Working to make government more effective

Comment

Why the government needs to improve the mayoral offer

The elected mayors debate is heating up, feedback from 11 cities planning referendums on elected mayors suggests that greater clarity is essential.

The elected mayors debate is heating up. The feedback from 11 cities planning referendums on elected mayors suggests that greater clarity on the scope and powers of future mayors is essential to derive a definitive consensus of the mayoral proposition from local authorities.

On our tour of these 11 cities we were told by chief executives, officials, councillors, business and voluntary sector leaders alike that elected mayors could offer greater accountability and clear leadership at a local level, but that the mayoral offer to local authorities needs to be more clearly defined.  Yesterday we got more clarity on the government’s position with Baroness Hanham’s announcement that both the merger of mayors and chief executives and the concept of shadow mayors would be abandoned. This will be a welcomed relief for many. On our tour we were told time and time again that shadow mayors, making current leaders of councils unelected shadow mayors before the referendums, were a central government imposition of the localism agenda. So where next in improving the mayoral offer?  A visible leader A recent survey conducted by Birmingham’s Chamber of Commerce revealed Birmingham’s business community is sympathetic to the mayoral proposition. 36% of the 204 respondents were in favour of having an elected mayor, with 41% not sure and 23% opposed. The most popular reason given (38% of those in favour) was because a mayor would enhance Birmingham’s profile. The reasons for the profile enhancing role are well established. Elected mayors are directly elected from an electoral base that covers their whole area. As we argued in ‘Big Shot or Long Shot’, this gives mayors the mandate and legitimacy to position themselves as leader of the place rather than just leader of the council. A mayor can be ‘Mrs Birmingham’ rather than ‘Mrs Birmingham Council’, which can help in negotiations with a range of audiences, including central government and the international business community. The greater visibility the mayor can bring to the area seems to resonate with the business community in Birmingham. Who needs more power But the business community recognises that enhancing the city’s profile will not be enough to address economic growth challenges. Respondents most frequently cited a lack of new powers as the reason why they opposed the current mayoral model. To be a more attractive proposition to the business community elected mayors need to be a significantly different proposition to the status quo. In ‘Big Shot or Long Shot’ we outlined some of the additional powers elected mayors would need to focus on local growth priorities. Powers over strategic planning and powers to pull statutory plans behind the mayor’s vision for the area, similar to the London Plan, would be a good starting point. Devolving these powers will be difficult for the government. Creating strong mayors drives to the heart of whether the coalition is serious about localism. It is also difficult to devolve power to untested accountability mechanisms. Successful devolutions to London, Scotland and Wales have all built on existing local institutions. Devolving powers to mayors will perhaps be easier once mayoral institutions have had time to embed themselves. But despite these difficulties, the debate amongst Birmingham’s business community has further to go. The 41% of the Chamber’s 204 members who responded currently ‘don’t know’ whether they want a mayor is significant evidence that the government needs to be clearer and braver in its mayoral offer.
Publisher
Institute for Government

Related content