Too Much Power in the Hands of Individuals

Birmingham citizens should say 'No' to a directly elected mayor in the referendum on May 3rd. Some detailed reasons are given in the previous three postings. But even though the arrangements are slanted towards the result the government wants, at least there is some kind of choice as to whether or not the city ends up with a US style boss.

But there is no such choice for citizens when it comes to a Police and Crime Commissioner. This individual, to be elected on November 15th, will replace the existing Police Authority - a broadly balanced body of people that has consistently maintained one of the lowest precepts in the country and who are more than ready to speak to local groups.

The Police and Crime Commissioner will after November 15th become responsible for the strategic direction of policing throughout the West Midlands. Practically anyone can stand for this position - and probably will since there are few qualifications. There is a budget of £546 million, a resident population of 2.655 million people and an enormous range of issues, many of them very complex.

Another bright idea from a Government intent on increasing the concentration of power. Just wonderful.

No to an Elected Mayor for Birmingham (Part 3)

The forthcoming referendum in May has been imposed by central government alongside suggestions of devolving more power - but only if the result comes out in favour of an elected Mayor - and with a question which appears to be slanted towards the result that the government wants. Such behaviour, not for the first time, shows a worrying lack of respect for the democratic process.

Far from necessarily promoting the interests of Birmingham and its citizens, an elected Mayor, being a single individual, would be easier prey for central government manipulation for their own policy ends - for instance in the context of implementing an agenda of cuts and austerity based on what they see around themselves in London and the South East. It is far from certain that the actions of an elected mayor would be towards mitigating national austerity centred policies. Indeed, given their political persuasion they could amplify them. The Government has already shown its willingness to be manipulative in the context of the referendum.

The impression is often given that business is in favour of an elected mayor. But the views of all businesses as a whole are difficult to assess. 'Business opinion' is spoken of in terms of the views of a handful of 'leaders' who may not be representative of a cross section of the Birmingham economy. Furthermore, these 'leaders' are not of course exposed to elections nor, to put it mildly, can we be sure that they have consulted their employees. Indeed it is possible that corporate employees may be marshalled to campaign for the preferences of the CEO or Board of Directors whether they approve of it or not.

The Chief Executive Officers of companies of course are appointed, and not elected, to positions which have a narrow and self interested commercial focus. As we have seen, the effects of globalisation and 'free trade' (quite different matters) do not always work in the interests Birmingham's industry or its citizens. Chief Executives are used to having things their own way ex officio and with little challenge, a characteristic that does not sit well with representative democracy. For lobbying purposes business leaders may well prefer an executive mayor without a cabinet. Who then would be running the city? There are widely expressed concerns of the possibility of cronyism as has been experienced in the United States.

There is also the question of how many of these prosperous entrepreneurs actually live in Birmingham. Although the answer to this question would be quite difficult to establish, I suspect that it is a minority. Of course, this will not prevent a substantial campaigning outlay (I will not say investment) being made to get the result that they so evidently desire.

There is a danger that with the referendum and the local elections that are due on the same day in May that the 'yes' campaign could deliberately be skewed to contain material designed to cause party political damage to individual politicians known to be opposed to an elected mayor. With the local elections to be held on the same day it will be difficult for active politicians to run an effective campaign against a change of governance arrangements and so risk taking the focus off their candidates in council elections that are likely to be closely contested.

In the present system - and the former committee system - there are three councillors per ward who retire in rotation so that people have a direct say three years out of four. They therefore have three times as many chances to either change control of the council or, through reducing the majority of the incumbent administration, to influence the course of policy. There is also talk in some authorities of making councillor elections once every four years only - thus increasing further the democratic deficit.

It follows from the above arguments that a move to an executive mayoral system is undesirable in Birmingham. This upheaval in local governance should be rejected and the Council should either stay with the Leader and Cabinet model along with the respected and traditional office of the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, undiminished or, even better, restore a (refreshed) committee system which served the city and its people so well.

No to an Elected Mayor for Birmingham (Part 2)

The situation in the Metropolitan Authorities is entirely different from that in London. The London Mayoralty arose from the abolition of the Greater London Council and, for example, in London the Mayor does not deliver crucial services such as social care, housing or education and can raise substantial revenue from transport provision and restrictions.

There are many more issues in Birmingham and other metropolitan authorities than those faced by the Mayor of London - including those that inevitably crop up between elections. How can a single person respond to the multifarious concerns across a wide range of services of a million or more residents? Some, however might try to do this. If a directly elected mayor introduces a cabinet system (as in Leicester) how much different in practice is this to the Leader and Cabinet model? If they do not, how much authority is effectively devolved to (non-elected) officers or others?

Since councillors would have no power to get rid of a poorly performing Mayor, the Mayor would not need to be responsive to what councillors say on behalf of their constituents. It is sometimes claimed that Scrutiny will 'hold the Mayor to account' but in the last analysis Scrutiny has few formal powers and could effectively be ignored by the Mayor. It would, of course, be a different situation were Scrutiny to be given some real teeth but this is extremely unlikely. So on the assumption of a three month election period, both citizens and councillors could be ignored for 45 months out of 48.

Theoretically the council could reject the proposed budget of the directly elected Mayor, but the government-determined arrangements are deliberately biased in favour of the Mayor in that rejection of the Mayor's budget proposals would require a two thirds majority of the Council - at present 80 out of 120 in councillors Birmingham - to do so. Conversely, if one political party did manage to secure 80 seats the city could become ungovernable if Mayor and Council were at odds - somewhat paralleling the United States unhappy deadlock between Congress and the President.

The City Council itself would undoubtedly be scaled down in the not too distant future to no more than 80 or possibly to as few as 40 seats. An electoral review is needed but this is under active consideration in other councils. For example Rochdale plans to reduce councillors from 60 to 40 and in Doncaster the executive mayor wants to reduce the number of councillors from 63 to 21.

Cutting down on councillors would produce an enfeebled assembly with diminished representation as well as reduced experience available for the Mayor supposedly to be 'held to account'. I have observed a council in a major city of the United States with fewer than twenty members and meetings that had become little more than tiresome formalities - the active representation of the people was conspicuous by its absence.

In Birmingham, the largest unitary authority this side of the Urals, councillors already serve a much larger number of constituents per head of population than anywhere else. The council can no doubt be faulted on various grounds, but the vigorous representation of the interests of members' constituents is not one of them.

The Executive Mayor may not live in the city and could choose to spend relatively little time in Birmingham and a lot of time globetrotting (with itineraries decided by themselves) at the taxpayer's expense. A directly elected mayor may be a high-cost option. At present overseas travel has to be justified to a council committee. There would be a risk of trimming basic services to support mayoral grandstanding and globetrotting. Swagger is not an essential ingredient in delivering good social care or housing.

The case for an Executive Mayor improving local authority governance, efficiency or the quality of services has not been convincingly made out. Some elected mayors have proved to be ineffective - a situation more likely to arise if a 'protest' candidate wins the ballot. Decisions could be quicker (as they generally are in authoritarian regimes) but they would by no means necessarily be better (as they generally are not in authoritarian regimes). This rapidity, not to say haste, suggests a diminished, rather than an enhanced role for Scrutiny. The talk seems always to be about the Mayor 'beating the drum' and getting him / herself into the media. There is of course a vanity factor here and there is much more to running a city than this.

In Birmingham a lengthy campaign run by the local press could get nowhere near the 5% of signatures required to trigger a referendum. Clearly the citizens of Birmingham were not bursting with desire to have a directly elected mayor, a fact supported by the very low 18% turnout for a referendum in Salford.

No to an Elected Mayor for Birmingham (Part 1)

A fundamental change to the local government system in Birmingham to one dominated by an individual is un-British, undesirable and undemocratic and would damage respected institutions. This posting is the first of a three part case against the change.

If, following the referendum on May 3rd, an executive mayor was introduced in Birmingham, with the post filled in November 2012, there would be considerable confusion both as to perceptions and roles. This relates to the duality of mayoral titles, presently the exclusive preserve of the Lord Mayor, which would then be impinged upon by the Executive Mayor - who could be called Mayor, 'City Mayor' (as in Leicester) or some other variant.

Decisions on civic overlap would have to be taken and the general public would be unclear as to which mayor was which and what were their respective roles. Already, for example, there are people who believe that the present Lord Mayor of Birmingham will be standing for re-election in November.

One certainty however is that the standing and significance of the historic office of the Lord Mayor of Birmingham would be diminished. This is clear from any reasonable analysis of a two-mayor scenario and is evidenced by developments in Leicester (at the time of writing the only city with a Lord Mayor and a directly elected Mayor).

The word 'Mayor' could be attached to subordinates of the Executive Mayor - Deputy Mayor, Assistant Mayor etc. not to mention the existing Deputy Lord Mayor and the Lord Mayor's Deputies should these posts / categories continue. The situation would not be quite so confused if a title other than 'Mayor' was adopted for the directly elected executive office, although this is unlikely to happen.

In terms of confusion between the offices of the Lord Mayor and the Executive Mayor regarding the civic dimension, while representation at minor occasions would be unlikely to be an issue in terms of which mayor covers them, there would certainly be difficulties over major functions and those events with particular sensitivities to an even greater extent than in recent years - civic protocols notwithstanding.

It is assumed that the Lord Mayor would still be the first citizen of Birmingham as at present. And who among us should be placed in front of the first citizen? But it already happens on occasion - and would be much exacerbated by a move to an Executive Mayor. As a recent Lord Mayor I had an informative discussion with the then Lord Mayor of Stoke on Trent who confirmed that confusion amongst the general public was the case there. While the situation in Stoke was in some ways exceptional (being the only case of the directly elected mayor with council manager model) the electorate in Stoke got rid of the directly elected mayor system that they had previously favoured when the government abolished the mayor/manager model.

It is conceivable that the time honoured and valued position of Lord Mayor of Birmingham could be lost altogether, especially in an age of austerity, notwithstanding the claims of some proponents of an executive Mayor. This could be done under existing powers and could happen at once but more probably after a year or two. How then would the civic function be carried out?

The Executive Mayor would not have the time to cover the vast majority of the 1,000 - 1,500 civic engagements carried out by the Lord Mayor (with many more requested and not counting those covered by the Deputy Lord Mayor). Conceivably, greater use would have to be made of former Civic Heads and Honorary Aldermen - assuming of course that they would be willing to do so.

The possible change to a directly elected Mayor is sometimes spoken of as if this was the first time that elections would be involved. But the present arrangements are not election free. Both the Lord Mayor of Birmingham and the Leader of the City Council must first be elected as councillors - and consequently have considerable service, experience and knowledge of Birmingham. Each must then be elected to their respective roles by the City Council as a whole. Until the Government changed the rules for council leaders this happened every year. So there is not an absence of elections as things now stand. This type of arrangement has stood the test of time and is common elsewhere. While the election is two-stage or indirect, so for example is that of the Prime Minister.

A directly elected Executive Mayor is not in the British tradition. Far too much power would be concentrated in the hands of an individual who could turn out to be erratic and difficult to remove. As painful experience elsewhere should have made clear, arrangements that may work more or less well in particular societies cannot simply be bolted on and expected to function effectively elsewhere. A local government model may fit well with the different traditions of foreign lands but will not necessarily suit our own heritage.

It should be noted that Birmingham's great success in the time of Joseph Chamberlain was achieved using the committee structure and not with a directly elected Mayor. The essential difference between those days and now was the powers and creative freedoms that were available to councils, so many of which were taken away - along with valuable assets in which the City Council had invested - by various central governments. This greatly diminished the opportunities to be creative and to generate income through municipal enterprise. It is power that is the key to enterprising local government - not its concentration in the hands of an individual.

It is claimed that the introduction of elected mayors will contribute to the shift of power away from Whitehall to the major provincial cities. But the Government can transfer powers whenever it chooses to do so. Most councils are ready and able to receive these back. There is no necessity to have a directly elected mayor to implement the restoration of powers that Birmingham once possessed and used to such great effect in the past.

Saving The Economy

While it is essential that effective measures need to be taken to stimulate the economy, careful consideration must be given to the form that the measures take and the effects – by no means all of them good – that the measures have on different groups of people. In my opinion we need to assist the long-suffering saving community.

There has in my opinion been far too much reliance on keeping official interest rates low. This feeds directly through to savers though some borrowers, especially the less well off, are charged horrendous, usurious rates quite legally. There should be a much greater emphasis on public works such as useful aspects of transport infrastructure, particularly rail (and I do not mean HS2 here), power generation and increasing the nation’s pitiful fuel storage capacity.

In the present circumstances low bank rate and quantitative easing have only limited positive impacts on the real economy as we endure the worst recession (quibble about definitions if you must) since the 1930s. Furthermore, rock bottom interest rates hit savers immediately and have only been partly passed on (in some cases loan charges have been put up by banks) to borrowers.

Savings are the bedrock on which long term investment should be built. Not only this, but savers, particularly older people in or near retirement, have had their incomes severely reduced by interest rates which continue to be at derisory levels on savings accounts even at banks such as the Co-op that it might be thought had retained some shred of respectability. Ways must be found to moderate this highly adverse impact on responsible people who are trying to live within their means, provide for themselves and indeed set a good example to others.

Furthermore, the economic effect of rate cuts can even be the opposite of that intended. The substantial income reductions for savers mean that they have less money available to spend. Indeed in Japan in the 1990s the experience was that as interest rates were progressively pared back people saved even harder to make up the lost income and so deflating the economy. But then the Japanese can be more traditional, a quality that is reflected in the fact that the Yen has risen and the Pound has fallen. How we have lost our way!

As we have seen, it is certainly no use relying on the commercial banks to be reasonable about interest rates to savers. There needs to be action by the Government. We certainly need banks that are operated in the people’s interest and which provide secure and reasonable returns to savers. If the Government won’t provide such a bank then local authorities should be encouraged to step in to act in the public interest.

You guessed it - re-instate the Birmingham Municipal Bank. Why do I keep on plugging this? Because hopefully it will become clear in the fullness of time that the commercial banks are useless so far as ordinary people and small firms are concerned and that politicians will stop deceiving themselves that their friends and bankrollers in high finance will ever consider the people, the economy and the nation as much as their ever-beloved bonuses.

Banks Take Note!

The following is claimed to be a letter that was sent to a bank in the US by an 86-year-old woman. I can't vouch for the authenticity but it certainly makes a 'telling' point! The letter was published in New York Times. Apparently the bank concerned was amused, but has it or any other bank here or in the US changed its ways as a result or is it just something to laugh at while they count their bonuses?


"Dear Sir:

I am writing to thank you for bouncing my check with which I endeavoured to pay my plumber last month.

By my calculations, three nanoseconds must have elapsed between his presenting the check and the arrival in my account of the funds needed to honour it. I refer, of course, to the automatic monthly deposit of my entire pension, an arrangement which, I admit, has been in place for only eight years. You are to be commended for seizing that brief window of opportunity, and also for debiting my account $30 by way of penalty for the inconvenience caused to your bank. My thankfulness springs from the manner in which this incident has caused me to rethink my errant financial ways.

I noticed that whereas I personally answer your telephone calls and letters, when I try to contact you, I am confronted by the impersonal, overcharging, pre-recorded, faceless entity which your bank has become.

From now on, I, like you, choose only to deal with a flesh-and-blood person. My mortgage and loan repayments will therefore and hereafter no longer be automatic, but will arrive at your bank, by check, addressed personally and confidentially to an employee at your bank whom you must nominate.

Be aware that it is an offense under the Postal Act for any other person to open such an envelope. Please find attached an Application Contact which I require your chosen employee to complete. I am sorry it runs to eight pages, but in order that I know as much about him or her as your bank knows about me, there is no alternative. Please note that all copies of his or her medical history must be countersigned by a Notary Public, and the mandatory details of his / her financial situation (income, debts, assets and liabilities) must be accompanied by documented proof. In due course, at MY convenience, I will issue your employee with a PIN number which he/she must quote in dealings with me. I regret that it cannot be shorter than 28 digits but, again, I have modelled it on the number of button presses required of me to access my account balance on your phone bank service. As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Let me level the playing field even further. When you call me, press buttons as follows:


Immediately after dialling, press the star (*) button for English

1. To make an appointment to see me.

2. To query a missing payment.

3. To transfer the call to my living room in case I am there.

4. To transfer the call to my bedroom in case I am sleeping

5. To transfer the call to my toilet in case I am attending to nature.

6. To transfer the call to my mobile phone if I am not at home.

7. To leave a message on my computer. A password to access my computer is required. Password will be communicated to you at a later date to that Authorized Contact mentioned earlier.

8. To return to the main menu and to listen to options 1 through 7.

9. To make a general complaint or inquiry. The contact will then be put on hold, pending the attention of my automated answering service.

0. This is a second reminder to press* for English. While this may, on occasion, involve a lengthy wait, uplifting music will play for the duration of the call.


Regrettably, but again following your example, I must also levy an establishment fee to cover the setting up of this new arrangement. May I wish you a happy, if ever so slightly less prosperous New Year?


Your Humble Client"

Trees for Life

Birmingham Trees for Life is an inspirational project devoted to promoting awareness and understanding throughout the city of the value and importance of trees. Trees for Life also campaign to raise money to enable more trees to be planted, and to encourage the involvement of everyone, especially young people, in planting trees.

Whether you live near an open space that needs more trees, or would like to plant a tree to commemorate a special event, or are just want to do your bit for the environment, Birmingham Trees for Life could be of interest to you. If you are a Birmingham-based business, perhaps you would like to get out and do something of value to your community – why not sponsor tree planting or tree-related activity in your city?

Every winter BTFL organises tree planting events in parks and public open spaces across the city. The City Council owns these parks and BTFL works in partnership with the Parks Managers, Rangers and Friends of Parks. If you know of a park near you that needs more trees, please get in touch.

This year BTFL will be holding no fewer than thirty events and are looking to begin planning events for next year. I have taken part in some of these events in the last couple of years and judging from the experience and enthusiasm of schools so far involved I am sure that the educational as well as the environmental benefits are very great.

More information and a list of all upcoming events organised by Birmingham Trees for Life can be found on their website at

 http://www.btfl.org.uk

or if you would like to contact BTFL directly you can do that either by email to:

 bhamtreesforlife@gmail.com

or by post to:

Birmingham Trees for Life

The Birmingham Civic Society

9 Margaret Street

Birmingham B3 3BS