Simon Jenkins is the most annoying of Guardian columnists. A great deal of what he writes is total nonsense. But, every now and again he raises a good point.
He did today. He argued:
England's 12 “metro mayors” should be abolished. Metro mayorships are artificial creations whose regional geography rarely reflects any civic identity or pride. Towns and cities should have properly elected mayors, as is common in other democracies.
I largely agree, excepting major conurbations - which an increasing number of mayoralties are not. Some, in fact, like Cambridge and Peterborough represent utterly unrelated conurbations where most in one place will have never been to the other. So, Manchester, London, Liverpool and maybe Tyneside apart, these mayoralties do, as Simon Jenkins suggests, have almost no identifiable regional role and represent locations to which no one can relate. It is unsurprising that turnout is so low.
But that does not make Jenkins' alternative, which is elected mayors everywhere, better. In fact, I think it a terrible idea precisely because, unless it is based on a single transferable vote, it probably reinforces the two party system, which it might do even if that system was embraced. Worse, however, appropriate checks and balances are not built in. That is why we have councils with reasonable numbers of members precisely so that any governing group is accountable.
We undoubtedly need better local government in England, and maybe elsewhere. That requires more powers, more funding, more control of services, less outsourcing, and more focused powers to borrow. To make this relevant, locality matters. But abandoning accountability will not help. Simon Jenkins has got it wrong. We don't need elected mayors almost anywhere.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It seems to me that Elected Mayors are rather like ‘Super Heads’ ‘Great Man Theory’ etc appointing one person, usually a man to sort things out.
However we all have our strengths and weakness’s and nobody is good at everything.
My suggestion might firstly be that one option is that rather like the PM, the Mayor in any Authority should be the leader of the largest group and held to account by the members if that Council.
In the past when discussing Regional Devolution I have also suggested that instead of ‘Metro Mayors’ what is needed is some sort of ‘Delegate’ system where they Authorities involved send representatives to a combined authority so you dont get the sort of falling out that we seem to be getting in WECA – West of England Combined Authority at the moment.
At the end of the day though what we need is a proper Constitutional Settlement for Local Government confirming its Powers, Duties and Funding, similar to what happened in the late 1880’s when the County Councils were set up.
As a final I was amused to see someone writing about his first job at Wakefield Station. Several times a year the Yorkshire Pullman would be stopped specially to collect the County Clerk of the West Riding of Yorkshire. He would then go to London, First Class, to spend several days in one of the Capitals best hotels where Ministers and Senior Civil Servants would have to request an audience with him.
Perhaps thats something from the past we need to bring back!
the Great Man or Super Head concept applies to having an elected Head of State who appoints the Secretaries-for Treasury, Defence, Foreign Affairs etc. in short the American system.
It made a sort of sense in the 18th century where there were fewer things for politicians to be concerned with. When the country was on the edge of a large continent and the population one of crafts people, fishermen, farmers and slave owners.
But in the present, the US is an empire of 330 million. No one can fill all the roles.
In practice the powers of the President are limited -as Obama and Clinton found after they lost the first mid terms and a minority can stop or inhibit policies. Both had to limit progressive policies such as in health care.
Teams usually produce better outcomes. With all its drawbacks a parliamentary system where a PM has to account to a cabinet is better. It is easier to get rid under performing leaders.
The idea seems to be that we need a single accountable executive figure – like in the US or France – to deal with issues such as public transport. To put it another way, a strong man to get the trains to run on time.
I am not convinced.
Agree, although he is certainly not the only writer of crap in The Guardian. Have you or any of your other blog followers read any of his books? Short histories of Europe, England and London. Are they any better than his short journalism pieces? Just wondering. So pleased I belatedly discovered your blog recently. Great information and analysis. Many thanks for your efforts.
Thanks
I believe he is ok on churches
Simon Jenkins wrote a book on the historic houses of Yorkshire. I have it. The book was better than average compared to other books I have on historic houses.
Dreadful anti-democratic system.
Dump it and establish proper regional decentralisation.
The English mayoral system further concentrates power in fewer hands and utterly fails to satisfy the principles of a functioning democracy.
Worse still , it is based on a seemingly random assessment of regional geography drawn on Sykes Picot principles.
If England needs proper regional authorities then mayoralties is a pisspoor ersatz substitute.
It is the arrogance of certain political leaders have driven this stupid idea in England.
Created as a Blairite 3rd Way ego project, and in his centralist leadership image, the establishment of mayors and cabinet style administration substitutes for full democratic oversight by concentrating power in one individual and/or party.
It’s based on the lowest common denominator of personality politics or the notion that there needs to be a single strong leader. We all know where that can lead.
Most of the local referenda under the Tories pushed by Cameron, were against the mayoral system.
Manchester didn’t vote in favour of having a mayor, the metro mayor being imposed by Osborne.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/may/04/cities-vote-against-elected-mayors
I agree Richard with your points. Having one person with a lot of power is undemocratic. They are unlike a council leader who can be removed by other councillors if they are not very good. Checks and balances are very important. In Cornwall with the County council and districts the committee system did allow for a degree of debate and discussion which helped arriving at decisions. Not always good but at least the options were put on the table as it where.
Quote –
Having one person with a lot of power is undemocratic.
I thought the Westminster Tory government was heading that way with Johnson being that person.
Luckily Johnson blotted his copybook too often for that to happen.
Next time maybe….
Is there an analogy with Police and Crime Commissioners? (Not that I am aware of them having any real powers.) When we were first invited to vote for them, I simply wrote on my ballot paper that I saw no need for them – waste of money. This year, as it probably wouldn’t affect me or my community at all, I voted for the Green candidate believing that it was at least a way to show that Greens do have support.