Devolution and the price of fish...

****

Yesterday along with fellow Conservatives from West Yorkshire (well, a couple of them) I headed to London to talk with the Treasury about devolution to West Yorkshire. We went there with the desire to explore the political, possible and practical knowing that our opposite numbers in Labour had already submitted some suggestions - I commented on the secrecy surrounding these proposals the other day.

Rest assured dear reader that the conversations we had down in London didn't come to any conclusions - we aren't about to rush through some secret deal for devolution. But there were some interesting aspects to the discussion.

Firstly, while there's an appetite for devolution in West Yorkshire and in London, there's a bit of a bother about the changes not being seen somehow as a 'new tier of government'. This echoes a familiar observation - "if the answer to your question is more politicians, then you're asking the wrong question!" But the reality of course is that there is already a 'sub-regional' tier of government, it's just that you don't notice it much. We have the new and shiny 'combined authority' that has swept together what used to be the 'public transport authority' with some limited powers around regeneration and planning. This adds to some other West Yorkshire government bodies - the police authority (now with its 'Police and Crime Commissioner'), the fire and civil defence authority and West Yorkshire Joint Services.

At the moment the democratic cost of these bodies (i.e. how much cash it takes to have politicians sitting on committees and boards) is somewhere near £700,000 - to say that setting up a new body (or mayor or whatever) is creating a new tier of government is incorrect. If we replaced all that West Yorkshire stuff with a single body it probably wouldn't cost that much - even before we take account of all the other duplicated bureaucracy.

Secondly, however much we might be twitchy about elected mayors, the ability of a Boris with a big mandate and big boots to bully central government can't be underestimated. This isn't to say that a West Yorkshire mayor would carry the oomph of Boris but it is to explain that the big mandate matters nearly as much as the personality. For sure there are political considerations (we did talk about these) but the fact remains that a high profile individual elected by 2.5 million has much more impact that an indirectly elected council leader - even one with the grand title of 'Chair of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority'.

The deal presented as a revelation in Greater Manchester is something of a fudge - you get a mayor but that person's chained down by the regions council leaders making it hard to deliver real direction (especially if the City's residents decide to elect an independent or Conservative while all but one or two of the leaders are Labour). Even with the most likely outcome - a Labour mayor leading a 'cabinet' of mostly Labour leaders - the 'boot down the doors of Whitehall' factor is limited by local political consideration. And the mayor and cabinet's actions aren't subject to effective, independent scrutiny but rather to scrutiny by councillors appointed by those same leaders who sit on the mayor's cabinet.

Finally, the deals on offer aren't about - nor do they resolve - England's democratic deficit. For all that groups like Centre for Cities want to pretend that city and city-region devolution answers this problem, it remains the case that the devolution offer is limited (it doesn't include education and health beyond some administrative changes, for example). And the deals don't make much difference to the dilemma of financing capital infrastructure investment. What is offered is the chance to strengthen the delivery of current transport, regeneration and housing investment plus the ability to get plans drawn up, give them political backing and thwack them down on the Treasury table saying 'this is what we want funding'.

There's a long way to go - the best we can expect this side of a general election is some proposals. And the wider devolution debate - the one about England - moves on (unresolved so far). If we do move to a West Yorkshire (or perhaps a wider West Riding) model, I'm sure it will involve an elected mayor. The real question isn't this one but the rest of the governance - do we need a directly elected assembly as London has or will some sort of appointed system via existing local councils be good enough to hold a powerful mayor to account?

A long way to go yet but I know one thing - saying 'no, we don't want that sort of thing' really doesn't help the argument. The price of fish is simple - do you want a mayor plus elected assembly, a mayor plus appointed combined authority or nothing (and the joy of watching mayors from Manchester, Merseyside, Sheffield and Newcastle thwacking down their schemes and sucking up the infrastructure funding). Interesting times!

....

Simple really...the case for elected mayors

****

Tonight I will be (briefly - five minutes isn't very long) addressing an audience at Bradford's Midland Hotel about elected mayors. Do come along (starts at 7pm) if you've nothing better to do - such as watch the Manchester derby.

For those watching football, washing their hair, knitting blankets for the starving or playing croquet, this is the nub of my argument.

Right now there's a election afoot in Bradford. Across every inch of the District campaigners are thrusting leaflets through letterboxes, bashing posters into gardens, knocking on doors asking for votes and generally - in the manner of politicians - voter-bothering. We'll be electing 30 councillors who will join the remaining sixty in deciding who runs the city and how the city is run.

The lovingly crafted leaflets will feature fine profiles of the candidate in question, snappy slogans and killer criticisms of the other parties. There will be photos of the candidate stood with local residents, pointing at potholes and engaging in all kinds of what David Cameron calls "social action".

Nowhere in all this will there be any debate about the City and District. Nowhere will we see a manifesto - or even a list of action points - that will set out how Bradford would be run under a Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat administration.

For a lot of voters they'll get just one leaflet from one political party - I know that's true of folk in Cullingworth. This isn't debate. This doesn't set out any basis on which leaders should be judged by the electorate. It simply reinforces the view of the national media that local elections are just a grand opinion poll showing how well - or badly - the national government is doing.

And when we've elected all those councillors, off they go into private meetings, behind closed doors, to decide who runs the city and how the city will be run. The manifesto for the City and District - the set of actions, the listing of priorities - will be written by officers, squeezed through some pretence of a "public consultation" and then published in an impenetrable 78 page "strategy" that no-one will ever read from cover to cover.

We have to do better. We have got to start having a public debate about the priorities for Bradford - the city centre, schools, jobs and the environment. Rather than those priorities being determined by whoever officer is most successful at scaring the councillors into action, they will emerge from a public debate. And will be owned by an elected mayor.

The Bradford people will choose that mayor

The Bradford people will hold that mayor to account

And the Bradford people can get rid of that mayor if that mayor fails.

Simple really.

.....

No elected mayors won't cost more money - or rather they shouldn't

****

I keep hearing how mayors are going to be ever so much more expensive than the system we have at present. This doesn't have to be the case and, under the law, the allowances paid to the elected mayor (as well as councillors) are determined by full council - that's all 90 of us - in response to recommendations from an independent remuneration panel.

Currently Bradford's councillors are paid collectively around £1.8 million (the quick-witted will spot that's about twenty grand each) and the Leader got a few pennies shy of £50k in 2010/11. For the record, the 2012/13 budget has cut £100,000 from this allowances budget.

If we get an elected mayor - and I hope we do - I do not think that he or she will be paid much more that the current leader receives. I may be wrong here - the independent panel may decide that the mayor should be paid a great deal more and (stranger things have been known) council may agree. But even so, the financial impact of an elected mayor will be minimal.

Of course a really radical approach (and one I know Philip Davies supports) would be to reduce the number of councillors significantly. I'm equivocal about this (turkeys, christmas and all that jazz) but could the council operate effectively with an elected mayor plus 30 councillors, one for each of the current wards?

....

I'm still backing an elected mayor in Bradford...

****

The surprise of George Galloway's election for "Respect" has changed the way in which some people are viewing the campaign for an elected mayor in Bradford (such as it is) - I've witnessed a little e-mail debate where the possibility of someone like George being elected as Bradford's mayor is being used as an argument against having such a creature.

Instead we should rely on the (no longer) smoke-filled committee rooms of City Hall wherein the councillors you elect will decide who runs the City. And all because we're scared of democracy - or rather of the 'winner-take-all' democracy implicit in an elected mayor.

Of course it is possible that Respect could win an election for mayor but to do so they would need to get a significant number of votes from somewhere other than Bradford's muslim community which seems unlikely to me. We forget that the muslim community remains a minority in Bradford - about 30% of the population - and even George isn't going to get 100% of that community to vote for him!  In last weeks election Respect got 56% of the vote in the most muslim part of the City.

But even were Respect hot favourites to win, I would still argue that having a mayor is the right choice. Right now we have a "leader and cabinet" model where us 90 councillors pick a leader from the limited pool of political group leaders (currently four) and that leader appoints his cabinet. It seems to me that this process - much of which takes place in private - represents the essence of local government's problems. Everything is determined by the whip, by the party machine and by the policy direction given from senior officers.

The choice shouldn't be determined by the calculations of local party leaders but by the public. And, just maybe, the public will - as they just did in Bradford West - not do quite what we politicians expected. So be it. Maybe it will keep us honest?

....

Polling suggests Bradford backs an elected mayor!

****

Early days yet and a small sample (just 500) but the initial soundings suggest that the Bradford people will vote for democracy and against the continuation of politics by party apparatchik:

Some 53% of people said they would like an elected mayor with 37% disagreeing and 10% undecided.

An encouraging start to this campaign.

Let's get an elected mayor for Bradford!

....

Why I'll be saying "yes" to an elected mayor for Bradford

Today, Greg Clark, the “Cities Minister”, confirmed the date for Bradford’s referendum on a directly elected executive mayor:

Our greatest cities can benefit from strong, visible leadership and international standing that a mayor, elected with a clear mandate, can bring.

"Around the world, including in London, a mayor has become a vital part in ensuring that a great city has a strong voice and can attract investment from home and aboard.

"Britain's success depends on the success of our great cities and I am convinced that an elected mayor, taking powers previously confined to ministers, can help realise their potential."

Now, leaving aside the slightly gushing nature of this announcement, I can say that I shall be campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote – Bradford has had long enough with behind closed doors, unaccountable, party whip controlled government. The result of this has been to create a jaundiced electorate – something noted (to the distaste of local leaders) by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:

In part defined by outsiders as a ‘problem city’, individuals, businesses and groups who took part in the research often argued that Bradford’s leaders had not done enough to counter these negative images. They felt this had discouraged investment in the area and damaged the confidence and perceptions of people within the city and district.

However much we may – as those local leaders – chunter and complain about this analysis, we cannot deny that a fair old chunk of the City’s populace simply don’t think much of their leaders. Maybe they’re wrong – I certainly think many Councillors have tried hard to break through the begging bowl mentality, present a positive image of the City and provide high quality services to Bradford’s residents.

A mayor would – as we have seen elsewhere – be able to rise above the party machines through having a direct relationship with all the Bradford electorate. A mayor would set a different tone to politics in the city. Instead of an endless round of conflicted negotiations between party leaders, we would have one individual able to set a clear agenda – an agenda for which that individual would be accountable to the whole electorate.

Right now the agenda is set in the different party groups on the council; these groups choose the leaders giving the voters no say in that process. Elections are conducted on the basis of national political positions – if parties have a position on Bradford’s priorities it isn’t one that is presented to the electorate, debated and discussed, it is contained in a document read by only a few.

A mayor would break the stranglehold of professional administrators and the dominance of officer “expertise” is defining what the council does. My colleagues on council complain all the time about it being “officer-led” or “officer-controlled”. One former councillor once described the chief executive, with some merit, as the “unelected mayor”. If we have a directly elected executive mayor, we will see political direction and leadership (and I don’t mean party political here) replacing the deadening hand of bureaucratic stasis that dominates what we do today.

Above all, a mayor would provide the city with a clear, recognisable and accountable face to the wider world. Right now, I’m prepared to bet that more Bradfordians know the name of the directly elected mayor of London than know the name of the indirectly elected, unaccountable leader of Bradford Council.

So next May, I’ll be asking Bradfordians to vote for change. To vote for a system that will give the City a strong public voice, a man or woman who can step outside the now smoke-free rooms of City Hall and provide the leadership the people of Bradford say they want.

....

Why three days in Doncaster hasn't put me off having an elected mayor in Bradford!

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!!