This time last year, I predicted that if Gordon didn't go for big city mayors, David Cameron would. And that's exactly what has happened.
In the Tories' Control Shift green paper in Feb, Cameron went for elected mayors big time. If the Tories form the next government, they will hold a referendum to allow 12 big cities to have their own elected mayor - including Tory Birmingham, Labour Manchester and LibDem Newcastle.
Since then, Labour has continued to prevaricate on mayors. A succession of CLG Ministers - Miliband, Kelly, Blears - have championed mayors. And Blair was keen, too. But Gordon has never really been interested.
In reality, all three main parties are divided on mayors. Most incumbent councillors hate the idea. But with the Tories now officially embracing mayors, Labour now looks behind the curve. Eight years on from the introduction of the London mayoralty, Labour has failed to install a mayor in any other big city. Instead, we've got an underwhelming batch of small-scale mayors with no real powers.
Earlier this month, I restated our call for elected mayors. Our biggest cities need directly elected mayors, with real tax and spend powers. Big city mayors would be highly visible, directly accountable, and responsible for taking tough decisions on issues like transport and housing.
The political case for elected mayors is stronger than ever, following the expenses crisis. Electoral reform cannot just be limited to Parliament. Elected city mayors would help to re-engage local voters with the political process. Mayors tend to attract higher turnouts - 45% of Londoners voted in the mayoral election last year, compared to just 25% in Knowsley and Moss Side council elections.
The economic case for mayors is also pretty strong. The recession is having a different impact in different cities. Each city needs its own powerful leader - armed with financial powers - to tackle the recession locally. City mayors would help unlock the financial powers that cities need.
So if mayors are such a good idea, why hasn't Labour gone for them already? Three reasons are usually trotted out - but these are now looking rather tired:
- "Mayors would add another unwelcome layer of governance" - not true. Mayors would add a democratic, strategic layer - unlike the unelected layers of governance that have proliferated in recent years.
- "Mayors would be maverick personalities, rather than proper politicians" - I don't buy this either. London has been run by two different maverick personalities since 2000, and most people agree the London mayoralty is a good idea.
- "Mayors have a bad reputation for corruption and financial irregularities" - so do MPs.
I made these points at a Progress event last week. The RSA's Matthew Taylor was there too, plus Stephen were you up for Portillo? Twigg.
Today, Taylor - former head of Blair's policy unit - calls on Labour to embrace elected mayors. He says: "If government is serious about giving local leaders the scope to make tough choices, it should commit to create mayors in all England's largest cities. As Ken and Boris have shown, the personal mandate of a mayor makes a step change to local leaders' visibility, legitimacy and capacity to stand up to the centre."
I agree. The question is, does Gordon? If he wants to re-connect with the voters, he should go for elected mayors and give them some real financial powers over housing, transport and skills budgets.
Comments