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.
No comments:
Post a Comment