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.
No comments:
Post a Comment