Municipal manipulation: the Mystery of the ‘Mayor’

Next month will see a number of England's largest cities hold referenda on the introduction of directly elected mayors. John Emms examines the move.

I find myself contemplating a mystery. Why are so many Westminster politicians so keen to force elected ‘mayors’ on local government? When the whole idea, with its silly and inaccurate name was introduced in the 2000 LGA, it was Labour who were promoting it – not just as an option but as, in their view, the obvious favourite; and they slanted the legislation and guidance to make it more likely that referendums on the issue would be required – though it didn’t work out like that. Of course, they couldn’t force the populace in those areas which had a referendum to vote in favour. Indeed, they couldn’t get the vast majority of the populace to care sufficiently to bother voting at all.

Maybe Tony Blair, talking to his friend and mentor, George W., had been told, “Say, Tone, this municipalital government of yours. What’s with your mayors wearing big red dressing-gowns and crazy hats? You need proper mayors. Remember that guy in the Big Apple at 9/11. What was his name? Julie something. Anyways, you need mayors like him…or was it her?”

It certainly couldn’t have been the French model, where every tupenny-ha’penny village has a maire, meaning there are tens of thousands of them scattered round the country. No, the French exemplar would have been the prefect and one can imagine that both Blair and Campbell’s youthful experiences might have prejudiced them against such a title. Mind you, that would have been interesting. Council meetings would have become assemblies, committees would be supervised prep, the Standards Committee would have power to give lines or detention and back-bench councillors would have been renamed fags. Or, on second thoughts, that would have been the officers. Except the chief executive, who would have been retitled the School Bully.

Anyway…at a recent binge to launch the things, the youthful Mr Cameron apparently mentioned three reasons for his conversion to the Labour cause. First, elected ‘mayors’ are the best answer to the question ‘Who do I blame when things go wrong?’ What a bizarre place to start. Not only is he admitting that with ‘mayors’ things may go wrong (not something politicians usually admit), but by placing that first, he seems to be assuming that it will be a sure-fire certainty. And anyway, it isn’t true. Unless he’s proposing to transfer all the powers which currently remain with the council rather than the executive, some of the things which will go wrong will presumably be their fault.

Except, I’m making a mistake there, aren’t I? He isn’t talking about whose fault everything would be but who to blame. And bearing in mind that most people don’t have the vaguest notion who carries which power (and, let’s face it, even the lawyers can’t always be sure, given the way legislation is sometimes drafted) they’ll certainly blame the ‘mayor’ for everything. Including NHS failings and the drought, probably.

Secondly, the little chap suggests elected city ‘mayors’ could deal direct with inward investors and ‘create economic dynamism’, whatever that might be, while his third reason is ‘leadership’.

Forgive me, but how can he be so sure that direct election will be bound to throw up a dynamic leader, economic or otherwise? Recent history hasn’t exactly supported that view on absolutely every occasion. Just where, for instance, did Peter Davies lead Doncaster? Though, as I remember saying somewhere else, to be fair, it wasn’t all his fault…Except, hang on! According to young Cameron, yes it was! Or at any rate everybody is supposed to blame him. Anyway, what’s wrong with the current system, where all the councillors (or a political majority of them) decide specifically who among them is best to be the Leader? Of course, that doesn’t always work, either, but it’s no less likely and, on the face of it, seems more likely to result in the appointment of someone with genuine leadership skills.

But what the fresh-faced Mr. C either didn’t mention or wasn’t reported as mentioning is the emphasis which has also been placed on a ‘mayor’ being known. And it does appear to be a fact that elected ‘mayors’ are better known than traditional leaders. The BBC recently demonstrated this entirely unscientifically by showing to selections from the local vox pop. in first Leicester and then Bradford, pictures of, respectively, Sir Peter Soulsby, Leicester’s recently elected ‘mayor’, and Ian Greenwood, the Leader of Bradford Council. The three people asked in Leicester came up trumps, while the three asked in Bradford threw in their hands (to continue the metaphor).

So, all right, one point on the knowing who to blame front. But how good is that in creating economic dynamism. Boris Johnson, at the same shindig with his party’s youthful leader, according to LocalGov.co.uk, put it like this: "You need a mayor who can serve as a lightening rod and a contact for those who want to invest." (Though I assume, in his mind, he wasn’t spelling it like that.) Well, OK, but for that to be achieved, it doesn’t matter a monkey’s whether the locals know the relevant person – the issue is potential inward investors. And how many people anywhere outside the average city (let’s say Wakefield, shall we?) would have the vaguest notion who their ‘mayor’ would be? A traditional leader can do that job just as effectively can’t he?...she?...it? Though that does make me wonder whether that’s a reason why an elected role was originally given the title ‘mayor’ rather than ‘leader’. As the face of a promotion in France or the USA, say, that would fit in with what a mayor, as they define it, is. While in Germany, ‘leader’ translated into the local tongue, has a rather different connotation; though one, I suppose, to which Germans are well accustomed – it’s only we war-obsessed Brits who haven’t got over it, yet. On the same point, incidentally, again at the recent elected ‘mayor’ bash, Sir Peter Soulsby said "If an elected mayor is good enough for our competitors in Europe and North America then it's good enough for us." Well, ‘nuff said, Pete, baby! You’ve convinced me. And while we’re at it, let’s go for that there federal government, too…

Anyway, why shouldn’t a Leader become equally well-known, if that’s what we want? It could be done. All that’s required is to convert local politics to the central model, where the party emphasis is on their leaders and how awesome they would be as prime ministers and how crummy everyone else’s will be. If a cult of personality is required it can be provided. So for any council, all the publicity for each party needs to be restructured around the name and attributes (including some mythical ones, of course) of the local leader. Job done! And we can still call the real mayors by their correct title and avoid confusing everybody; such as the BBC who illustrated an online piece about elected ‘mayors’ with a picture of a real mayor, complete with red dressing-gown and silly hat.

Of course, I’m assuming that young Dave genuinely means it when he says they’re a wildly amazing idea, these ‘mayors’. Politicians do sometimes believe what they say; quite often, in fact, despite their efforts to convince us to the contrary. But what if he doesn’t, the little scamp? What if it’s all a con? After all, he clearly thinks most people believe it’s a bad idea; otherwise why is he stooping to open bribery to get his way? Promises of additional, albeit unspecified and so somewhat nebulous, powers if the good citizens do what Daddy wants. Not only that – but a Cabinet Of Mayors. Wowee! The first meeting to be chaired by…the lad himself (though I suspect the latter promise is not quite so attractive as he probably believes). If he thinks he has to do all that to convince those affected, he may not be convinced himself. So why is he pushing it? Well, look at the facts.

First the man really does seem to believe that in general he’s pushing a localism agenda, doesn’t he? Apart from trying to bully cities into electing ‘mayors’, obviously. And that’s despite central government always naturally seeking to centralise. Not necessarily deliberately, of course – it’s just instinctive.

Secondly, the government wants local power concentrated in the hands of one individual. Locally centralised, in other words.

Thirdly those individuals are going to be brought together in a single Cabinet. Nationally centralised, that is. And who’s going to chair it?

Q.E.D.

John Emms was Solicitor to Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council between 1994 and 2007.