The Threat to the Lord Mayoralty

One aspect of any move to an elected mayor is how this fundamental change would impact upon the position of the Lord Mayor of Birmingham. In my view - and that of everyone else connected with the civic function of the council (where local communities and charities are visited and supported) is that the Lord Mayoralty would be severely diminished.

The title of Lord Mayor was granted by Queen Victoria and I'd asked for legal advice on whether this made the position permanent. But the legal view is that the post of Lord Mayor could be removed since no evidence or law could be found that suggested that the position of Lord Mayor is mandatory.

In fact it is a position within the Council's constitution and the post could be removed by a change in the constitution. This is not difficult to do and indeed a constitutional change that cut across the Lord Mayoralty was made by the Council in 2007 at the behest of the Leader of the Council. This was wholly exceptional and says a lot about the individual involved.

Any such decisions need to be made by the Full Council and while not in the gift of an elected Mayor, if they wanted this to happen and are of the same political party as the controlling group on the council, the Lord Mayoralty could be abolished - and without undue difficulty.

A further point of importance is that the civic duties of the Lord Mayor are extensive (1,000+ engagements a year) and therefore do not combine easily with the significant executive functions of an Elected Mayor. So if the Lord Mayor went, so also would almost all of the civic function.

I had also asked about naming and the use of the term "Mayor" in the unfortunate event of having to have an elected mayor. The legal view is that there would be difficulties in continuing to name the Lord Mayor as "Lord Mayor" if there is also an elected "Mayor". A different title for the Lord Mayor may be required since the Government demands that the city boss be called "Mayor". as a result, some 85% of those authorities that now have an elected Mayor have already got rid of the title "Mayor" for the former civic head.

So anything that you may have read by senior people in the 'Yes' camp that the Lord Mayoralty is secure is misleading. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is due to carelessness and ignorance. The council itself, unless forced by government or pushed by an elected mayor would not in future re-title, otherwise downgrade or remove the Lord Mayoralty. The only way of being sure of the future of the position of Lord Mayor of Birmingham is to vote against having an elected Mayor on May 3rd.

Birmingham Mayor...And Further Down The Slippery Slope

Steve Beauchampe, journalist with the Birmingham Press.com writes:

"Birmingham is Europe’s largest local authority, its 40 wards served by 120 directly elected (to use contemporary parlance) councillors. But how long would this remain the case if the city’s electorate vote Yes in May’s mayoral referendum? Liberal Democrat Councillor Michael Wilkes, writing on his online blog last month, stated: “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.”

Birmingham’s council wards are the largest in England, serving an average population of more than 18,000 people per ward. While a two-thirds cut in their numbers seems very unlikely, several councillors we have spoken with share Michael Wilkes’ assertion that there will probably be a smaller, but still significant, reduction in the reasonably near future.

Of course, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council does not have a mayor. Neither does East Dorset District Council, where plans to reduce councillor numbers from 36 to 29 were recently approved. However, these examples show the general direction of travel as local authorities seek ways of cutting costs. As Michael Wilkes indicated, councils wishing to reduce the number of councillors must first make a submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission and also undertake public consultation.

In East Dorset, part of the local authority’s case for reducing councillor numbers is that: ‘Since the last review eleven years ago a number of council sub-committees and working groups have disappeared with work being delegated to offices or going direct to committee. The result of this is that a number of councillors have said that they are not involved as fully as they might be. Recently a number of committee meetings have been cancelled due to lack of business.’

If such things are happening in local authorities without elected mayors, then those with them may well also attempt to scale back on democratic representation. The arguments would be two-fold: firstly on cost grounds – an easy, populist call at a time of severe service cutbacks. Secondly, it will be claimed that as the mayor has a mandate from the whole city and enjoys unprecedented levels of power and control over the council, then fewer councillors are needed. Providing that the mayor continues needing the support of at least one-third of councillors for his annual budget and Council Plan, the number of councillors, the argument will go, is largely irrelevant.

Of course, none of those who have already pre-empted the forthcoming mayoral referendum and announced their intention to run for a job that does not even exist, have suggested reducing the number of councillors. To an electorate already concerned at the extensive powers mayors to be granted to mayors, that would be verging on political suicide.

But in establishing the ‘democratic’ framework in which mayors will operate, central government has deliberately made their local power base as unassailable as possible. Ward councillors have been largely sidelined from major policy making decisions (a process that started with the abolition of the Committee system in 2000) and have precious little input into the council’s broad policy framework. Reducing their influence inevitably lessens their ability to challenge the mayor’s authority. Reducing their numbers means less voices to question, to scrutinise and to hold to account the incumbent of what would be Birmingham’s most powerful political post in over a century.

In such a climate it would be naïve not to think that further emasculating and neutering the one group democratically mandated to provide awkward and intrusive opposition to mayoral policy might be on the agenda sooner rather than later."

Elected Mayor? Don't be taken for granted!

The 'Yes' campaign for an elected mayor in Birmingham has always struck me as being a bit elitist. A good example of this are organisations that see themselves as promoting business interests. I was disappointed recently to see that an annual event in Birmingham for business awards and networking was in reality 90% devoted to a 'Yes' rally. There was no discussion, just top down (attempted) brainwashing of a captive audience of business executives.

One element of realism in this was the admission that most of the £100 a head diners would not have a vote since they didn't live in Birmingham. Nevertheless I'm sure they would of course have Birmingham's interests at heart and put this way above their own private profits.

But nil desperandum old boy you can send emails to all your employees telling them how they should vote! Thank heavens for secret ballots. This deeply patronising approach will certainly backfire as people in all walks of life who do have a vote make up their own minds.

Not that there is much to go on in the way of facts of course. Take these supposed new powers for elected mayors. What are they? 'Er, don't know', we were told. But don't worry, you don't expect government departments to 'surrender' the powers they've pulled in from local government without a fight do you? So the Mayor would go down to London and 'bang tables'.

I've never been a great one for a table-banging ideology and in any case the table-banging approach is more likely to work in mayoralties that include marginal constituencies rather than the political monoculture we would be likely to have in Birmingham for many years with mayor, council and nearly all MPs from the same party. Just great.

And what happened to central government in all this? Legislation could be passed to the effect that the powers to be (re)devolved will be this, this and this. If regional variation was desired then the powers in particular cases could be made up of some that are common to all and others to be selected from a schedule declared in advance so we know what we're voting for.

And power is better than wishful thinking such as the Mayor, drawn from a party list and underpinned by perhaps the first preferences of 20% of those entitled to vote, will be able, no doubt through their enormous personal charisma, to exert mysterious influence over other bodies, agencies and neighbouring regions. Very likely.

Clearly the people dreaming up this half baked stuff have very limited local experience (though they may have a hidden agenda) and should not expect people like you and me to vote for the proverbial pig in a poke. So if you'd like to send them a little message of your own, be sure to vote 'No' on May 3rd.

Just Say No to an Elected Mayor for Birmingham

This is what I and many others strongly advise in the referendum on May 3rd! Birmingham being dominated by an individual would be unwelcome in principle and unhealthy in practice. The City Boss would have too much power that they may not use wisely - and be next to impossible to remove.

The Government continues to make up the rules as we go along. As well as the flux and uncertainty over hypothetical powers, there is the loaded wording of the referendum question and bland reassurances about consequences for the office of Lord Mayor and the council's Civic function which are not good - not good at all.

The crucial difference between the days of Chamberlain and now is power - not its concentration. The Government could give back the powers (and assets) taken from the people of Birmingham over the years whenever it chose to do so with or without an elected mayor. In fact an executive Mayor is a complete irrelevance.

The situation in Birmingham is entirely different from London which is always a law unto itself. I sometimes wonder if London is really a part of England - but that is a debate for another time! In London the Mayor doesn't deliver social care, housing or education and can raise revenue from transport. Whoever emerges from that grubby and unfair campaign in the capital won't be doing the hard work needed in all provincial cities.

The City Council -which you elect - would be marginalised. For example, rejection of the mayor's budget would require 81 members to vote against rather than a simple majority of 61. The Council would in due course be cut to 80, 40 or even fewer in number, so diminishing and emasculating Europe's largest unitary authority. So much for 'holding the Mayor to account.' Decisions could indeed be quicker - anyone can be impulsive or yield to pressure - but they would not be better - as they generally are not in authoritarian regimes.

Then there is the question of direct costs. The Council Leader is paid £66,000. An elected Mayor would want far more - at the taxpayer's expense. An elected Mayor could employ many deputies at large salaries with the public having no say. An elected Mayor could be a compulsive globetrotter - again at the taxpayer's expense. The May 3rd referendum is costing £250,000 for which the Government sends the bill to Birmingham. Voting yes would add to the waste.

An elected Mayor would be easy prey for both lobbyists and central government and the case for the claim that an executive Mayor would improve the quality of services in Birmingham has not been made out. Mayors elsewhere are a mixed bag and some have been notably ineffective.

The impression is sometimes given that the business world is in favour of an elected Mayor. Forgive me for wondering why. But the views of businesses large and small, quoted and family concerns are hard to weigh up. And it is not just the big bosses and fat cats that count - and certainly not those who have shipped jobs and machinery abroad.

An executive Mayor in Birmingham is undesirable and the prospect should ruled out on May 3rd. An elected Mayor will not undo the damage done by the banks, by a totally misconceived national economic policy, globalisation and the withdrawal of power and assets from this and other cities over many decades.

Mayors: Birmingham Does NOT Decide

Here is a further article from Steve Beauchampe adding to the mountain of evidence in the case against having an elected Mayor in Birmingham. Steve writes:

"There has never been any evidence in Birmingham of a desire for a referendum on elected mayors. A high profile media campaign in 2006/7 to raise a petition to trigger a mayoral referendum attracted only around 15,000 signatures from an electorate of more than 700,000. But like it or not, Birmingham and ten other English cities are having one. Speaking at a recent meeting in Birmingham to announce these referenda, Local Government and Communities Minister Greg Clark stated that: “Cities need to take charge of their own destinies; change must come from within, not without.”

If this is true, then how come that:

The referendum was imposed by Westminster.

The referendum question was determined by Westminster.

The timing of both the referendum and any subsequent mayoral election was dictated by Westminster.

The powers to be granted to elected mayors (given in the form of ‘City Deals’) will only be announced AFTER both the referendum and mayoral election have taken place.

A Yes vote means that, in future, changing how Birmingham is governed will require an Act of Parliament.

The selection of the shortlist for the main party’s candidates will be heavily influenced by their national organisations.

Despite Government assurances that: “No City Deal is contingent on a city voting for an elected mayor”, Prime Minister David Cameron recently indicated that cities rejecting the mayoral route (a list likely to include Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham and Coventry), would be frozen out and parked up in some kind of local authority slow lane. In contrast, those that vote Yes will receive privileges, being provided with extra powers and resources.

Given that mayoral powers will only be determined following any election, how much power Birmingham is granted will likely depend on whether the government approve of our choice of candidate. If we have chosen well (and the government think that our choice can deliver ‘strong’, and ‘accountable’ leadership), the mayor’s remit may be considerable. If we have chosen badly, Birmingham’s mayor could be granted far less power.

No men in monkey suits then! In fact, preferably no independents and certainly no one from outside of the political mainstream (that means you Carl and Selma!!!).

So much for local democracy!"

An elected Mayor would not produce better Democracy (2)

In any future contest for a directly elected Mayor in Birmingham (should we be unwise enough to go down that path) the candidates put forward by the political parties will have been pre-selected by political activists. In fact the field could be further pre-processed by threats made by one of the major parties to threatening any of their MPs wishing to stand - a bad example of machine politics and highly undemocratic. This would certainly affect the contest in Birmingham.

This is all hardly an improvement on the present situation where the Leader of the Council is first selected by those political activists in the majority party who have become councillors. These councillors of course have at least put themselves before the public in order to get where they are, whereas your general activist (some of whom have, for want of a better word, some rather startling opinions that would find little support from the public) has not.

There is then a further hurdle in that the proposed leader has to be approved by the Council as a whole, though this will almost always be a formality given the electoral mathematics.

Admittedly in the case of a directly elected Mayoral system there is the opportunity for independents to stand. But such candidates will not represent a cross section of the general public. But having your name on a ballot paper and giving the electorate a real choice are not the same thing. A serious candidate will have to have plenty of money and be prepared to spend it to set up their own organisation to campaign. How many rich businessmen do you want to choose between?

But I don't think there will be that many of them - campaigning and telling employees what to do are quite different things. It is likely that there may be other candidates, some with interesting views worth a hearing, but they will be unable to get these across due to media favouritism - as we have seen in the deeply uninspiring London campaign.

And there is no power of 'recall' for an elected Mayor. Why on earth not? If we're copying what they do in the US, let's have recall as well. You are stuck with them even if the choice turns out to be clearly unwise or even disastrous for the city. In contrast, an ill-performing Leader of the Council can be got rid of at any point by a vote of no confidence. More than this, you are stuck with the system too, as the government says it won't allow another referendum any time soon - there would have to be an Act of Parliament, and do not bet on it being given time.

So does this all seem like a massive improvement in the quality of local democracy and respect for the democratic process? Clearly not, and along with the myriad other adverse consequences of changing to an elected Mayoral system it is surely the right choice to vote 'NO' in the referendum on May 3rd.

Mayors - Serious Problems Need Serious Solutions

Following guest contributions from James Hutchings and Martin Mullaney I am now very pleased to be able to post an article by Steve Beauchampe a regular contributor to the interesting on-line publication The Birmingham Press.Com Steve writes:

"The non-elected Lord Heseltine appeared on BBC radio recently, yet again urging us all to vote Yes in May’s mayoral referendum.

Heseltine and his pro-mayoral acolytes contend that to realise its full potential Birmingham needs a high profile figurehead, equipped with wide-ranging powers. He cited Alex Salmond, the driving force behind Scotland’s regeneration, as an example of such a politician.

Yet Salmond was elected as SNP and Scottish Assembly leader by exactly the same mechanism used to select both Prime Minister David Cameron and Birmingham Council Leader Mike Whitby. Despite it’s popularity in Whitehall and proven success in Scotland, this is the very political system that Lord Heseltine and his Westminster colleagues are trying to force Birmingham into dismantling.

As a way of running a local authority it’s by no means perfect, the Committee system that operated until c2000 arguably worked better, and a refreshed version of that would make a good starting point. But there’s a more fundamental problem, which is that Britain (and particularly England) remains just about the most centralised state in Europe and successive governments have failed to relinquish power and decision-making from London to what they patronisingly term ‘the regions’ or ‘the provinces’.

No one doubts that the problem needs addressing. But it is not the gimmicks and political beauty contests that surround an elected mayor that Birmingham needs. It is not the gesture politics and easy sound bites that accompany the media savvy politicians and their spin doctors who dominate such a world that we require. Nor is it a West Midlands version of the increasingly asinine Ken and Boris show currently playing in London. It is democratically accountable political structures, representative of all strata of society, and given serious levels of devolved power akin to that enjoyed by London and large cities throughout Europe and North America, that Birmingham needs."

An elected Mayor would not produce better Democracy (1)

It's sometimes claimed by advocates of an elected mayoral system that this will be better for democracy. I don't think this is so - certainly not in terms of quality, as the unseemly scrap between egotistical candidates in London clearly shows.

The campaign - if you can call it that - falls well short of the sort of campaigns we have seen in Birmingham for the City Council elections where issues, mainly, have been to the fore.

We do not want the election to be reduced to clashing egos, sniping about tax returns and lifestyles and foul language. Little has been heard about policy or what an elected Mayor can do to alleviate the consequences of self inflicted austerity so unevenly borne by these people's citizens.

And what has been heard about the other candidates? Some of them have interesting policy ideas that are denied a hearing by the media - particularly the broadcast media. This sort of visionless, negative campaigning, long on personalities and short on detail, does not serve democracy well - yet this is what we could get in Birmingham should there be a yes vote in the referendum on May 3rd.

A great city such as ours now suffering from massive youth unemployment, wide inequalities and an industry hollowed out by globalisation - to mention just three major issues - must be better served than this. We do not need posturing, grandstanding and globetrotting. We need a city run by a democratically elected council from amongst whom is elected a leader of the council combined with the return of powers taken away by successive governments. That is the key requirement and it is something the government could do at any time.

So spare us the Punch and Judy stuff or at least confine it to London! If you agree, vote 'NO' to an elected Mayor on May 3rd.

Twelve Good Reasons to vote No to an elected Mayor

An elected Mayor in Birmingham would give too much power to one person. This is un-British.

The time-honoured position of Lord Mayor would be diminished and the valued civic role threatened.

The role of councillors would be diminished and the City Council would probably be shrunk.

There is no need for an elected Mayor. Chamberlain's success was as a councillor with the committee system. He succeeded because the council had powers which governments have since taken away.

The Council Leader is paid £66,000. An elected Mayor would demand at least £100,000 - possibly £200,000 - all from your taxes.

Birmingham is different to London where the Boroughs do the hard work delivering basic services. Boris has little to do except grandstand.

Elected Mayors have four years to do what they like and even if incompetent cannot be got rid of.

An elected Mayor would be easily lobbied by vested interests - as foreign experience shows.

An elected Mayor could employ unelected deputies at large salaries without the public having a say.

An elected Mayor could be a compulsive globetrotter - at your expense.

Elected Mayors don't produce more efficient Local Government. Under Chamberlain Birmingham was described as "the best governed city in the world".

The May 3rd referendum will cost £250,000 which the Government bills to you. Don't add to the waste by voting yes.

The Dangers of an Elected Mayor for Birmingham

As part of the series highlighting the damage that would be done by a change to a directly elected executive mayor I'm pleased to be able to reproduce the following article by my colleague Cllr Martin Mullaney that was first aired on 'The Chamberlain Files'. Cllr Mullaney writes:

" Should Birmingham have a directly elected Mayor? My view is a strong “NO”. I do not have an issue with the principle of an elected Mayor; indeed I would support the Lord Mayor position being directly elected. What I do have a problem with, is THIS proposed elected Mayor for Birmingham.

The main issues, to my mind are:

Unaccountable – a Mayor could get elected with big promises, only to turn round and rip up their manifesto and impose any policies they liked. They could remove cycle lanes, impose fortnightly rubbish collections or enforce a swingeing congestion charge without anyone being able to stop them.

Undemocratic – an elected Mayor could fill the Cabinet with just their family members and we couldn’t stop it. All the elected Mayor requires is a minimum of two elected Councillors in their Cabinet; the rest can be whoever they want.

Unrepresentative – an elected Mayor could fall seriously ill, or become unable to do the job due to other commitments, or even move to live hundreds of miles away and there would be no way of removing them from power. We’d be stuck for four years with a non-working Mayor.

Incapable – an elected Mayor could be someone well known, who could stand on the back of their popularity, without anyone questioning whether they could actually do the job. This happened in Hartlepool where the local people elected the mascot of the local football team – a man in a monkey suit.

All the above could happen and there is nothing we could do stop them, other than waiting four years till the next election. Four years in which the city could be completely wrecked.

All the Mayor needs is a rump of Councillors – one-third of all elected Councillors – to support their annual budget and that’s it. At the moment, the Council Leader needs 51% of the Council Chamber to stay in power.

I believe this concentrates too much power in the hands of one person. The government have even promised ‘extra powers’ for directly elected Mayors without actually stating what these powers might be. For example, they might have the power to introduce local taxation. We are being asked to create an immensely powerful role without actually knowing what that role will be and how it could affect us.

Under the present system of a Council Leader and Cabinet selected by the Council Chamber we have checks in place to stop abuse or corruption of their positions – the Council Leader and Cabinet member can be sacked by their party at any time. Also, residents get an annual vote, 3 years out of 4 (one year is fallow), so they can show their disquiet through the ballot box. If we had an Independent elected Mayor, how would residents show disquiet with their policies?

I urge all residents of Birmingham not to vote for the proposed directly elected Mayor. The proposed model could lead to corruption and nepotism swallowing up Birmingham politics."

 

No to an Elected Mayor for Birmingham (Article 9)

Birmingham does not need an Executive Mayor. Even with powers and assets that have been denuded by successive governments, the leader of a big city is still very powerful. With the present system the City Council, with European support and working in partnership, has delivered major projects such as the NEC, the ICC and the NIA. And a reconfigured New Street Station and the new Library of Birmingham are underway.

There will also be an extended runway at Birmingham Airport, the entire road network, footways and lighting are being renewed over the next five years, the metro will be extended and there are large scale regeneration projects in process throughout the city. All this and much else besides. This is not a bad record and we might ask what an Elected Mayor would have been able to add.

At present the Leader of the Council is paid around £65,000 and must retain the confidence of councillors to keep his job - so they can be dismissed at any time. An Executive Mayor would certainly cost over £100,000 and could hang on to the job for the full four years even if they go against the wishes of citizens or make a mess of things.

A Mayor could also appoint, at unspecified cost, deputies and advisers from both inside and outside local government. Even if a high profile experienced candidate emerges in November it is unlikely that such candidates would continue to come forward for future rounds when the hard slog of delivering essential basic services with little razzmatazz is more evident.

Mayoral candidates with political agendas who are put before the public will have been selected by their own party members - not so very different from the way that the leadership of the City Council is determined where the party members who are councillors make the choice.

There is something to be said for any government - local or national - having its political character changed from time to time. Given the makeup of Birmingham it is likely that any elected mayor would come from just one political party for the foreseeable future. I doubt that this will be good for governance, business or, most importantly, the citizens of Birmingham. Yet another good reason why Birmingham does not need an Elected Mayor.