Guest blog by Ed Carlisle
I think I’ve read most of – if not all – the blogs, articles, and propaganda about the mayoral election. And I don’t want to cover issues already addressed excellently elsewhere. For example: the Leeds Citizen blog, that features some great, cut-the-crap pro-elected-mayor pieces; and Alex Woodman’s blog from Bristol, that gives a thoughtful and detailed run-down of the pro’s and con’s, and ultimately swings to ‘no’.
My starting point here is that this is not a black-and-white issue, but complex and nuanced. Personally, I’m voting ‘yes’ to an elected mayor on Thursday: I believe the referendum presents a golden one-off opportunity for potential change in Leeds and the UK… More dynamic leadership in the city. Greater visibility and accountability for the city’s politics. And a one-off chance to get some power out of London – and shared more equally with Leeds and other cities.
But I really recognise and respect that there are those with thoughtful concerns about the potential pitfalls. More than anything else, it deserves a fair, open and balanced debate. So what really swung it for me (into the ‘yes’ camp) was – ironically – the ‘Beware of the Elected Mayor!’ leaflet delivered through my door last week. This scurrilous and misleading leaflet comes in the very opposite spirit, presenting the issue in stark, polemic terms.
So where’s it come from: some concerned, independent citizens perhaps? Nope. It’s been funded, produced and distributed city-wide by members of the party political machines in the Council. Why? Because they want to keep their (sluggish, dysfunctional) status quo – and they’re worried that a directly-elected mayor might disrupt that. The leaflet argues many things, in a skewed and blinkered fashion. But what really got my attention was its complaint that a directly-elected mayor wouldn’t really be democratic…
Intriguingly, the leaflet actually embodies our current democratic deficit. The established political machines in our city are happy to abuse their own political advantage (access to party funding and city-wide distribution networks, and unique leverage in the local media) to try and crush the debate. And they could be pretty sure that – with their shared monopoly on political resources and discourse in the city – they would be no big coordinated ‘yes’ campaign.
All this is entirely consistent with the normal culture and behaviour of the Council. There are some (although not enough) great councillors. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that all across the city, I know dozens of fantastic community activists who are fed up to the back teeth with the patronising, domineering and controlling behaviour of their councillors and the Council. And in fact, I even know a few councillors, former councillors, and Council workers who – in quiet moments – admit the same.
But could things actually change? What might actually happen if we disobeyed the party machines on Thursday, and opted for a directly-elected mayor? Let me speculate…
In the inaugural mayoral elections this autumn, I have to presume no independent candidate will be sufficiently organised to mount a serious campaign. Meanwhile, the main political parties will forget their resistance to the initiative, and put up candidates – and the Labour candidate will win. (As is happening in the inaugural Liverpool mayoral elections this month.) He/she will be a safe option, and it’ll be business as usual: Labour currently run the Council, and they’ll continue to run the Council. So far, so samey.
Longer term is where it gets more interesting. As many others have said elsewhere, these referendums offer a unique national opportunity to get some meaningful power out of Westminster and re-calibrate the UK’s highly centralised political system. Just this past weekend, speaking at the public launch of Leeds Community Organising initiative, innovative ‘Blue Labour’ thinker Maurice Glasman (who doesn’t mind ruffling the feathers of the established political order) was calling for Leeds and similar cities to demand greater autonomy for ourselves from London. Some elected mayors might just achieve this; the current set-up of councillors never will, designed as it is to disable innovative leadership in favour of play-it-safe status quo.
And what about Leeds, long term? Something is brewing in the city. Diverse initiatives including Leeds Community Organising, the Leeds Summat Gathering and Disrupting Poverty are all expressions of a growing movement working towards innovative, bottom-up, collaborative social change in the city – with scant regard for the clunky old-school ways of doing things. And elsewhere, conversations are being had about the formation of a new alliance for community activists to stand in Council elections – to shake up the current system, and get some genuine representation for Leeds communities.
Irrespective of whether the city votes ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on Thursday, that movement is emerging. But having a directly-elected mayor would create a whole new possibility. It wouldn’t be easy, but I don’t think it’s unrealistic that we could in 4 or 8 years’ time get a credible independent candidate for mayor – who genuinely represents us (the people of Leeds), and could lead some meaningful change. In the meantime, we’ll continue chipping away at the substantial problems we all face (political, social, environmental, etc), without asking permission – and the political parties can keep the seat warm… as they have done with great stability and mediocrity for many decades, or centuries.
I’d have more respect for this post if the person who wrote it could tell what those ‘scurrilous and misleading leaflets’actually said…and then had the nous to then demolish those arguments.
Instead we’re off intot he usual tired everything at the moment is rubbish and if only we an elected mayor could come to rescue with their dymanic ideas and vision like – say – what happened in Doncaster.
Of course an elected mayor would neevr ignore or patronise nameless community activists because they would be so inclusive and perfect.
Hi Paul.
Thanks for your interest and your comment, although I’m sorry not to have not yet won your respect!
I didn’t go into the details of the leaflet because that would have been to revisit arguments that have already been proposed, contradicted, counter-contradicted, etc in many other blogs and articles.
So to complement all those blogs and forums, I wanted to focus on a specific couple of points that weren’t addressed elsewhere.
Regarding your Doncaster query, could you perhaps comment upon the apparent success and popularity of mayors in places like Hartlepool, Middlesborough, London, and country-wide in places like France (where they flippin love their elected mayors), New Zealand, Germany, etc?
Finally, as I say in my blog, there’s no guarantee that having a directly-elected mayor will necessarily be loads better than the current system. But I don’t think it could be worse – and it could potentially be much better. We’ll see.
Cheers again.
How is it more democractic to concentrate greater and greater power in the hands of less people? In this case in the hands of as few people as possible? One person. Some years ago central government imposed on local communities a shift away from coumcil chamber govt to so-called cabinet govt. In simple terms it meant that most councillors, while they could do casework and complain about broken paving stones, had little or no influence on actual policy. That was shifted to a much smaller group of people who made up the ‘cabinet’ or Executive Board. Not satisfied with this concentration of power they are now promoting the idea that only one person is needed to exercise this power- an elected mayor. You don’t have to think the current or previous systems are perfect to wonder how on earth that is more democratic.
It retains a certain democratic element (there is an election) but it simultaneously means that all the separate elections of the rest of the council is fairly meaningless.
It is no accident that this role, where it already exists, has attracted the populist, the power-hungry and the politically clueless (Doncaster’s Bernard Manning wannabe, Middlesborough’s Robocop, Ray Mallon and the terrible duo in London). Galloway would be tailor-made for this role and we could all salute his indefatigable courage.
What strikes me about the arguments I have read here and in other blogs is how little they prize (or dare I say understand) the importance of democracy. The case for elected mayors has little specific to say about the benefits beyond vague unsupported assertions that it would lead to more ‘dynamism’, a new approach, be less boring and so on and much more to say about how grey and dull and dysfunctional and so on the current system is. I’m for very radical change indeed to the system but there is a difference between change and improvement. We need our representatives to be more accountable, to be recallable, to serve for shorter terms and so on. There is nothing new or radical about the idea of elected mayor. There is no new accountability beyond the fact that people are more likely to know the mayor than their councillors because there is only one. It’s politics for the X factor age
And finally, doesn’t the provenance of an idea tell you something about it’s pros and cons? It is all very well to point out that the established parties in Leeds all oppose the idea but it is being promoted by the equally established and ruling parties in the Coalition. They want more democracy, more power to local people, stronger local government? If you believe that you have to, amongst other things, ignore their imposition of academy status on so many schools, their break-up of local authorities, their NHS plans and their plans to force people in the poorest regions to accept lower pay.
Lets campaign for a deeper, fuller and more participatory democracy, but let’s not become mesmerized by whatever glittery ball our rulers dangle in front of us.
I think that we all might be assuming a little too much about how informed people are. The Leeds Citizen blog is vital and informative but it’s not read outside a fairly small group of hyper-informed folk who are interested in politics and current affairs. I did an incompetent unofficial survey at work the other day about the council. No-body knew who was in charge, what their policies might be, what they’d done recently… About half knew it was a Labour council. About a third knew it had previously been Conservative/Liberal. Not one knew who their local councillor was, but roughly a quarter thought I meant their MP. Who they could name.
Accountability requires engagement and it requires knowledge. An elected mayor would, naturally, have to make his or her name known, set out their policies, convince people. The vast majority who do not feel they have anything invested in local politics would be much more likely to notice, to participate and to become informed. Everyone has an opinion about Boris and Ken. Do you think there was that level of engagement with the GLA? We’ve talked a lot about a mayor representing Leeds to the world. I’d quite like a mayor to represent Leeds to itself.
Precisely what I meant Matt when I described the idea as politics for the X Factor age. Rather than address the conditions that create apathy and powerlessness it proposes to make politics simple and undemanding. All of the arguments for an elected mayor seem to me to be superficial (‘say what you like about Boris, at least people know his name’) and informed by the ‘insight’ that politics should be more like popular entertainment.
Ed
Do you really think this is a serious endeavour from Downing Street to develop more powerful provincial cities? To magically allow us to punch our weight?
Or might it perhaps be a way to ensure that business and political interests have a narrowly defined target, or a single point of contact, through they can negotiate/influence?
For me the Will Self analysis that ‘London thinks only of itself. The rest of the country is just there to be bled dry’ (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/will-self/will-self-london-thinks-only-of-itself-the-rest-of-the-country-is-just-there-to-be-bled-dry-7685133.html) will eventually prove to be a more accurate description of what will emerge. Unlike some of our leaders I do not believe that we need to be seen as a ‘tax-take opportunity for Whitehall’! Or for that matter as an investment opportunity for wealthy speculators.
Where I do agree with you is that a defence of the status quo, based on an analysis that the current system is working well, is the most sure footed way to guarantee a yes vote. Working well? It has delivered frightening levels of poverty and inequality in the city and build temporary prosperity for some on financial froth and property development. It is vital that our political leadership start to figure out how to make progress on the big issues rather than to look like a bunch of political Apprentices doing and saying whatever needs to be done to ensure that they are not fired in the next electoral Boardroom. Civic Hall needs to re-find it power to catalyse progress in the city.
And this is where I do think it needs to innovate and find new ways of supporting and encouraging bottom-up citizen led movements that are seeking to tackle big issues in the city. I would add to your list the Occupy movement, Empty Homes, Leeds Anti Sex Trafficking, Playful Leeds and many others. Bottom up is indeed the new black, and those in power who are used to working ‘top-down’ need to figure this out quickly and see how they can respond to help citizens drive the construction of the kind of city that we wish to live in. In the last few years we have seen a lot of citizen movements spring up, and gradually the council are showing signs of interest. I would very much like to see this process accelerate and see if it can flourish in the city.
I will be voting no, because in practice I think the mayor will not make a significant difference to the ‘realpolitik’ in Leeds, and as a matter of principle I think we should be seeking to distribute power rather than concentrate it and to devolve power from the Civic Hall rather than hold it there. And I simply do not believe that we are watching a government that is deeply committed to devolving power away from London into the northern cities.
Hey Mike.
Thanks for the comments. I’m running late for work, so these will be concise comments…
Yep, I love the bottom-up movement emerging in Leeds! Thanks for adding to my short list of examples of this.
And about whether London is committed to devolving power to cities like Leeds? No, of course it isn’t! But devolution in the late 90s was never meant to actually give real power to Scotland etc. Yet the law of unintended consequences has led to exactly that happening.
So I think today might – in years to come – potentially, just maybe – be seen as a watershed in UK politics: the start of the de-centre-ing of power out of London. Intended or not!
I’m not sure that’ll happen – but I think it’s worth hoping, and voting accordingly. The current political system’s taking us nowhere in Leeds.
Interesting analysis. It was actually dismay at the misleading and negative campaign that prompted me into some limited activity to support the yes campaign. If it hadn’t been for the ‘no spin’ then I’d probably just have quietly voted yes.
Although I don’t republish the leaflet I have published a rebuttal of much of its content here:
http://bruceontheworld.com/2012/04/beware-of-spin-about-elected-mayors/
Some of the no leaflet content is available here. I can’t appear to find a link to the actual leaflet:
http://www.aspdin.net/mayor/index.htm
All this talk of a political stitch up (including in the title of this posting) just assumes that the undemocratic fixing is on the No side. The most noticeable aspect of the whole mayoral debate, however, is that the cities that actually elected mayors today did so only because of a stitch up between national and local representatives of the ‘established parties’ being referred to so much here with no vote at all amongst the people. The cities that gave their voters a right to decide have delivered results that suggest they are not at all keen on the idea. Of six cities where the vote is in five have rejected the idea and only one Bristol) has endorsed it. So it is looking very much like an idea that can only really take off if it is imposed.
That doesn’t appear to me to be an easy body of evidence for the proponents of elected mayors to explain away.
It’d be interesting to have a Mayor who tied himself to direct democracy, where he just did whatever the dictat of an online poll stated. I say interesting because I don’t think it’d really be successful, but at the same time there really needs to be great openess and accountability with regards to decision-making.
For me, my feeling is that the more you split power the more likely it is that long-term, difficult but needed decisions are made. When you have majority governments/councils or mayors the current incumbant often bottles the difficult decisions because they’re afraid that if it goes wrong (or even if it works but the media spin it unfairly) then they’ll be unelected for a decade. The changes we tend to get in national governance were perhaps subtantial in some senses (very differing views of tax-rates, unions, etc.) but in reality, particularly nowadays, the parties are relatively similar.
They all obsess about economic growth without seeming to understand it, they all have a tendency to want to demonise unpopular portions of society (those on long-term benefits, or involved with the riots, ‘terrorists’ on the bad side, etc.) for fear of looking out of touch or soft, whilst positively discriminating towards those who have been singled out for negative attacks in the past (around issues of religion and sexuality in particular) for fear of being labelled bigoted or discriminatory, and importantly on the issues that are driving the large budget deficit (namely healthcare, benefits and pensions (which is a benefit)) they are broadly similar and too chicken to cut in those areas (or raise the pension age for example) because it’ll be seen as electoral suicide. I wonder whether the Conservatives would have cut less if they were the single party in a majority Government because if it went wrong they’d be out of office another 10 years, whereas now they can always blame the Lib Dems, and fewer of their supporters are likely to defect to the Lib Dems (and many wouldn’t dream of going to Labour).
For this reason serious questions need to be asked about how we ensure more collaborative, consultative, grass roots political decisions, as well as having the state involved in less of everyday life, so that there is less chance of the powerful being corrupted, and of people’s lives being dictated by whatever public opinion or the current view of the so-called experts is in the current age.