Mayoral scepticism

Would more mayors would be a good thing for England? Not necessarily
June 28, 2008

Does England need more mayors? Yes, say Michael Kenny and the IPPR's Guy Lodge, writing in Prospect, pointing to the success of mayors in reinvigorating and improving the performance of local democracy in the small number of local authorities in which they have been adopted. And the politicians, it seems, are listening. Communities secretary Hazel Blears recently extolled the virtues of mayors, and various press reports suggest that Labour may include support for more mayors in its next election manifesto.

Believe the hype and the case for more mayors seems pretty clear-cut. Delve a little deeper, however, and the case is not so clear. Generalising from the current crop is a risky business. There is a severe lack of evidence for the benefits of mayors in English local government; not least because there are only 12 of them (not including the special case of the mayor of London). A sample size of 12 makes drawing firm conclusions nigh-on impossible.

This is further complicated by two important factors. First, the mayoral authorities that do exist have tended to emerge from local political turmoil—Hackney being the most obvious example. Second, councils with mayoral models tend to represent areas that are not typical of the population as a whole—in particular, there is a strong urban bias.

Kenny and Lodge claim that directly elected mayors improve accountability through their improved visibility and name recognition over their counterparts in leader-cabinet councils. But this is not accountability in any meaningful sense, given the complexity of local governance structures. A mayor will no more want to be held accountable for the actions of other parts of the local governance landscape than central government wants to take the blame for local government.

Meanwhile, the public is hardly crying out for more mayors. The referendums needed in local authorities for the introduction of a mayor have for the most part been initiated by councillors rather than the public at large. And only three out of the eight publicly initiated referendums so far have resulted in a "yes" vote. Voter turnout at both referendums and mayoral elections have been no higher than in other local elections.

There is anecdotal evidence that, as Kenny and Lodge suggest, councillors have been resistant to the introduction of mayors. Kenny and Lodge imply that this should be interpreted as the vested interests of activists blocking the will of the people. But short of abandoning democracy, it is hard to know what they would prefer. Surveys reveal genuine public concern about the concentration of too much power in one person's hands, and over the lack of say for councillors under a mayoral system. And councillors' concerns about a reduced role should matter when we know from the Councillors Commission that a major challenge in attracting new candidates to local government is the perceived lack of power.

Some mayors have presided over improvement in their councils' performances, but then so have many leaders: the story is of improved performance across the board. And sure, there is an "array of positive stories" and innovative practices among mayors; again, the same is true of leaders. It's easy to find successful case studies if you're looking for them.

Some of the arguments for mayors are just not persuasive enough. For example, it may be true that mayoral systems could open up councils to more independents, and counter some of the disenchantment with political parties. But unless ministers are prepared to accept that parties are no longer appropriate mechanisms for governing, should we not be aiming to widen their appeal rather than replacing them? Most importantly, as many commentators accept, the mayoral model is only appropriate for well-defined, predominantly urban, areas. To bring the alleged benefits of mayors to all local government bodies might require a wholesale unitary restructuring of local government.

And we have already had one round of restructuring, with recent moves to unitary authorities and the Local Government Act 2000. This system is only now bedding in, but does seem to be bringing real gains. Another round of institutional change risks distracting local government from these achievements, as well as embroiling central and local government in another huge row. So despite Kenny and Lodge's arguments, the question of whether more mayors would be good for local government remains very much open.