Should Cardiff have an elected mayor?
Bubble — By WalesHome on August 27, 2010 7:00 am
Seat of power: Cardiff City Hall is a fine example of local government - although the local authority sits in Cardiff Bay now
Jonathan Morgan AM: It’s time to debate the merits of a directly elected mayor for Cardiff
THERE are a number of reasons why I have pushed the debate about directly elected mayors to the top of the political agenda in the Capital. Firstly, I am a proud Cardiffian. I was born, raised, educated and employed here; I live here and I have the immense privilege of representing and serving part of the city and its residents in the National Assembly. I’m passionate about the city and want to see it thrive – not just as this nation’s capital but as one of the greatest cities the UK has to offer.
Secondly, if Cardiff is to fulfil its potential, then its description as a young and modern European capital needs continuous support. Cities don’t achieve greatness just by acquiring a description; they require leadership, innovation and dedication by individuals who have vision.
If we sit back and merely accept that the current form of local government is adequate, then Cardiff’s development will stagnate. I believe adopting the model of a directly elected mayor for the city would give Cardiffians a direct say; not just a vote for a local councillor who in turn elects the county council leader but a direct input into what direction our capital city should take.
Of course this is just my opinion. I am expressing it not as a politician looking for political capital but as a resident who wants the best for his family, community and city. I am in no way saying that this is a ‘must have’ model. The case does have to be made and every aspect examined in detail. However, at the very least, I firmly believe that we should be debating whether this is a route that Cardiffians wish to take.
Some may say – why now? He’s only saying it to make political capital because his party is in government and that’s what they want to do in England. The fact is that the Conservative Party fully supported the principle put forward by the previous administration when it introduced the Local Government Act in 2000, which contained the procedural measures to establish directly elected mayors. The idea was that residents in towns and cities right across England and Wales would enact the provisions in that piece of legislation in order to unlock the powers needed to benefit their communities; to enable regeneration, to improve transport, to further economic growth and most importantly, be completely accountable for delivering those goals. However, the reality is that in 10 years we have seen only seen the creation of 13 directly elected mayors (including London).
Why is this the case? Is it because voters have rejected the concept? To some degree this is true. There have been 39 referenda – 38 in England, one in Wales – on whether to establish an elected mayor in local authorities; only 13 have been successful and that is the process of democracy. However, for me the most fundamental factor for why there have been so few directly elected mayors is that the system is actually biased against introducing them. Under the provisions of the Act, a referendum to elect a mayor in England can only be triggered either by a vote from councillors or a petition signed by 5% of constituents. These are difficult barriers in themselves, either because strong local government voices have opposed the concept, concerned about the loss of their own influence, or the process of trying to galvanise the support of 5% of voters in the authority via a petition, has been too much for one person to achieve.
In Wales, the barriers are even higher. In order to trigger a referendum in Cardiff, there of course could be a vote by councillors, something that is highly unlikely. There could be direction from a Welsh Minister; again highly unlikely. The only other option is the petition trigger. Anyone individual voter in the city can organise a petition to call for a referendum. As the petition organiser they would be tasked of obtaining the required number of signatures and submitting it to the council. In Wales however, the trigger mark isn’t 5% – it’s 10%. That means that person would have to generate a petition of around 26,000 voters. Not only that, the petition has to be generated and submitted within a six month period starting twelve months before an ordinary local government election. That means this would have to take place between May and November next year, otherwise residents couldn’t have another say until 2015!
I find it astonishing that Cardiffians are hamstrung in this way even before they voice their opinion. If the people of Cardiff want to change the local government system then it shouldn’t be subject to a window every four years, it should be permissible at any point, particularly given the time it would take to progress the debate and generate a petition. Moreover, even if a campaign is established, it would have to get twice as many signatories as a campaign established in an English local authority. Where is the parity in that?
The system is so perverse it’s like the governing political class are saying to the people – yes, you can change the democratic system at a local level but only when the Act says so. Imagine if that sort of provision was built in to trigger Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act; that we had to get over 300,000 people just to decide to hold a referendum for full law making powers? Whether we would achieve that figure would certainly be up for debate.
There was an opposition debate in the Assembly at the end of June to address this very issue. Opposition members asked the Local Government Minister why were there so many hoops to jump through and why was there such inequality governing the percentage trigger; shouldn’t at least this be lowered in Wales? His response? “Perhaps it should be higher in England.” If that is what the Welsh public have to contend with then the only chance there will be to progress this debate, is if the UK Government amend the law.
I see merit in developing this debate further and really taking this out to the people. I think a directly elected mayor for Cardiff offers such potential for the city, as it will undoubtedly ensure improved accountability and transparency, public re-engagement and reinvigoration in local politics and a greater degree of strategic and innovative thinking -exactly what an expanding capital needs in the decade to come. However, unless there is a fundamental change to the legislative mechanism governing the creation of elected mayors, then change will never arrive.
Cardiff Labour councillor Cerys Furlong: The case for an elected mayor is a red herring
THE DEBATE started by Jonathan Morgan on whether Cardiff should have a directly elected mayor should be welcomed by all. There is no doubt we need to have a debate about the way local government works and doesn’t work, about accountability, and about how to engage people more effectively. Different areas have different needs, and the fact that we have the freedom to choose the model that suits Cardiff, is surely right. However, Jonathan jumps to a solution by suggesting we should have an elected mayor, without really considering the problems or the alternatives.
The idea of a mayor who everyone can identify, and who has a clear vision is certainly appealing. Advocates of the mayoral system argue that people’s recognition of their political leadership increases. However few would argue that political leaders in Cardiff’s recent history lack name recognition. Both Rodney Berman and Russell Goodway are well known, recognised, and have their own distinctive political brands, love them or loathe them.
Advocates of the mayoral system also argue that it provides clearer and more strategic leadership. However, it is not the office of either council leader or mayor that determines the quality of leadership, but the personal and political credibility of the person – alongside the expertise, skills and commitment of their cabinet colleagues. However attractive, being seduced by the promise of a new system will not necessarily provide the rejuvenation Cardiff needs. The leader/cabinet system is far from perfect but there is at least an element of collective responsibility. Cabinet members and the leader have to combine city wide responsibilities with a ward based representational role, and decision making is clearly attributable.
Jonathan rightly argues that there should be better mechanisms for engaging with the fundamental issues that affect the whole of Cardiff. The fact that the current Lib Dem/Plaid administration in Cardiff hasn’t found ways to do this only illustrates their failings. It should not be used as an excuse to bring in a whole new system of governance – and I scarcely need mention the cost. It is also true that too often ward councillors do not engage with the key strategic issues that need to be addressed, perhaps not relating them to issues within their wards, failing to debate within their own party or simply voting through executive proposals en masse. However, I do not agree that an elected mayor would facilitate greater engagement from backbench councillors, or the public, in a way that council leaders cannot.
Linked to the need to find better ways of engaging people is the issue of representation. Local authorities are all too often wholly unrepresentative of the communities they serve. In Wales only one in four councillors are women, there is only one female council leader and there are no female black or Asian women councillors. This is shameful. Will a directly elected mayor make local government more representative? I’m doubtful. Only two of the 12 mayors in England are women, and all are white. The hard work that needs to be done is in building community leadership across Cardiff, not through the celebrity style politics of elected mayors. We need leadership with a real understanding of local circumstances, and one willing to have a constructive dialogue with residents – qualities sadly lacking in Cardiff’s present administration.
So what of the experience of other local authorities with elected mayors? Dare I mention Hartlepool where a man in a monkey suit was elected on a manifesto of free bananas. There has also been a backlash in some areas, where referendums have been held to abolish the posts, such as in Stoke. When so much time and money is taken up deciding who should be in charge, does anything get done? If we had an elected mayor in Cardiff, the likelihood is that they’d get voted in and turfed out with regularity, depending on the effectiveness of single issue and the political campaigns against them.
Finally, while there is no way to make a direct comparison, a look a recent local election results in Cardiff provides some indicators of a likely outcome, and explanation for why Jonathan Morgan is so keen for Cardiff to have a mayor. Suppose people vote broadly on party lines then as long as Craig Bellamy doesn’t stand we’d likely have a Conservative mayor. The Conservative’s proportion of the vote in local elections in Cardiff has increased from 22% in 2004 to 27.5% in 2008. The Lib Dems fell from 33% to 26% over the same period (despite increasing the number of councillors), and Labour’s rose from 30% to 26% (marginally more than the Lib Dems despite losing seats).
Despite the rise in the Conservative proportion of the vote across Cardiff, the current system doesn’t help them. They get a lot of votes but in a relatively small number of wards, and they have a long way to go to capture the number of council seats or wards they need to take control in Cardiff. Perhaps they view an elected mayor as a quick route to power?
Local Government in Wales deserves more than a quick fix approach from an ambitious AM who fancies being Cardiff’s first mayor. A directly elected mayor may sound like a shiny fix-all, but I remain to be convinced that it will solve the problems of local government.
Tags: Cardiff, local government, mayor
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
29 Comments
There’s agreement here at least. Local government in Cardiff is broken:
- improved accountability and transparency, public re-engagement and reinvigoration in local politics and a greater degree of strategic and innovative thinking – exactly what an expanding capital needs in the decade to come
- there should be better mechanisms for engaging with the fundamental issues that affect the whole of Cardiff. The fact that the current Lib Dem/Plaid administration in Cardiff hasn’t found ways to do this only illustrates their failings
- We need leadership with a real understanding of local circumstances, and one willing to have a constructive dialogue with residents – qualities sadly lacking in Cardiff’s present administration.
Now let’s hear from those who hold the power strings and particularly those “ward councillors [who] do not engage with the key strategic issues that need to be addressed, perhaps not relating them to issues within their wards, failing to debate within their own party or simply voting through executive proposals en masse”.
Let’s quickly agree that the system for triggering a mayor in a Welsh local authority is overly difficult and change that now to the same as England (5% for a poll) and make the ‘window’ less prescriptive. Perhaps that alone would focus minds in Cardiff so we don’t have to wait for the 2012 elections to focus minds on getting the political leadership the city needs.
Probably a timely debate. However, this is not the biggest issuing facing Cardiff at present. More pertinent questions might be: “What is Cardiff?” and “How should it be governed ?” From an economic perspective the “Greater Cardiff” region is more than just the Cardiff Local Authority. Some 70,000 people travel into the city from neighbouring authorities on a daily basis on congested roads and overcrowded trains. More and more the wider city region is behaving as a single entity. However, there are no city region or Greater Cardiff bodies with powers and funding to develop and implement strategy at that level. This is most marked with respect to transport and the economy. Instead we have, in a region of 1.4M all within 25 miles of the centre of Cardiff, 10 local authorities none of whom on their own can address these regional matters – and efforts for “collaboration” have not really delivered. The time has come to recognise the existence of the Cardiff city region or Greater Cardiff and establish an institution that has the authority and resources to develop and implement strategic region wide matters such as transport and economic re-generation. Perhaps it’s a body such as this that should be overseen by a mayor? An institution representing the 1.4M people in the Cardiff City Region will have more authority and gravitas than one representing only 333,000 people?
I find Jonathan’s reasoning difficult to follow. He spends most of the article bemoaning the mechanisms for triggering a referendum. The reasons he gives for a direct mayor are vague and backed up with no evidence.
“Cities don’t achieve greatness just by acquiring a description; they require leadership, innovation and dedication by individuals who have vision.”
Is this true? What does it mean? Can you give us any examples? I would have thought that location, industry/employment oppertunities, wealth and being the centre of government, would be a lot more important for a city than this new speak.
“I see merit in developing this debate further and really taking this out to the people. I think a directly elected mayor for Cardiff offers such potential for the city, as it will undoubtedly ensure improved accountability and transparency, public re-engagement and reinvigoration in local politics”
I would love it if you would develop the debate further. As for the other claims, I don’t see any evidence for them.
While I can see some interest in having an electyed mayor for Cardiff, I can also see blatent political opportunism. I agree with Mark above, that what we actually need is a fundamental review of what do we need local government to do, and sort out the confusing mess of financing councils.
I belive that we should have directly elected councils as at present, which should be fully funded for the provision of local services from Council Tax, subject to only limited balancing grants from central (WAG) government. This could be achieved by taking social services out from county councils, and placed under the direct control af a regional authority – I suggest five or six for Wales in total, and all existing regional bodies such as NHS, policing, fire and rescue etc co-terminus with these . These would be centrally funded from WAG and under the political leadership of a directly elected mayor – but with a regional executive formed from existing regional AMs.
Our political representatives must be more directly identifiable to the services they control and the money they spend, and accountable to the electorate.
Seems to me that Cerys has very effectively refuted Jonathan’s case for a Cardiff elected mayor. Like Michaelt, I can’t see much that’s compelling in Jonathan’s argument.
Jonathan says that “Cities don’t achieve greatness just by acquiring a description; they require leadership, innovation and dedication by individuals who have vision” – but nothing in his pitch convinces that elected mayors can provide this any better than the present structure. He goes on to claim that “If we sit back and merely accept that the current form of local government is adequate, then Cardiff’s development will stagnate”: but there’s no evidence to support the claim.
This isn’t to argue that ‘it ain’t broke, so why fix it?’. Cerys addresses shortcomings in the present system, and these should be a matter of concern to all parties represented on the Council – though on Cerys’s point that “too often ward councillors do not engage with the key strategic issues that need to be addressed, perhaps not relating them to issues within their wards, failing to debate within their own party or simply voting through executive proposals en masse”, might this be related to the cabinet system, which effectively marginalises ‘back-bench’ councillors?
So there are shortcomings in Cardiff’s present local government structure. But I don’t think we can infer from the pro- and anti- arguments that local government in Cardiff is broken, as PeterDCox argues. Rather this is an interesting launch of a debate about how best to gain for our capital city the leadership it deserves.
If Jonathan is so convinced (despite the flimsy case) that an elected mayor will solve Cardiff’s leadership problems, then instead of complaining about the legislative contstraints (the need to “generate a petition of around 26,000 voters … between May and November next year”), let him get his Cardiff Conservative supporters campaigning for signatures after the Assembly elections.
The Fianna Fail government in Ireland is pushing ahead with the idea of a directly elected mayor for the the Dublin area which covers four local authorities. This is despite the fact that all the book makers have politicians from the Irish Labour Party as favourites for the position. The move is supported by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce which sees an elected mayor as well as the development of the metro as key elements in Dublin fulfilling its economic potential.
I would also be careful in using the Hartlepool argument against the idea of an elected mayor. Look at all the independent assessments of local government in Hartlepool since the mayor was elected and they are all positive.
What will also be interesting is what will happen in England if the present Coalition returns to the traditional pre-Thatcher Tory view on local government. Eric Pickles and his team has some interesting ideas which should not be dismissed by pure oppositionism. Many of the 12 areas designated to have elected mayors are on the borders of Wales. It will be interesting to see how Cardiff, for example, will compete with an elected mayor in Bristol heading up a Local Enterprise Partnership.
Of course it isn’t the complete solution to the problem of how do you revitalise local government but it is no accident that in many parts of Europe and North America key policy intiatives are directly linked to the calibre of the person who holds the position of mayor. Having a direct popular mandate makes it far easier to push through change than relying on keeping the support of a small number of your fellow councillors.
Arguing that your opponents might also win control of the post and therefore it is being suggested for political advantage is a pretty weak argument in my opinion. Labour’s problem with local government is that the party talked a good game pre-1997 and then did not follow this up in the 13 years of government because of a fear of letting go of power from the centre. It is one of the issues that whoever the new leader is that will have to be addressed in the next few years. A key element in the early success of Labour in the first part of the 20th Century was municipal socialism. Herbert Morrison in the 1930s made Labour electable at a Parliamentary level through the success of the LCC in the 1930s. He would probably have achieved even more if at that time London had been represented by an elected mayor. It is quite common in other societies for successful national politicians to already have a track record of achievement at the local or regional level. The next German Chancellor will probably be the Minister President of one of the Lander. The leader of the French Socialists who incidentally is a woman is the mayor of Lille and not a member of the Chamber of Deputies. The present President of France first attracted national attention as the mayor of a small Parisian suburb.
Finally, Labour politicians should be very careful when using the argument that politicians such as Jonathan Morgan are only interested in the idea because they want to be the elected mayor. There are plenty of people in the Labour Party who support the idea for a start. After all the first party to push the idea was the Labour Party. It also begs the question of what do you then say about Labour politicians such as Sion Simon who decided not to stand for a safe Labour seat in Birmingham in order to campaign for and eventually stand for the position of Birmingham’s first elected mayor.
Interesting comments so far. To be clear (Jeff) these are only my views, and I am not representing the Labour Party’s position. As far as I am aware there is no consensus either for or against within any party. Anyway, as I have said, it’s not so much that I am just against elected mayors, rather that I remain to be convinced. Nothing added so far has gone any further in convincing me.
What worries me, Cerys, at the moment is the lack of direction and leadership in far too many authorities. The old pre cabinet system worked because decisions were made by the majority party group and then implemented through the theatre of the council machinery. In most successful authorities the key was often the personalities of the leader and the small group who supported the leader. This system also required a well informed local government party where policy could be debated and decisions explained.
In too many authorities, the cabinet has become isolated from the party organisation assuming that one exists and often it doesn’t feel that it has the mandate to do really anything except it seems to rubber stamp officer recommendation. The first that members often know about major policy changes is when they read the local newspaper. This often leads to further disillusionment with politics .
Elected mayors could lead to greater interest in politics even amongst the dwindling band of party activists. The main Labour leadership contest might not be setting the world on fire. There is, however, real interest amongst London Labour members when it comes to the contest between Ken Livingstone and Oona King for the chance to take on Boris Johnstone in next year’s London mayoral election. The advantage that the person selected by Labour Party members in London has over the traditional leader is that they will also have a mandate from party members.
The present cabinet system is, frankly, not working and its failings have been masked by the huge increase in the amount of money received by loca government in the last few years. A system already creaking will be put under severe pressure by the policies required to balance budgets in the next few years. Yet the Council leadership taking these decisions will in many authorities have now mandate from the voters for the priorities they are setting. In many cases there were elected by a minority of even those who took part in the election. As you rightly point out the party with the largest number of votes in the 2008 Council election in Cardiff was the Tory party and yet it has no say or worse no responsibilty for the decisions which effect the citizens of Cardiff.
Personalities apart, a mayor elected by a poll of all the voters has a far greater chance to argue that they represent a city rather than one who is not directy elected by their fellow citizens. Over a million Londoners voted for Boris – just over 1000 Cardiff voters voted for the present leader of Cardiff. In fact, Labour candidates such as Sophie Howe polled twice as many votes and were not even elected.
Elected mayors should be part of a complete package of reforms for local government which would include more powers, a changed financial system and the introduction of PR to elect councillors. I travel to France on a regular basis. If you look at French towns it will often be the direcly elected mayor of even the smallest locality who is responsible for the way the town looks and feels. A few years ago Cardiff made a great song and dance about the introduction of hire cycles in the city. La Rochelle introduced a free system nearly 40 years ago because of the vision of its elected mayor Michel Crepeau. Another mayor has introduced the idea of electric cars owned by the council.
What we have at the moment is local government leadership through indirect election. What is required is for politicians to re-enage with voters through direct election. If we are not careful, in a few years time we could have the absurd situation where the citizens of Cardiff will be able to directly elect their police commissioner but have no say whatsoever in who should be the Leader of the council. That isn’t good for democracy I’m afraid.
Cerys Furlong rightfully bemoans the fact that local government is unrepresentative of the population as a whole, in terms, women, and ethnic minorities. She should ask herself why that is? I would say that it is because it is under the stranglehold of “party machines”. It’s a fact that the membership of political parties are in decline consequently the pool that we pull from is getting smaller.
Jonathan Morgan uses the misleading analogy of New York and Michael Bloomberg (that was in the Cardiff East article, I think?). Its misleading because the Mayor of New York has far more power than a potential mayor of Cardiff because of federalism (which you can get truly authentic localism). Also I am not convinced that Jonathan’s own motives are that altuistic, the Tories did in fact have the largest share of the votes in 2008, which as one of his colleagues pointed out would have meant “Cardiff having a Conservative mayor”. Yes, quite so, but would Mayor Walker be truly representative of the people of Cardiff? How many Tory councilors are there south of the Taff?
The “Dean of Echo columnists” warned against introducing a system of elected mayors that would create a type of politician rather like the machine politicians of America, citing such notorious examples as Jim Pendergast of Kansas City, Jim Curley of Boston. I was puzzled that he omitted the dean of “machine politicians” “Boss Tweed”. However that was also misleading as they were usually in control of the local party, where that party was the “only show in town”.
It was this type of chicanery that you saw the rise of the populist/progressive movement that wanted to see the end of plutocracy and the end of the corrupt party machines. They were successful, what came from them was voters initiative (enabling citizens to pass laws) open primaries, non partisan local government (75% of US cities are non partisan), term limitations. In fact a increase in participation in the political system by ordinary citizens.
I think it is right to have a petition to change the way that Cardiff is run. Democarcy is hard work, and having been involved in voters intaitives in Colorado, I am quite aware of the time and energy required.
The People of Cardiff deserve a debate that goes beyond the talking heads on the blogosphere or for that matter the 30,000 or so people that read the Echo.
So far I am puzzled why I have never seen anything from David Walker or any other Tory councilor? Are they for, or is it a “one man band”. All I know that those who support this need to engage the ordinary Joe/Jo Voter and see what they think.
I do not any of us could predict the result of a mayoral election in Cardiff, every new level of election brings a new dynamic and a role such as mayor makes it a race based on personality rather than party allegiance, a more individualistic version of party thinking and more likely to break with normal party dynamic.
The worry for me is ensuring the checks and balances are in place to ensure no corruption takes place, as Jeff mentions the French model we cannot forget the incidences of corruption that has happened in France such as the socialist mayor Jean-Michel Boucheron in the city of Angouleme in the late eighties.
Mike – “”How many Tory councilors are there south of the Taff?”
Well none – because the Taff runs North-South. – maybe a better question would be “South of the A48?”
I think what the people want (and I know this because its what my mum, Cardiff born and bred, tells me) is local government being responsive to the ordinary citizens’ needs. It’s having the buses running on time (and running at all) its having the roads and pavements fixed so that she does not trip up (like my aunt did in Fairwater). The streets kept clean of trash (the human variety who terrorized a bus not a stones throw from a police station). Things like Bute Park are important but to most of us we want our own parks to be clean and tidy. Parents want their kids to go to good schools in their neighbourhood without the need to bus them miles. They would like those schools to be clean and tidy and repaired. People want a Cardiff that is safe and tidy to live in. I am glad that Cardiffians will be able to elect their police commissioner. I think the Cardiff police are a disgrace!
What Cardiff wants is a government that will keep them safe.
Unsurprisingly, Jeff Jones makes a better fist of arguing for an elected mayor for Cardiff than did its original proponent, Jonathan Morgan. But he has to resort to the success of elected mayors in other countries – with quite different political cultures from ours – to bolster his case. The best he can do for England’s experience is to say that “independent assessments of local government in Hartlepool since the mayor was elected … are all positive”. Hmm – how many assessments? How independent? Etc, etc…
In his second post, Jeff finds fault with our present cabinet system – a view I share (as touched upon above). But to acknowledge that our present system of local government is in need of improvement is NOT, necessarily, to accept that an elected mayor will prove to be a panacea to the problems we face.
Both Jeff and Cerys note that Labour has no established policy on this question (other than that the legislation enabling mayors’ election was introduced by New Labour); and we, and other Labour supporters, are expressing only our own views. This seems to be as good a forum as any for as many contending views on the matter as possible to be aired and exchanged.
Going further, Mike argues that “[t]he People of Cardiff deserve a debate that goes beyond the talking heads on the blogosphere or for that matter the 30,000 or so people that read the Echo”. And who could disagree? How do we widen the debate, Mike?
Gez, A good example of how an individual can change a city in the UK is probably Joe Chamberlain in Birmingham in the 19th Century. He was never the elected mayor but effectively he ran the city. Read Tristram Hunt’s ‘Building Jerusalem’ to see how Chamberlain effectively ‘nationalised’ the local gas company and then used the profits for the benefit of the city. He also built New Street as a new shopping centre and again used the rents to increase the council’s income. In the 19th Century, local industrialists would often prefer to be the mayor of Bradford than the MP for the city, for the simple reason that the mayor could actually do something to improve the lives of their fellow citizens.
It’s ‘actually doing something for their fellow citizens’ that should motive every politician. Sadly in the UK we developed a centralised political culture after the First World War in which, as Nye Bevan famously pointed out, involved chasing power and that power resided in Westminster. As a result the ultimate ambition of any young politician still is to be an MP. The key to that ambition is to become an adviser to an older politician and work within the metropolitan elite after university. I’m amazed that no one comments on the number of young advisers to cabinet ministers who are still in their 20s and early 30s. They might be very clever on paper but what do they know about life and more importantly the world of ordinary people? About a year ago I found myself on the radio debating a local governement issue with someone from the Tory front organisation, The Taxpayer’s Alliance. I thought to be quite frank that she was pretty stupid and as is my wont looked at Google to find out her background. She was in her 20s, an English graduate from a South African university whose father had been a Welsh rugby international. She is now one of Ian Duncan Smith’s advisers. What she knows about benefits is anybody’s guess. But probably the aim is to get a safe Tory seat by her early 30s.
The debate about elected mayors should be part of a more general debate regarding where UK politics should be going in the 21th century. I’ve always believed in the words of the American politician Tip O’Neill that ‘all politics is local’. The key to a healthy democracy is a healthy vibrant local government system. It is no accident that one of the first acts of the Nazis was to effectively abolish local government in Germany. A strong local government structure has always been a necessary check on an over powerful centre. After the fall of Franco the new Spanish democracy realised that devolution to both the regions and the development of local government were essential for the new Spain. Our problem is that we take democracy for grantied. When I was student in the 1970s I was struck by the fact that the Spanish girls who worked in the Hall of Residence would not discuss or even talk about politics. It was great in contrast to be in Madrid a few years ago and witness the genuine enthusiasm both in the media and amongst ordinary Spanish people as they celebrated 30 years of democracy.
As I’ve said in an earlier post it will be interesting to see how the Tories develop their ideas on local government. They should be looked at on their merits and not opposed for the sake of it. Labour should also use its time in opposition to think radically and not be frightened of the idea of a town or city being controlled by non Labour politicians and deciding to do something different. It ‘s called democracy. Last week in The Economist the most interesting article I read wasn’t Bagehot on equality because it said nothing new. It was in fact the article on Mitch Daniels, who is the Republican Governor of Indiana, and his policy initiatives. The US section of the Economist is always fascinating to look at different policy intiatives across the States. No one worries if New York does something different to Los Angeles. Why should we therefore worry if Manchester decides to do something different from Birmingham?
Many UK politicians achieve their ultimate ambition and become MPs and then spend the rest of their politcal career hoping that one day they might be rewarded for their loyalty by being appointed as the junior minister for silly walks. Whilst a great deal of public money is spent financing their large retinue of staff to fulfil the social work role which caused Brain Walden to give up politics and go into TV. Their careers often end in frustration and disppointment with sometimes sadly a broken family life thrown in as well.
In many other societies politicians have rewarding and productive careers at both a local and regional government level before they reach the national stage. The probable successor as leader of the CDU in Germany to Angela Merkel and a future Chancellor is at the moment not in the Reichstag but is instead building a political reputation in one of the Lander. We might have a mature democracy in the UK one day when perhaps the Scottish or Welsh First Minister or the Mayor of London are seen as future leaders of their party and the next Prime Minister of the UK. Sadly Tony Blair hadn’t run anything or made a difficult decision before 1997 and it showed in the wasted opportunties and the conservatism in policy making between 1997 and 2007.
Chamberlain is a good example of leadership within a traditional council structure. He did what he did because he had a progressive majority on the council and had widespread support in the community. I don’t see that in any way an argument for directly elected mayors.
Now where I will agree with you Jeff is on local democracy. I have long advocated the establishment of Community Councils in those few areas of Wales without. These are the bedrock of democracy and can do much to further local participation in government. I welcome the proposal in the Local Government Measure to have youth representatives on the councils.
In the UK there has been constant debate about the role and composition of local councils and the local government structure since the Great Reform Act. Local councils have always acted as providers of services and regulators of local commerce, they have additionally acted as agents of central government. There has been no fixed pattern, no historic system that goes back centuries, the structure role and function of local government has changed continually over the last 130 years. In the last 40 years there have been three major reorganisations and many alterations. New nominated bodies have taken over the functions once vested in local government. Nothing is fixed in stone.
My preferred map of local government is an abandonment of a one size fits all type system to a return of a modified two tier authority system, with 10 – 15 most purpose authorities, all elected by STV and five new regional authorities, also elected by STV but where the electoral divisions are quite large, maybe using Assembly constituencies for the moment. My regions would be, North Wales, Mid and West Wales, Swansea Bay, East Glamorgan and Gwent. I had thought about having the regional authorities being joint boards of the most purpose authorities but I think that will perpetuate a two tier councillor and having thought about it I’d rather they had an independent mandate.
These new regional authorities would take over the functions of the police, fire and civil defence and health authorities (which would become specialist committees with 1/3 co-opted members), responsibility for strategic planning, transport infrastructure – including public transport and possibly education. Accompanying this would be a move to a local income tax and enhanced powers for community councils.
Bonapartism is not part of my plan… councils would elect a leader, who would select a cabinet from the councillors. Cabinet members would have lead functions but share the development of policy with subject committees. In the most purpose authorities area committees would also have a role.
Yes we need reform, but elected mayors concentrate too much power in the hands of one person and relegate councillors to the role of local case handlers and unqualified social workers.
Excellent response from Jeff, with 90% of which I agree. But Lyn succinctly wraps up this whole argument with this point: “elected mayors concentrate too much power in the hands of one person and relegate councillors to the role of local case handlers and unqualified social workers”.
Off topic a tad, Jeff highlights a widely-held concern about the development of the modern professional political class, when he notes that ambitious political wannabes now “become an adviser to an older politician and work within the metropolitan elite after university. I’m amazed that no one comments on the number of young advisers to cabinet ministers who are still in their 20s and early 30s”. Jeff was too tactful to note that 4 of the 5 Labour leadership candidates followed this route to ministerial careers…
‘Local authorities are all too often wholly unrepresentative of the communities they serve. In Wales only one in four councillors are women’ I fully agree with you here Cerys but I do believe an Elected Mayoral system
would be a move forward.
Not just for Cardiff, but we could have County Mayors who are elected in 3 year cycles.
At the moment who really runs Wales? Yes, it’s Council Heads of department who have no democratic mandate whatsoever. Elected Local Councillors in my experience (but I’ll try not to paint everyone by the same brush) are ‘removed’ or even inconsequential in the runnings of local government.
An Elected County Mayor but not be the like the old style mayor of turning up with his necklace and opening leisure centres but we could have something better than this.
Someone to oversee local government in a strong way and who the electorate know who he is. A man or woman who would essentially be Chief of the local council , but an elected Chief whose arse could be kicked into touch by the people at the polling booth. Better than the present system, in terms of democracy.
Comparing Cardiff’s mayor to New York’s Bloomberg is laughable. You already have that with non-accountable entities like Cardiff and Co spending gazillions with nothing to show and a laughable, invisible Council.
There are more than 200 major US cities with strong council structures and elected mayors. What’s lacking in almost every case is an electorate that understands what they do or cares!
That’s the real issue, not whether a dozen commenters on a website agree.
The problem with this campaign is that it looks and feels like it is driven for personal and party advantage.
Personal because the chief cheerleader for it has seen his own career prospects at national level wobble since being central to a botched attempt to take over the Assembly group in which he remains sidelined.
And party advantage because it’s difficult at present to see the Conservatives winning outright control of the council under the current arrangements. (They stack up votes in certain wards but fail to convince other parts.)
Devolution – and the inevitable increased presence of activists from all parties that goes with having party researchers working in the Assembly – has made Cardiff a much more politically pluralistic city over the past 10 years or so.
The two parties that traditionally ran the city may not like the fact that those days have gone. But the reality is that the current arrangements better reflect today’s four-party city politics than handing overall power to one omnipotent figure from a party likely to command not much more than a third of first party preferences.
That means any mayor could expect to find two thirds of the city against them from day one – yet no requirement to reach out beyond their narrow base.
Little has been said so far to suggest that a mayoral system would do any more than elevate the importance of personality in city politics – or make it more likely that the whole capital would prosper from sound strategy.
Mike – ”How many Tory councilors are there south of the Taff?”
Well none – because the Taff runs North-South – maybe a better question would be “South of the A48?”
I stand corrected, but I think you got the point. Yes. I would agree south of the A48.
The problem with Lyn’s argument is that it isn’t councils that select leaders, it’s political groupings. The leader of Cardiff Council was chosen not by the council but by the Liberal Democrat councillors and no one else. I was the leader of a local authority for nine years. Always looking over my shoulder having to placate a pretty conservative bunch of Labour councillors, particularly amongst the former district councillors, didn’t make my task an easy one. Although I achieved some things in the end like most poltiical careers mine ended in failure. One of my first refoms was the allocation of council houses. I had to fight tooth and nail to introduce an objective system for allocating council houses. Traditionally, certain councillors used to go into the housing department and effectively bullied staff until a house had been allocated often to a relative of one of their supporters. An objective assessment of need never entered the debate. In the end I had to ban any councillors from even entering the department. The loss of this power of patronage led one Labour councillor to inform me that it was the’worst council that he had ever served on’.
Even though I could win the arguments it was an exhausting and frustrating process not made any easier by the way in which some pretty useless senior officers were appointed in the ring fencing appointment procedure in the run up to reorganisation. In the end I gave up after discovering that criticism of the chief executive had been deliberately left out of the supposedly independent risk assessment of the authority. I just wasn’t prepared to waste another few years of my life arguing for the essential reforms I believed required in both leisure and post 16 education in the borough. It was also pretty exhausting producing every year with the Treasurer the budget. Stalin might have enjoyed this approach to politics but I frankly didn’t. I decided that frankly I had better things to do in life and headed off for a new career in the private sector. A clear mandate from the voters would have made my task easier in trying to turn around a political culture which was basically closed to new ideas. Bridgend might, for example, have been the only authority in Wales where the constitution insisted that all scrutiny chairs had to come from the opposition. It was hell on earth getting this through the majority party because the scrutiny chairs of course carried extra allowances. In the end I bought off the opposition by creating new paid positions which in practice were not responsible for anything.
Where I will agree with Lyn is that one of the key elements in any local government reform has to be a beefed up community council structure. Ironically in the last reorganisation right at the death Mid Glamorgan came up with this idea. I doubt whether it would have had much support because the last thing on the minds of both the Tory government and the Labour opposition MPs was either local government or good governance. The Tories just want to destroy the counties and all they were interested in were the four city authorities, Wrexham in the north and Cardiff, Newport and Swansea in the south. As for the Labour MPs they were more worried about the reaction of the members of the GMC to any proposal. So it was freedom for the Rhondda, Merthyr and other small authorities. Whether any of these authorities could provide services efficiently and raise a reasonable council tax was never in the equation. The failure of Labour which was the dominant party in local government at both the county and district levels in the 1990s to produce a fit for purpose alternative is as much to blame for the present dog’s breakfast as the Tories’ complete lack of interest in the whole issue. Summed up best perhaps by the reaction to Hunt’s concession in the committee stage of the bill that he was prepared to see one more Labour controlled authority. The result was the split of the proposed Heads of the Valleys authority into two smaller authorities Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent
There are now strong rumours that reorganisation might once again be on the agenda after the next Assembly election. Whether the next five years, given the scale of the cubacks required, is the right time is another matter. What should happen in my opinion is for the Assembly to agree to set up an independent body which would look at local government in the light of the changes brought about by devolution. It should be allowed to take evidence across Wales and its report should become the basis for a rational discussion of what sort of local government system do we want in the 21st century. It should start with the key question of ‘What do we want local government to actually be responsible for in what is a pretty small part of the world?’ In my own communty of Maesteg one of the main reasons for disillusionment with politics is the feeling by many people in the town that they have no control over the decisions which affect their lives. This feeling of disconnection with decision making and the people has to be addressed. Another conclusion that I came to after nine years was that Bridgend as an authority would never work.
The new structure should hopefully be produced by consensus with the views of ordinary voters outweighing the vested interests whose only interest often is – where will I be in any new structure? The new structure should be introduced towards the end of the decade but this would obviously depend on the state of the economy. The next few years are going to be the most difficult faced by local government in over 80 years. Those taking the difficult decisions need to concentrate on the almost impossible task in front of them and not be distracted. Looking at local government reorganisation objectively in the first instance and then postponing any legislation until the end of the next Assembly term with implementation from 2016 onwards might achieve this.
This is clearly a debate worth having. Where it falls down is in the belief that it is motivated by personal ambition. Elected mayors are a clear plank of modern Conservative thinking on local government. Nick Bourne also reflected that in a letter to the Western Mail, calling for mayors in Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham and Newport.
Having said that, I cannot see a circumstance in which the Conservatives would actually win a mayoral contest in any of them.
Experience seems to show independents as well placed in any mayoral contest.
Personally I think the debate is framed well here on both sides, with some solid comments, especially the informed perspective of Jeff Jones. Although I am no fan of unnecessary referenda, this one has a growing appeal to me.
Jeff, I agree with you that a commission looking at local government structures might be a way forward. I am deeply sceptical about elected mayors for the same reasons that I am not a supporter of executive presidents: too much power in the hands of one person. And you are right that the present structure effectively hands the power of nomination of council leader to the members of the largest party or the party that can command the support of a majority of the council. I don’t think that a bad thing. Essentially what you are arguing is that the leader should be free to govern without having to please the council members, which is exactly why I am opposed to it.
As you rightly point out local councils can be innovators, Birmingham under the Chamberlains being a good example. As part of that reform I’d like to see powers of general competence being given, ie they can do what they like unless specifically forbidden, rather than they are only authorised to carry out specific functions. There was a time when local councils were a major provider of mortgages – perhaps that is one function that could return as part of a new financial base – together with the ownership of commercial premises in the town centre (too often these have been sold off for short term gain) with the revenue from these adding to the income of the local authority. All of this is not new – it was done in Birmingham. Small scale energy production, why not have that run by local authorities too…
Just a few additional ideas.
You don’t need one person with vision, you need an enabled community to adopt a vision for their own future. Empowering people leads to an empowered council. Far better than one person decides all.
I wrote this about one year ago – now modified slightly to adress Mayors:
I have always been a believer in simple transparency when it comes to democracy and taxation. We the voters should be able to see what our elected representatives are spending our money on, and if we don’t agree with the policies we can use our votes accordingly.
This should be true at all levels of government. So starting with the County level, I have always been thoroughly confused by the statements I receive from my local council – Cardiff.
In 2008/09, Cardiff Council had a net expenditure of £476 million. This was financed from Council tax receipts of £113 million, Business rates of £84 million, and the balance of £280 million from the Revenue Support Grant from the Welsh Government.
So the first interesting fact to note is that Council tax only accounts for less than 25% of net expenditure, and if business rates are added, Cardiff Council still only collects 41% of its revenues directly, relying on grant from Welsh government for the remainder.
The other interesting fact which is buried in the accounts is that Cardiff Council actually collects 4 times the amount in business rates that it is allowed to keep, with the remainder being sent to the Welsh Government to redistribute on an all-Wales basis. Nothing wrong with redistributing wealth to the poorer councils, but is seems odd to give so much in one hand and to receive the same back in the other.
Then turning to the Council’s areas of expenditure, the biggest single expense is education at £205 million, followed by Social Services at £112 million, Highways & Waste at £48 million, Parks & Leisure at £23 million, others totalling £18 million and finally Management at £44 million, and capital financing at £24 million.
Two interesting points here – the first is the cost of management which seems excessive. This is in fact only 11% of total expenditure, but it would be interesting to see how this compares with other councils.
The second point is social services which seems an anomaly to me. This role does not really fit the role of a municipal body, and surely it is more closely aligned with the NHS??? And where I know that councillors get very involved in issues of education and transport, when do they ever want to get involved with social services?
So a few suggestions:
Firstly, remove social services from County Councils, and make them part of a Social Services Agency, operating at a Regional level and funded directly from Welsh Government. This would remove £113 million from the council budget, plus a corresponding pro rata reduction in management and financing costs (12 million & 7 million respectively). This would result in a new nett expenditure of £345 million for Cardiff Council
Secondly, increase the amount of revenue that County Councils can retain from business rates from 25% to 66%. The remaining 34% can be returned for redistribution on an all-Wales basis as before, although it is unlikely that Cardiff would be a beneficiary.
This would increase directly collected revenues to 334 Million or 97% of revenue, with the balance made up from payments received from Welsh Government for specific services provided, for example election costs in general elections. The Council would become effectively self sufficient and would then be able to offer the electorate a direct democratic choice – front line services or taxation.
Coming back to the Social Services Agency, I suggested that this could be established on a regional level, and would be similar to the Morgannwg NHS or the South Wales Police, and over time the areas served by these bodies should be made progressively co-terminus. I would establish regional management boards for each of these bodies, which would be headed by a directly elected Mayor (and possibly directly elected Police Commissioner, Health Commissioner etc). The Mayor would lead a management board of 12 members who would be appointed by WAG. I suggest that the 4 regional AMs would be directly appointed to the regional management boards (resolving the lingering question of what they actually do) with 8 further appointees drawn from backbench AMs and possibly senior County Councillors, in direct proportion to regional votes cast for each party. The Mayor would be a salaried appointment, but the management board members would receive expenses and attendance allowance only.
And thinking about the regions, some of these are obvious:
Gwent (Newport & Gwent)
Morgannwg (Cardiff & East Glamorgan)
Gower (Swansea & West Glamorgan)
Gogledd (Gwynedd & Clwyd)
I would then suggest splitting Powys, with Montgomeryshire moving to Gogledd, and the remaining south Powys joining Dyfed in a 5th region. Alternatively, South Powys could join Gwent and Dyfed could join Gower. Alternative suggestions on a postcard please, but 4-6 regions would appear to be the limit.
We don’t need to follow the unproven English approach of elected council mayors, and this approach would improve council accountability, as well as establishing city-regions with directly elected mayors. Maybe a model for the English to follow?
Why reinvent the wheel? why not restore the 1974 county councils. I quite never understood the point of the unitary authorities – maybe one of you brainbox political scientists can enlighten me? Penddu, I notice that you exclude education from your comment, any particular reason?
Mike – I think Education fits with our county/boroughs as it is something that every voter can directly relate to and is best provided at a local level.
Regarding the 1974 counties, I understand that the original proposals combined Gwynedd & Clwyd and Mid-Glamorgan & South Glamorgan, and it was political gamesmanship that scuppered this.
But the main thrust of my proposal is to make a more direct linkage between services and taxation – to make our politicians more accountable, as at the moment they can hide behind a wall of clever accounting to disguise the true costs of what they propose.
Regarding the 1974 reorganisation, the Tories’ aims were a combination of destroying the old Labour-controlled Glamorgan and a belief that many of the other pre-1974 counties and county boroughs were too small to deliver services. Labour, after it was obvious that Glamorgan could not survive, came up with the idea of an East and a West Glamorgan based on Cardiff and Swansea, which still probably makes sense. The Tories created South Glamorgan because they believed given the past electoral history of Cardiff and the Vale that they had a chance of occasionally gaining control of the new authority. In reality of course, for most of its existence, except for a very brief period, South Glamorgan was always controlled by Labour. Both of the reorganisations in the 20th Century were carried out by Tory governments for political reasons rather than improving governance.
As much as I favor an elected mayor, I am not convinced that the people of Cardiff want it or desire it? First I am not convinced that it will encourage people to get out and vote (turnout I think is between 30 and 45% at the moment). It’s certainly has not been the case in London where turnout has rarely been over 40% (45 in 2008). Hardly a ringing endorsement. I do not like the current cabinet system which in Cardiff has frequently ignored advice from the scrutiny committees, so where is the check and balances between executive and the council as a whole. I would favor a new “Greater Cardiff Metropolitan council” which would include Cardiff, Vale and RCT (which I think was the “East Glamorgan” plan). Even better I would like to hear from an expert like Prof Kevin Morgan since he is an expert!
I will agree with Jeff, both late 20th Century reorganisations were done for political advantage. Commissions of enquiry in England had fastened onto the concept of the city region, with unitary authorities covering most of England, about 90 of them and in the most built up urban areas a two tier system of most purpose authorities with metropolitan counties for strategic planning on top. Above this were to be English Regional councils that would take up regional economic planning and oversee the regional boards of the then nationalised utilities.
Wales tagged on behind, some reports suggested a five county structure, Mid/West Wales, North Wales, Gwent, East Glamorgan and West Glamorgan. In England the regional authorities were put on hold pending the report of the Kilbrandon Commission. The Tories then eviscerated the plans for unitary authorities and imposed a two-tier system. In Wales the plans were modified, as Jeff said East Glamorgan was split to create South Glamorgan as an authority that possibly the Tories could control. The districts were given powers over leisure, parks, personal social services, waste collection and housing. The counties were major highways authorities, Education, planning and consumer protection. Other areas were shared responsibilities.
However if we were to start again then I’d agree with Penddu that social services should be run by the regional authorities (see earlier post) as it sits well with health provision, which was the idea of the local health boards, but 22 district boards were far too small.