaching a localist mantra and a genuine spirit of bipartisan cooperation appears to have broken out among them at local government level in terms of bringing that about, you have to wonder how many more missed opportunities will be put in front of us before everyone else stops listening.

Update: via paid-up local government geek Andrew Brown, Hazel Blears’ white paper blog. Here’s how London specifically will benefit from the white paper.

Re: Who Governs?

Published by Simon on July 8, 2008 in LondonSays. 1 Comment

200807080940.jpgAndrew is right to flag up the ‘empowerment’ white paper - a statement of intent which will be something of a companion piece to the 2010 campaign which London Councils is running.

Broadly speaking, the introduction of elected local - or should that be focal? - government should re-invigorate democracy. However, the UK is historically sceptical with Bury being the latest local authority to reject the option last week.

The Government finds itself in a bind - it wants to re-invigorate local democracy as voting turn-out falls, but finds its ideas rejected by a determined few - made all the more powerful due the very same low turn-out. These battles are less about democracy and more about who can better muster their troops to apathy.

My source at the Local Government Association told me that they were desperately trying to find something interesting to spin from this white paper. That, I suspect, is the problem.

Without power a locally-elected Mayor is a figurehead who drains resources and distracts from the important work of those councillors who govern. Add some electricity to the package - the ability to direct budgets, negotiate with the Government, enact their (bold) manifesto pledges and people may be more excited by the prospect.

Now we just need a Government who is prepared to give up some power. Perhaps that’s the biggest challenge of all.

Who governs?

Published by Andrew on July 7, 2008 in LondonSays. 4 Comments

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.