No to an Executive Mayor for Birmingham (Part 5)

A change to a local government system in Birmingham dominated by an individual is unwelcome and un-British. The new city Boss would have far too much power and be difficult to remove. As if that wasn't enough, the Government, making up the rules as they go along, now seems to be saying that someone could be Mayor of Birmingham and Police Commissioner for the West Midlands at the same time and there's now also been mention of the Mayor chairing Centro!

A move to an executive mayor would damage respected institutions such as the Lord Mayoralty. This is clear from analysis of two-mayor situations elsewhere. In Leicester the Lord Mayor now does only 8 - 10 civic engagements a week. In Birmingham (as of now) this would simply be a busy day. It is assumed that the Lord Mayor would still be the first citizen of Birmingham, but the significance of this honour would be greatly diminished.

The Lord Mayoralty could, in time, be lost altogether, especially in an age of austerity, so ending a noble history. There is nothing to stop this happening - notwithstanding the claims of the supporters of an executive Mayor. The deed could be done under existing powers. How then would the much valued civic function be carried out?

Birmingham's success under Joseph Chamberlain was achieved with a committee structure and Chamberlain was a councillor, not a directly elected Mayor. The key difference between those days and now is that the power of Local Government was much greater. Power is the key to dynamic local government - not its concentration in the hands of one person. The Government can give back powers whenever it chooses to do so - it does not need an elected mayor to do this.

The situation in Birmingham is very different from that in London where the mayoralty arose from the abolition of the GLC. In London, always a law unto itself, the Mayor doesn't deliver social care, housing or education and can raise revenue from transport. In fact Boris doesn't have a lot to do apart from grandstanding.

In theory the council could reject the Mayor's budget but there is a heavy bias in favour of the Mayor in that rejection would require a two thirds majority of the Council - 81 out of 121 (the Mayor counts as a councillor) to do so. And an elected Mayor would be easier prey for central government for their own ends - for instance implementing cuts and austerity. This, rather than powers, could be the surprise item on the agenda of the Prime Minister's so called 'Cabinet of the Mayors' (for which the PM has only undertaken to chair the first meeting).

Birmingham City Council would probably be cut down to 80 or possibly just 40 members, so diminishing what is the largest local authority this side of the Urals. Such moves are under way elsewhere. Rochdale plans to reduce councillor numbers from 60 to 40 and in Doncaster the Mayor wants to slash the number of councillors from 63 to 21. Such cuts produce enfeebled assemblies less able to hold the Mayor to account.

The case for an Executive Mayor improving local authority efficiency or the quality of services has not been made out. Some elected mayors have been ineffective - a situation more likely to arise if a 'protest' candidate wins the ballot. Decisions could be quicker (as in authoritarian regimes) but they would not necessarily be better (as they generally are not in authoritarian regimes).

The impression is given that business is in favour of an elected mayor. But the views of businesses as a whole are difficult to assess. Company bosses may find it easier to lobby an executive mayor, but who then would be running the city? CEOs often have a narrow focus that doesn't reflect the common good - and the impact of globalisation has been damaging to Birmingham's industry and its citizens.

Local Government is not broken and cutting and tampering with it will not undo the damage done by the banks and by a totally misconceived economic policy. A move to an executive mayor in Birmingham is undesirable and should be rejected. Above all, the city should keep an undiminished Lord Mayoralty which has served the city and its people so well for so long.

Birmingham does not need an Executive Mayor (Part 2)

Cllr James Hutchings' case against a directly elected mayor in Birmingham continues...

"The extra cost is a factor but not the main reason to oppose the proposal. The biggest objection is the concentration of power in one person without let or hindrance. At present the Leader has to report monthly to his political Group and to the full Council. Similarly the Prime Minister has to retain the confidence of the House of Commons - thus Margaret Thatcher had to resign when she lost support. It is called Representative Democracy. Even in the private sector the CEO of a FTSE company has to account regularly to his Board of Directors

In contrast the EM will only be accountable to the electorate after 4 years and then only if he wants to stand again. A really strong press could help to hold him to account but unfortunately our local press now has a small circulation and fewer good journalists.

Local councillors will be increasingly marginalised. That may not sound a bad idea to some but access is important. People do come to their councillors on large and small matters and expect their councillors to be knowledgable and to help. In a city of a million people few, apart from the Great and Good, will have the opportunity to meet the EM whereas many talk to their councillors.

Lord Heseltine speaks eloquently of how Governments have for decades centralised power in London and that this Government is determined to decentralise power to EMs. I support the intention to decentralise so let us get on with it – devolve power to the Councils – there is no need to wait for EMs.

The Government have not told us what powers will be devolved – they want to discuss the matter with the EM. We are now face the ridiculous referendum to vote for having an EM not knowing what powers will be devolved – a pig in a poke.

Those who have enjoyed “Yes Minister” may doubt whether the mandarins will readily give up their control of the purse strings.

Lord Adonis denigrates Birmingham education and complains that it was like “pulling teeth” to introduce his bright new ideas. We can all sympathise with his impatience but it does take time in a democracy to convince a large and partly hostile education service. Besides, while our education results are not good enough, they are as good as the national average despite our large population with English as a second language; they are above the national average for disadvantaged children. Lord Adonis should pull the teeth of his friend the EM of Leicester which has very inferior results.

No doubt a local dictator would be good at making quick decisions but he might not always be omniscient or benevolent to all interests. The local press says the EM “Must be a Big Figure”. The likely candidates include the local party leaders so no change there! Even if the Big Figure does emerge this first time I doubt that they would continue to emerge in future when they experience the hard slog of delivering so many services with little glamour.

There has been no evidence of better governance under EMs – to date some like the monkey mascot at Hartlepool have done well enough while others like Stoke and Doncaster have failed. Is it not foolish to vote for a system with no evidence of improvement but with no way back?

I conclude that we do not need the cost, risk and disruption of a new system which concentrates too much power in one person and is not evidence based.

Of course the present arrangement is far from perfect. Public ignorance and indifference are perhaps the strongest cause for criticism. The most urgent need is to change the election cycle. Few except activists understand the present system whereby we have local elections in 3 years out of every 4. Instead we should have all out elections every 4 years. That would be simple and understandable. Candidates could campaign on a clear 4 year manifesto.

Because the process would be clear and understandable people would know what they were voting for and public interest would revive."

Birmingham does not need an Executive Mayor (Part 1)

The campaign for a resounding 'No' vote in the referendum on May 3rd as to whether or not the city should have a directly elected mayor is an all-party endeavour. I have set out a case against in earlier postings on this blog and with his consent I'm posting in two parts the arguments put forward by my council colleague, Cllr James Hutchings. In a much livelier read than some of my own postings, James writes:

"Ever since Oliver Cromwell, the English have been opposed to concentrating too much power in one person. The Irish, Scots and Welsh were opposed even earlier. Joe Chamberlain was a very powerful mayor and achieved great things for Birmingham but he was an elected councillor and worked with the committee system.

Today the Leader of a big city is already extremely powerful. Under the existing system Birmingham Councils of various political leadership, working in partnership, have achieved, and are still delivering, big projects such as the National Exhibition Centre, the International Convention Centre, the National Indoor Arena, the new Library and New Street Station.

I know that some American cities have Executive Mayors (EMs) who are successful and some who have been corrupt. Why are we being compelled to always follow America or the Euro plan?

The local press keep campaigning that “we need a Boris”. Your readers will know that any such comparison is nonsense. London has 32 local authorities who deliver local services. When the old GLC was abolished a co-ordinating authority for the London region was needed so they introduced the Mayor. The Mayor has responsibility for Transport, Fire and Police in the London region while the local authorities are responsible for other services such as Housing, Education and Social Services.

By contrast in Birmingham the EM would not be responsible for Transport, Fire and Police which are organised regionally. He would have no regional authority. He would be responsible for the vast range of other services only in Birmingham.

I have established that Birmingham does not need an EM and that the comparison with Boris is misleading and irrelevant.

Some years ago we did hold a referendum in Birmingham and the people voted in favour of the Leader and Cabinet system. Ever since, the local press has campaigned for an EM. They spent large sums of money with articles almost daily but still they failed dismally to gain the necessary support. Recently Sean Simon, the leading Labour Wannabe EM says he has knocked thousands of doors but found minimal interest.

Of course the Wannabes want the job. At present the Leader receives £65000 and must retain the support of councillors to retain his job. The EM will no doubt take at least £100000 and will have the job for 4 years even if he/she proves incapable. He / she may also appoint many additional advisers from outside the local government civil service."

(to be continued)

No to an Elected Mayor for Birmingham (4)

There is a very powerful case, some of which is set out in earlier posts, that Birmingham does not need a directly elected, executive mayor. I hope that visitors to this blog will find the case convincing. The imported concept of a city boss for Brum is a pig-in-a-poke not simply because the Government has held out the prospect of more powers without saying what they may be but because the incumbent of such a post, virtually non-dismissible, could be anyone from a legitimate figure to Uncle Tom Cobley - or much worse.

As a young man I lived for a while in Chicago under the mayoralty of the original and notorious Mayor Daley. I lived just round the corner from the site of the St Valentine's Day Massacre in a block of flats that backed on to a graveyard. In most elections the turnout (as it were) from the graveyard was widely believed to be higher than that of the general population. I am not suggesting that this sort of thing is still widespread in the US - indeed I am acquainted with a mayor of a US city who does a first class job. But there is a very mixed pedigree for a position that concentrates so much power in the hands of an individual who may turn out to be a surprising and unconventional choice especially when there is a low turnout or with lax, nationally controlled, voting arrangements as we know to our cost in our city.

We do not need a 'Boris' nor will we get one. Boris does not have a lot to do aside from grandstanding. All the hard municipal service delivery is done through the London boroughs. This is the work that is currently done by the city council led by ten senior and experienced councillors. It should remain so - or even better re-instate a (refreshed) committee system. This was the arrangement that made Birmingham 'the best run city in the world' under Joe Chamberlain - who was an elected councillor like all the others - with the public interest at the heart of all that they did.

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.