A new report says that by giving elected mayors both greater powers and an increased mandate, local democracy and governance can be reinvigorated.
If the Left wants to restate its localist agenda, then looking again at elected mayors is a good place to start. After years of letting the mayoral agenda drift, despite repeated promises in general election manifestos, the Government should now look to reinvigorate local democracy through introducing a new mayoral governance model, pulling down powers from the corridors of Whitehall, closer to the people as a first step in further decentralisation.
The future holds a stark reduction in public sector funding no matter which party wins in May. In spite of increased efficiencies and the innovations in service delivery, this decrease in funding will inevitably mean difficult choices about local service provision.
In this climate it is more important than ever that local people feel engaged in the tough decisions that will have to be made, and know who is accountable for making them.
The New Local Government Network (NLGN) believes that by giving elected mayors both greater powers and an increased mandate, local democracy can be reinvigorated and governance brought down to a closer and more appropriate level.
The UK has one of the most centralised governance structures in the western world. Mayors could hold the key to shifting power from Whitehall to localities. By giving elected mayors the tools and powers they need, mayors would be able to further transform the way communities and citizens are served.
These powers should be centred on greater financial flexibility and increased control over public service delivery in a local area.
In itself, however, this does not hold the answers to greater involvement in local democracy. With public trust in politicians at an all time low, politics must be opened up. Too often the selection process for candidates at all levels is seen as a secretive, shadowy process, with very few members of the public actually involved to any degree.
It is high time these political processes are opened up, with the introduction of open primaries. This should be the domain of the progressive left – the parties of the people – who have the most to gain from this agenda, instead of trailing behind the right.
Government must urgently take another look at the mayoral model. With the strengthened mandate given by open primaries and the direct accountability of elected mayors, this new model could provide a prime opportunity for Labour’s rhetoric on localism and opportunity for all to be turned into action and reinvigorate local democracy.
Our guest writers are Nirmalee Wanduragala and Nick Hope, co-authors of the NLGN’s “New Model Mayors: Democracy, Devolution and Direction” report
17 Responses to “Directly elected mayors with increased powers will reinvigorate local governance”
Mark Pack
I’m dubious about the merits of directly elected Mayors, and it’s actually pieces like this which reinforce my doubts.
We’ve had directly elected Mayors for some time now, so if they are such a good thing why isn’t the argument in their favour based on evidence about what they’ve done?
This is by no means the first piece I’ve seen which argues the principle but goes light on the evidence, and each time I see one I think, “But if the case is so good, why aren’t you drowning me in evidence?”
Given the lack of public enthusiasm for Mayors (few referendums – and in many Mayor idea defeated), I’m also rather dubious about the “it’s great for democracy” argument. At the very least, to be convincing it should start form some understanding of why people haven’t been liking the idea.
Nick Hope
Glad this has provoked some reaction! I’ve tried to provide some responses to/thoughts on as many of the key points made in the time I have…
Mark – In response to you point about representation and taxation. Greater fiscal autonomy and local revenue raising powers could be exactly the kind of thing to go hand-in hand with directly elected mayors. The strong local mandate and clear lines of direct accountability they provide could hold the key to devolution of such powers from Whitehall.
Jim – I understand your concerns about sideling councillors. I fully agree that local councillors should be empowered. Devolving budgets down to the lowest spatial level is key to personalising and tailoring ser vices and a ‘golden thread’ of democracy through councillors at the ward level will be key.
Emilia – apologies if we implied mayors should be imposed. I completely agree it should be for local people to decide. The difficulty is that narrow minded political and institutional self-interest has too often led to fierce resistance and greater powers need to be offered that are commensurate with the “pain” of governance changes to overcome these barriers at a local level.
JKBrum – I completely agree politics is about choices. With downward pressure on public spending these choices will be more stark and important than for a long time. People need top be better engaged with politics and decisions at the local level – the high visibility and platform of mayoral contests will an great mechanism for this.
Anon E Mouse – If there was an elected mayor in Greater Manchester they might have had the democratic mandate (and avoided pressure for a referendum fro Whitehall) to drive through the congestion charge – like Ken Livingston did in London.
Mark – There are so few mayors (most, except the Mayor of London, with the powers they need to drive reform) that it is hard to draw firm conclusions. There are anecdotal examples of good mayors and bad mayors (much like good council leaders and bad council leaders). We know for example that evidence from the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) that many mayors have proved to be highly capable leaders, with the Audit Commission praising North Tyneside for being one of the most improved councils in the country and Hackney demonstrating sustained improvement as it moved from a 1-star authority in 2005 to a 3-star and improving strongly authority in 2008, winning the Local Government Chronicle award for Most Improved Council in 2009 and being nominated for LGC Council of the Year 2010.
Importantly, people know who there leader is and how to hold them to account for performance (an NLGN poll conducted during the first term of elected mayors found that, just 18 months after being elected, on average 57% of people could identify their mayor, compared to only 25% who could identify their leader in councils without a mayor).
jim jepps
I’m not surprised that if you promote an individual well above their fellow councillors that more people can identify them, but it doesn’t mean that’s a more democratic, representative system where we’ve ditched any attempt to gain proportionality.
Holding a directly elected mayor to account is difficult and they rarely have proper scrutiny by full council. Holding a head of a (directly elected) council to account is easy and replacing them is easy too. You’re stuck with a DE Mayor even when you discover they’re rubbish.
We need to move away from personality politics of celeb professional politicians and return to the days when we had councillors making decisions for councils that had actual power rather than having to act as an administrative arm of central government.
uberVU - social comments
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by leftfootfwd: Directly elected mayors with increased powers will reinvigorate local governance: http://is.gd/70VBn…
Anon E Mouse
Nick Hope – Hmmmmm. Fair enough point though…