I have spent that last three days as an "accredited member peer" in Doncaster - a really interesting place and a fascinating council! And, as I'm sure you also know, Doncaster has a directly elected executive mayor. Furthermore many of you will also know that - after eight years of a Labour mayor (following 30-odd years of Labour control) - the good folk of Doncaster elected Peter Davies standing as an English Democrat as their mayor.
Experiencing from within the Council the effect of this surprise has been particularly interesting. The press coverage of Mayor Davies has focused on his less-than-liberal views but little of no attention has gone to what the new mayor is actually trying to do. And the processes involved in developing strategies and programmes that respond to Mayor Davies' agenda (while at the same time recognising that he has no party, that Labour remains the largest political group on the council and that there are wider regional or national agendas to take account of as well).
Now those who oppose elected mayors cite election results such as this one, the election of H'angus the Monkey in Hartlepool (who is now in his third term of office - amazing what free bananas can do) and the chaos that is politics in Stoke as arguments against elected mayors. The relatively successful mayoral systems in Bedford (where there's a mayoral by-election following the death of that mayor), Newham and North Tyneside seem to get less interest or attention.
For me though - and this comes at a time when Bradford Council is consulting on whether to move to a directly elected mayor or for councillors to elect a leader and cabinet for four years - elected mayors provide a real opportunitiy for new, independent and better directed local leadership. But my dear colleagues who lead the main Bradford parties are all firmly opposed to having an elected mayor. For the record here's my take on those colleagues views:
1. Opposition from many Conservatives isn't about the principle (will an elected mayor lead to better governance in Bradford and/or a more effective council) but is about a feeling that we wouldn't win! As Conservative's we're supposed to be sceptical not cynical! It's also party policy as far as I know!
2. Those who talk about the "root of the problem" not being addressed (like Bradford's Liberal Democrat leader) fail to articulate what that problem might be. Here's a guess: assuming it's not a Liberal Democrat mayor, that party would lose much of its ability to hold much larger parties to ransom and to play one side off against another. They would need to begin to engage positively in local politics.
3. Apparently the local Labour party believe that a mayor isn't right for Bradford - what on earth does that mean? Most often it is suggested that having a mayor would exclude the Asian community - as if we're likely to get an Asian council leader in the foreseeable future! Electing a mayor reduces the Labour Party's ability (and other parties for that matter) to use ethnicity and the politics of faith in manipulating support from these communities - surely that would be a good thing? Unless you're just interested in power!
Even having seen up close the impact of a mayoral system in Doncaster, I still think it has great merits. Above all elected mayors allow for independent candidates to get elected and, even from the main parties, reduce the power of party dictat and the whip. And it is a far better system than electing a leader and cabinet for four years - that's much the same (although Bradford's Liberal Democrat leader clearly hasn't read the policy) as electing a mayor directly. Except less democratic and less transparent.
Bring it on in Bradford!!
No comments:
Post a Comment