Metro mayors

The Centre for Cities is a big fan of directly-elected, metropolitan mayors. We've been saying for ages that our biggest city-regions like Greater Manchester need directly-elected "metro mayors", with real financial powers - including direct control over transport, housing and training budgets.

The Government yesterday inched a tiny little bit closer to that position - see page 44 (out of 56) of this consultation paper, Strengthening Local Democracy launched by the latest Communities Secretary John Denham. It sets out four options for running city-regions like Greater Manchester - but doesn't include any proposals on beefing up local government finance.

Here are the four options, with my spin on Greater Manchester:

• No change: The ten council leaders within Greater Manchester pick one of their own to be a figurehead. This is currently Wigan leader, Peter Smith. No new powers. (Bit rubbish)

• Big two-tier metropolitan authority: Set up a new directly-elected sub-regional authority of Greater Manchester, on top of the existing ten councils. (Very complicated)

• Metro mayor: Directly-elected mayor for all of Greater Manchester, with strategic powers - held in check by  existing ten local councils. (Great, but those "strategic powers" need to include financial powers)

• London-style mayor: Directly-elected Greater Manchester mayor, plus directly-elected Greater Manchester assembly. (What happens to the existing ten councils?)

I was in Manchester yesterday, just after Denham launched this - was speaking to Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, with Peter Smith. See this report in the FT.

As chair of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA), Lord Smith is currently the public face of Greater Manchester. He and Manchester leader Richard Leese both prefer the "no change" option - no surprise there, as they are both incumbent council leaders.

Peter said yesterday that Greater Manchester isn't yet "sophisticated enough" to go for its own directly-elected mayor. Instead, he and Richard would rather negotiate some additional powers out of Whitehall. They met with Chief Secretary, Liam Byrne, and other ministers on Monday - to discuss how Greater Manchester could take on more powers over skills and transport, etc.

I agree with Peter and Richard that Greater Manchester is the way forward. But the "no change" option is not the best way to get there. Greater Manchester would get those powers much quicker with its own "metro mayor".

A "metro mayor" for Greater Manchester would have a personal, direct mandate from a large slice of its 2.5 million residents - a much bigger mandate than the average minister. And a Greater Manchester mayor would be able to extract more powers from Whitehall.

John Denham's proposals, and Greater Manchester's plans, are too incremental and piecemeal. If we really want more powerful cities, we need "metro mayors". If this Government wants to hold on to power, it will have to be much bolder and give some away. Time to include metro mayors in your Manifesto, Gordon.

Comments

[Michel Poulain]

The description the Strengthening Local Democracy document gives for the option you labelled London-style mayor is:

"a combination of a directly elected executive mayor and directly elected sub-
regional scrutiny body – this is similar to the model of the mayor and assembly
established in London. The mayor would have executive power, potentially over
a wide range of issues, and would be held to account by a body of people directly
elected by citizens for that purpose."

More so than just having a directly elected mayor, our big cities would benefit by being on a equal footing with each other. Why settle for a Mayor and city-region government less democratic, independent and powerful than London? An executive needs a legislature on the same scale.

[Dermot Finch]

Understand your point, Michel - but the reality of the London Assembly doesn't quite match up to your goal of an independent and powerful legislature.

Currently, the Assembly lacks teeth and its 25 members are not exactly that visible. That's why I'd rather not promote it as a model for other cities.

I'd be more in favour of the London Assembly if it really had the independence and the powers that you want. Given that it doesn't, I'd prefer the Assembly to be replaced by a chamber made up of the leaders of the 32 London Boroughs. And I'd rather that e.g. Greater Manchester's mayor were held in check by the leaders of the 10 Greater Manchester councils.

Hope that's clear. Thanks for the comment - D

[Frederick]

I can see that the London mayor did a lot to try and sort out transport, but what else have they achieved? in economic development and regeneration, London Development Agency (the only regional development agency that is a local government entity controlled by a directly elected mayor)is a mess, and only put out their statement on how they were responding to recession in June 2009 - 10 months after the other RDAs. LDA have changed their senior management team every year or two since they began, and recently discovered they were £60m short of cash to meet their current committments. Given the criticism and investigation last summer of political interference in the LDA - this is hardly a case for more local government and directly elected control of economic development and regeneration.

I don't subscribe to the view that 'mayors are the answer' - now what's the problem? perhaps the current local authority leader model with more powers might be better - they are held more to account than the current London mayor is by their assembly.

[Dermot]

You're right to have a go at the LDA, Frederick - but I don't think that undermines the case for an elected mayor. Regional development agencies, including the LDA, have their own issues. And the LDA, as you say, has been in a state of flux for some time.

See our report on RDAs from last December - http://www.centreforcities.org/assets/files/The%20Future%20of%20Regional%20Development%20Agencies.pdf

If we look outside London, the case for a single directly-elected executive for e.g. Greater Manchester is more compelling. A Greater Manchester mayor would not control the North West RDA, but would instead take control of the sub-regional Commission for the New Economy. That looks more promising.