This week The Voice is running a four part series from the Centre for Cities, a think tank that works on analysis and policy to boost city economies. They launched their ‘Cities Manifesto’ at the Bournemouth Lib Dem Conference and this series looks in more detail at its main planks. You can also find out more at http://www.citiesmanifesto.org.
At party conference last month, I was struck by just how many of the UK’s biggest cities are run by the Lib Dems. You now control virtually every big city outside London – that means that, taken together, 25 million people now live in Lib Dem cities. The list is impressive, including Newcastle, Liverpool, Bristol, Sheffield, Hull, Cambridge and York. Why doesn’t Nick Clegg do more to talk about Lib Dem strength at city level?
Localism runs through the Lib Dems’ veins. Vince Cable’s Bournemouth speech talked about more responsibilities for councils, including more tax-raising powers such as business rates. And at the LGA’s annual conference in July he said they should have greater freedom to borrow against their assets, giving them the opportunity to do much more locally through public investment.
But of course, a party which is naturally very localist will look, think and act differently in different parts of the country – and it doesn’t necessarily mean that the Lib Dems are all agreed on how to devolve financial and political powers to cities.
Our Cities Manifesto is calling for elected ‘Metro Mayors’ in Britain’s biggest city regions, with real tax and spend powers. We think the first wave of Metro Mayors should be in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Leeds city-region and Greater Birmingham. They’d energise millions of voters, be highly visible and accountable, and have a direct personal mandate to make tough decisions on local tax and spending. They’d play to the strength of many Lib Dems in galvanising local support and holding onto their local gains.
Several prominent Lib Dem city leaders hate the idea – such as John Shipley, Leader of Newcastle, who doesn’t like the idea of power being concentrated in the hands of one person and would rather have a city-regional executive. He’s not alone – several council leaders of all political colours are against the idea, which would certainly disrupt the status quo.
But why don’t Lib Dems go for the idea of elected mayors? They’d be a great platform for the strengths of the party, and could put Lib Dem politicians into positions of real power. Lib Dem Mayors would also have a high-profile platform from which to galvanise local support and hold onto their cities if Labour manages an electoral recovery in the next few years. Cable and Clegg should take up the baton.
Claire Maugham, Director External Affairs, Centre for Cities
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Calum Miller makes the case for a much closer relationship with the European Union
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
Lib Dems miss out by 4 votes in council by-election
New lunchtime concerts for 2025
A looming trade war?
Only 3 historical inaccuracies
Peter Davies
Romer WH
Tristan Ward
expats
12 Comments
Why don’t Lib Dems support creating more elected mayors? Because we’re liberal, and we’re democrats – putting all that executive power in the hands of one individual with very limited levels of accountability is neither liberal nor democratic and we’d rather have local government that can respond to local needs, rather than try and impose one person’s vision across a ‘city-region’.
Nick Clegg often reminds people of the number of cities under Liberal control when he does his town-hall meet-the-people hustings meetings…like you, he rattles off the same list of cities…. and leaves out Portsmouth.
So the jist of this article is that the Lib Dems should support elected mayors because some of them would be Lib Dem. Whilst there are arguments for them (although I personally think there are more arguments against) this has to be one of the worst – that we may or may not elect some.
The problem is that this is argument by assertion, not evidence.
Metro Mayors would “energise millions of voters” based on turnout in the London Mayoral election in one year.
Nothing about the rubbish turnout in other years or other mayoral elections.
What about the thousands of activists who are now just Mayor fodder?
Accountability – there is precious little accountabilty with Metor Mayors. Accountability means checks and balances. It means people knowing what’s going on and being able to influence it.
Far from “power being concentrated in the hands of one person” (itself a bad idea) – the reality is that most of the power isn’t in the hands of anyone.
Localism – and the best you can do is greater Birmingham ? How local is that ?
Why do we need Mayors to give more power to local government ? Local Government used to have lots of powers without a Mayor in sight, and was a lot better for it.
Quite apart from the democratic problems everyone else has rightly raised, more city mayors will mean more neglected hinterlands and rural areas. The centre of gravity, in terms of power, money and media attention, will be even more firmly focussed on cities. We have enough problems now with resources in any given authority being attracted towards the local “urban centre”. We’ve all got stories about the “main” town in an authority having glittery lampposts and other smaller population centres getting bugger all. That’s got nothing to do with real localism.
What is Centre for Cities’ view on this problem?
Why does everyone forget Watford and now Bedford where we already have Mayors?
Tosh – If the answer to reinvigorate localism is to put all the power in the hands of one person, Is the answer to restoring national governments prestige to move to put all the power into the hands of a directly elected Prime Minister?
The main thing residents care about where I am a councillor are ultra local issues about their community. A Newcastle city region mayor wouldn’t help that – even if they were a Lib Dem.
He does, constantly, if you were at the conference surely you at least listened to his speech?
Because those of us that have lived in an area governed by one not of our party know exactly how bad it can be–Council leaders are accountable directly and immediately, mayors aren’t, and can ride roughshod over any other local concerns.
Directly elected executives, at any level, are both illiberal and against the principles of representative democracy that this party and its predecessors have always argued for. We’re against them because they’re just plain wrong, even when we’re in charge.
The concern is that the City Regions have Mayors imposed on them, for which I can see no greater way to make them unravel at a time when they need to be allowed to demonstrate that as partnerships they can work for the benefits of the residents living in those areas. One ruler over all, as a directly elected mayor, would lead to fractionalism and a permanent battle to demonstrate that the Mayor was only interested in one part or another of the area.
Cllr Andrew Waller – Leader of City of York
But why don’t Lib Dems go for the idea of elected mayors? They’d be a great platform for the strengths of the party, and could put Lib Dem politicians into positions of real power.
Because it’s basically a fascist idea in the true sense of the word, and we are not fascists.
The original idea of fascism was that democracy was tiresome, all that debate and compromise, so let’s have instead one all-powerful leader who can do what he likes without anyone stopping him, that would be dynamic and modern and get the trains running on time and all that.
I just cannot think of anything which is more against what Liberals stand for than this idea. So of course we are against it. Can I ask you, Claire Maugham, why you are so keen on fascism? Having abolished voting for councillors in town halls, is the abolition of the right of MPs to vote and that to be where power over government lies your next step? The frightening thing is that this “politics and political parties are bad things, so let’s get rid of all that and instead have one highly visible charismatic leader who can make tough decisions on a personal mandate” stuff probably WOULD go down well if pushed here today. Just like it did in Italy in 1922 and Germany in 1933.
“Why does everyone forget Watford and now Bedford where we already have Mayors?”
We won the Watford Mayoralty at least partly on a pledge to campaign for its abolition. A view that seems to have changed once elected to the position.
Thanks to all for your reactions. We we provided a platform for LibDem city leaders in Bournemouth, and they were a very impressive group – see our blog http://centreforcities.typepad.com/centre_for_cities/2009/09/lib-dem-cities.html
Obviously, issues of governance and democratic accountability are extremely important, and many prominent Lib Dems have echoed your concerns, such as John Shipley, Leader of Newcastle, whose views we’ve highlighted on the Cities Manifesto website [www.citiesmanifesto.org]. Our idea isn’t to concentrate all power in the hands of one person, though. Metro Mayors would be held in check by the local councils they serve, as well as being directly answerable to voters. This means they’d add a useful democratic and strategic layer to city governance, which would be much better than the unelected layers of quangocracy which have emerged in recent years.
@Mouse, there is clear evidence that Mayors would energise voters, and the London example is absolutely relevant. London’s Mayor is the closest model to our idea of a Metro Mayor – a job with real powers (eg over transport and housing) on the table for the winner, unlike for existing single-authority Mayors. 45% of Londoners voted in last year’s mayoral election, compared to just 25% turnout in Knowsley and Moss Side council elections. The 2008 London mayoral race also commanded a great deal of public interest, with more public debates and media coverage than elsewhere.
@Andrew Waller, you raise a very important point about city regions. We support Metro Mayors because we think they are the best way for our biggest city-regions to get hold of the financial powers they need over transport, skills and housing budgets. Without Metro Mayors, there is a risk that Whitehall will continue to centralise. Greater Manchester and other city-regions are just starting to mature now. Over the next Parliament, we believe that Metro Mayors will ensure that city-regions are consolidated and given more powers.
Glad to have all these reactions – please feel free to comment also at http://www.citiesmanifesto.org, as we’ll take all ideas into account as our ideas evolve between now and the Election period.