Resistance notes Birmingham Socialist Resistance birminghamresist.wordpress.com

No to an elected dictator in

the Council House!

Why we should oppose an elected mayor for

Birmingham

1

No to an elected Mayor for Birmingham!Source: http://birminghamresist.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/no-to-an-elected-mayor-for-

birmingham/

Birmingham 2013: The Conservative Elected MayorLabour took control of the council in 2012. But the mayor is Tory Mike Whitby,elected in 2013 after the referendum in May 2012 voted for elected mayors, asproposed by the Coalition government. Whitby had been acting as ‘shadow’ electedmayor – he was actually imposed by the government – since 2011. He has justannounced that he will also be taking over the job of chief executive of the authority,replacing Stephen Hughes. He has also announced his Cabinet.

Six members (though the minimum allowed is just three): two other leading Tories,and three local business leaders. The mayor can appoint who he likes to the Cabinet– they don’t even have to be councillors. No Lib-Dems – he doesn’t need a coalition.His term of office is four years. During that time he holds all the reins of councilpower, responsible for, among other things, transport, policing and economicdevelopment. He has the power to hire and fire chief officers, a sanction previouslyin the hands of a committee of senior councillors. He cannot be unseated by a voteof council members. The Council would only be able to overturn a proposal putforward by the mayor if at least two-thirds voted against. The role of the councillors,of all parties, is reduced to that of ‘scrutiny’ and ward casework.

The three business leaders on the Cabinet are also closely connected to the LocalEnterprise Partnership, which stretches across the W Mids from Lichfield toRedditch. The LEP got government approval for the ‘enterprise zone’ which nowcovers most of central Birmingham. It claimed it would create 50,000 jobs and raise£700million from increased business rates from new and expanded companies overa 25 year period, which would be attracted by a 100% discount on business rates for5 years, up to total of £275,000 and relaxed planning restrictions. Power in the citynow lies in the hands of a partnership between the elected mayor and his appointedcabinet on the one hand and the leaders of the business community, includingthose heading up the ‘enterprise zone’, on the other. Birmingham is governed by acorporate urban regime.

Those sections of big business which contract for local government services havemade no secret of their support for the mayoral system. One of the biggestcontractors for local government services, Capita, stated in evidence to a Houseof Lords committee that they like the idea of “a strong leader who can personallycommit the council making it easier for firms like theirs to develop partnerships”. Inother words, dealing with a single business-oriented politician who can act without

2

reference to anyone else makes it much easier for firms like Capita to win contractsfor local government services.

Birmingham 2013: What happened to Labour’s campaign for elected mayor?The would-be candidates initially were Sion Simon, former MP for Erdington, andAlbert Bore. Simon was always the front runner, backed by Labour’s NationalExecutive, which sidelined Albert Bore. Already in 2011 Paul Dale, the BirminghamPost columnist, was reporting about Simon that

He’s been holding a series of meet-Sion soirees, where Labour supporters, thosewith no political affiliation, and local business leaders get the chance to have a drinkwith the would-be mayor and find out where he stands on the major issues of theday. MP’s trade union leaders and constituency Labour parties are being lined up tosupport him. All in all, his bandwagon is beginning to roll and you have to imagineit will become increasingly difficult to stop Sion Simon from getting the Labourmayoral nomination.

Simon’s campaign was not dissimilar to Whitby’s in focusing on a partnership withbusiness leaders. Simon said in 2011 he wanted to “almost reclaim Birminghamfrom divisive party politics”, and promised that his cabinet would be a “veryinclusive coalition that has to include the business sector”. He proposed in a speechto the Chamber of Commerce in 2011 that he could appoint private sector advisorswith delegated powers to take executive decisions.

Birmingham 2011The campaign for a yes vote in the 2012 referendum for an elected mayor has alreadystarted behind the scenes. The left needs to be clear that elected mayors representa further devastating blow to what remains of local democracy. Whitby is in factopposed to elected mayors, though he might still stand. Alternatively there may bea move to put in place a supposedly ‘independent’ candidate above party politics,perhaps from the world of business. And of course Labour might well win, ridingthe wave of anti-Coalition sentiment, though on a ‘non-party’ pro-business ticket.

The attraction of an elected mayor for many people, cynical about bureaucraticlocal government and unresponsive party politics, is that there would be a highlyvisible single individual who could apparently ‘get things done’. That’s Cameron’sargument. It can only be effectively opposed, not only by pointing out the dangersof elected mayors, but by putting forward an alternative conception of localgovernment based on radical participatory democracy, in which ordinary peoplecan feel that they can influence local political decision-making. It’s a debate the leftneeds to open up.

Richard Hatcher

3

An elected dictator in the Council House

Some time this autumn, when the Localism Bill receives Royal Assent, the 11 largestcities outside London - Birmingham, Coventry, Bradford, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool,Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield, Wakefield - will have ‘shadow’elected Mayors imposed on them, whether they want them or not. The ‘shadow’elected Mayor will be the Leader of the Council – all are Labour except Birmingham(Conservative) and Bristol (Liberal Democrat). (The exception is Leicester, wherethe council has already opted for an elected Mayor and the Labour candidateelected.)

In May 2012 referendums will be held in those 11 cities to decide if they want anelected Mayor system. Other local authorities can also hold referendums if theywish. If they vote yes, an election for Mayor will be held in May 2013. In themeantime the shadow Mayor will remain in office (even, apparently, if the councilleadership changes hands).

Dictatorial powers

The Localism Bill gives the elected Mayor dictatorial powers. The Mayor:

• is in office for four years and cannot be unseated by a vote of council members.

• appoints the Cabinet (if a Cabinet system is adopted after a mandatoryreferendum). It can be as few as three members. Cabinet members do not evenhave to be councillors, so they could include local business leaders.

• also becomes (if a Cabinet system) the Chief Executive of the council, in chargeof the council’s Head of Paid Services

• holds all the reins of council power, in charge of, among other things,transport, policing and economic development, with the power to make policy.The Council would only be able to overturn a proposal put forward by theMayor if at least two-thirds voted against.

• sets the budget, again only subject to Council veto by a two-thirds majority

• has the power to hire and fire chief officers, a sanction previously in the handsof a committee of senior councillors.

Puppets of government

Although elected Mayors would be dictators in the Council House they would bepuppets in the hands of government. In spite of the spurious rhetoric of ‘the newlocalism’, the Localism Bill gives councils no significant new powers, especially not

4

the power to raise income. Local authorities will remain largely the delivery agentsof government policy.

In fact the Bill increases government control because it gives the Secretary of Statethe power to require a Council that has an elected Mayor and Cabinet style ofgovernance to transfer 'local public service functions' to the Mayor. There is a verybroad definition of this phrase. It includes any function of a public nature whereit relates to a public service in the local authority's area or to the inhabitants ofthe area. This would include the transfer or shared use of property, rights andresponsibilities, including employees, from the existing provider.

Under this elected Mayor system the role of councillors would be reduced toscrutiny, coupled with constituents’ casework. Under the present system scrutinycommittees are largely toothless, placing few constraints on the executive. Underan elected Mayor they would be even more powerless.

The powers of shadow elected Mayors

Perhaps the most cynically undemocratic feature of the government’s proposals isthat almost all of the powers of an elected Mayor would be available to the ‘shadow’elected Mayors, starting this autumn, before there is even a referendum, let alonethe election of a Mayor in 2013. They are treated as elected Mayors except that theobligation to become CEOs and the ability to issue policy reports does not apply.

In reality this is unlikely to happen because it would be seen by the public as a coupd’etat, pre-empting the public vote, and provoke a hostile backlash. Also most localpoliticians are against it – in fact against elected Mayors. For example, NottinghamLabour’s Jon Collins says “it’s a stupid policy; it was stupid when Labour proposedit, it’s stupid now. Having an elected dictator is not the best way forward.” Butnot just the 10 Labour council leaders; Mike Whitby, Tory leader of BirminghamCouncil, is also strongly opposed.

But if the shadow Mayor waits until May 2012, and the electorate votes yes to anelected Mayor system in a referendum, then the shadow Mayor, bolstered by thepopular vote, would have the option of proposing to the Council to move towards'Mayoral management arrangements', which are that the Mayor is the most seniorofficer of the Council, that the Council's Head of Paid Service reports to the electedMayor, and that the Shadow Mayor can issue policy action reports. The proposalcould only be overturned by a two-thirds majority of the Council.

Will there be a yes vote in the referendums? In general, public consultations haveshown little interest, and in most cases opinions for and against elected Mayorsseem to be fairly evenly divided. It is true that elected Mayors didn’t do well underLabour. Out of over 30 referendums only 13 voted yes, and several local authorities

5

have subsequently abandoned elected Mayors and returned to the old system. Butthe increased powers given by the Coalition government to a single all-powerfuland easily identifiable leader, directly elected by the people, apparently above theimpotence of petty party politics and able to break through Council bureaucracy,may prove attractive to those who don’t recognise that the root causes of the malaiseof local government lie in the subservience of the local state to capital, mediated bya neo-liberal central government.

Elected Mayors are good for business

This is precisely the populist message being sold by Cameron, but his agenda is clear.Elected Mayors are good for business. Those companies which contract for localgovernment services have made no secret of their support for the Mayoral system (asAndy Richards noted in January 2010 on the Socialist Resistance website). Capita,perhaps the biggest, stated in evidence to a House of Lords committee that they likethe idea of “a strong leader who can personally commit the council making it easierfor firms like theirs to develop partnerships”. In other words, dealing with a singlebusiness-oriented politician who can act without reference to anyone else makes itmuch more convenient for firms like Capita to win contracts for local governmentservices.

Not only are elected Mayors good to do business with, they are a way of actuallyrecruiting leading business people into local government without them needingto get involved in the messy demands of local party politics. That is the modelrepresented by Michael Bloomberg, billionaire businessman and Mayor of NewYork, invited by Cameron to speak at the 2007 Conservative party conference.

Labour’s elected Mayors – working class tribunes or business ambassadors?

What about Labour? Millbank will want to ensure that Labour Mayoral candidatesare reliable acolytes of Miliband, and will no doubt manage local selection processesaccordingly. Labour candidates are likely to share the Tories’ priority of gainingbusiness support. For example, in Birmingham the front runner is ex-local MP SionSimon. According to the Birmingham Post recently:

“He’s been holding a series of meet-Sion soirees, where Labour supporters,those with no political affiliation, and local business leaders get the chanceto have a drink with the would-be Mayor and find out where he standson the major issues of the day. MP’s trade union leaders and constituencyLabour parties are being lined up to support him. All in all, his bandwagonis beginning to roll and you have to imagine it will become increasinglydifficult to stop Sion Simon from getting the Labour Mayoral nomination.”

Simon promised that his cabinet would be a “very inclusive coalition that has toinclude the business sector”. He proposed in a speech to the Chamber of Commerce

6

in 2011 that he could appoint private sector advisors with delegated powers to takeexecutive decisions.The pressure on elected Mayors is to adopt the role of civic ambassador. This entailsabandoning any notion of conflicting class interests at the heart of the city andpromoting a sanitised and business-oriented public relations image of the city basedon an imaginary consensus. For Simon:

"One of the key jobs of an elected Mayor is to speak for the city. To be thevoice of the citizen. To lead the discussion on who we are, what we standfor, what makes us special. And then to lead the process of articulatingand distilling that sense, and then taking the message out to the rest of thecountry and the rest of the world.”

The left needs to be clear that the aim of the government’s policy of elected Mayorsis to strike a further devastating blow to what remains of local democracy. On thosegrounds, whoever is the likely winner of an election locally, the left should call for ano vote in the referendum. However, if there is a yes vote in 2012, the task is to usethe election in 2013 to campaign for left policies. One obvious option is to stand leftcandidates, perhaps on an anti-cuts and pro-democracy basis. The SupplementaryVote system which will be used means that voters can vote for a left candidate firstand Labour as transferable second preference.

But the campaign needs to start now. Already party candidates are jockeying forselection. The left needs to raise the issues around elected Mayors in the unionsand the community. Warning of the dangers is vital but not enough. Everyoneknows that the existing system of local government is profoundly undemocratic. Thegovernment claims that elected Mayors are more democratic: we need to develop aradical credible alternative which combines independent popular self-organisationand action with forms of local governance which enable public participation indecision-making.

Richard HatcherSTOP PRESS! 21/6/2011Two important amendments to the elected mayors policy in the Localism Billwere passed in the House of Lords yesterday. Shadow elected mayors have beenscrapped. And mayors will not automatically have the power to sack the chiefexecutive and take over their role - they will need a two-thirds majority ofcouncillors.

7

The trouble with elected mayorsSource: http://socialistresistance.org/786/the-trouble-with-elected-mayors

The campaign by Tower Hamlets Respect for a referendum on having an electedmayor in the borough has refocused attention on the issue of democracy in localgovernment. However, elected executive mayors are generally seen on the left asanti-democratic and tending towards over-concentration of power in the handsone person and a few senior officers. Indeed Respect activists have in the pastcampaigned to stop the spread of elected mayors for this very reason.

Who wants elected mayors?

The idea of elected executive mayors has its roots in the Blairite vision of localgovernment, and was essentially imported from the US model of the “strongcity Mayor”. It was turned into reality by the Local Government Act 2000. Itrepresented a turn away from the traditional form of local governance wherebya ruling administration would be formed by the party (or coalition) which wona majority of council seats, to a system where all executive power is wielded byone directly elected individual, effectively sidelining the councillors (in a mayoralsystem the councillors have a token and largely meaningless role of “scrutiny” ofdecisions already taken elsewhere). This fitted in with the New Labour vision of alargely privatised local government.

And those sections of big business which contract for local government serviceshave made no secret of their support for the mayoral system. One of the biggestcontractors for local government services, Capita, stated in evidence to a House ofLords committee that they like the idea of –

“a strong leader who can personally commit the council making it easier for firmslike theirs to develop partnerships”

The sub-text of this is of course that dealing with a single politician who can actwithout reference to anyone else makes it much easier for firms like Capita to snapup local government services. Rhetoric such as “being able to get things done” and“strong charismatic leaders” is often bandied about when the idea of an electedmayor is being hyped up in a locality. (One imagines that “strong charismatic leader”is not necessarily much of a selling point for anyone who knows anything about the

last two thirds of the 20th century!)

Capita is one of a number of companies who signed up as “corporate partners”to the New Local Government Network, a Blairite thinktank which campaigns for“modernised local government”, elected mayors being a major component of this“modernisation”. The supporting companies are a veritable Who’s Who of publicsector contractors, and the Confederation of British Industry itself is signed up. Thelinks can be further seen in the person of New Local Government Network (NLGNleading) light Steve Bassam, former Brighton and Hove council leader, Labour peer,and sometime consultant to a number of these companies.

8

The NLGN donated substantially to one of the earliest campaigns for an electedmayor, in Brighton and Hove in 2001. This campaign was backed (and financed)almost exclusively by the business community, which in itself provides an objectlesson about in whose interests the mayoral system operates. The only other backerswere Bassam and a small number of New Labour politicians. The Labour groupon the council was split on the issue and the idea commanded little or no supportamong Labour Party members, and was opposed by every other major political partyin the city. A broad campaign involving political parties (including the SocialistAlliance), community groups and unions, with only a fraction of the budget of thepro-Mayor lobby, was able to defeat the proposal.

In some towns and cities, however, elected mayors did take off. London has anelected mayor, as do some London boroughs. We have also seen elected mayors inother places, such as Doncaster, Stoke and Hartlepool. Stoke Council has voted toscrap its elected Mayor, although as we will see, it is a lot harder to scrap a mayoralsystem than bring it in.

Ironically, Respect in Tower Hamlets is picking up this idea when it actually seemsto be falling out of favour. There are currently just 12 elected mayors across thecountry, and despite the efforts of the NLGN, no apparent desire in most places toadd to that number.

Where local referenda have voted in favour of an elected mayor, turnouts have oftenbeen low and margins narrow. For example, in Lewisham, the vote was 51% infavour of a mayor and 49% against, on a turnout of just 18%. This meant that onlyaround 9% of Lewisham voters actually voted for a mayor. The Labour candidate,Steve Bullock, won the subsequent mayoral election even though Labour failed tosecure an overall majority in the elections to the council – a clear demonstration ofhow elected mayors can wield power out of proportion to the overall popularity oftheir own party and to the complete exclusion of others.

In Brighton and Hove, the turnout in the No vote was a comparatively healthy 32%,suggesting that where there is a campaign on the ground alerting people to thedangers, they will turn out to vote it down.

The experience of elected mayors

The experience of mayors on the ground suggests that there is a clear democraticdeficit. In Doncaster the previous incumbent, Martin Winter, was able to carry onin the post despite losing a vote of no-confidence from the council. Such a vote mayput moral pressure on a mayor but there is no constitutional device to actually getrid of a mayor between elections. A campaign group in Lewisham found that thereis no way to bring about a referendum on the scrapping of an elected mayor; onlyon having one.

There is also the evidence from London of how Johnson is using his position asmayor to drive through fare increases and make other concessions to the motoringlobby.

9

Do elected Mayors actually improve the performance of councils? Abjol Miah,Respect Group Leader on Tower Hamlets Council, claims they do, citing theexample of Hackney. But in Doncaster, children’s services were officially branded“inadequate” under Winter’s rule. The evidence is, at best, inconclusive andcontradictory. My own view is that many other factors affect “performance” – notleast levels of investment and political priorities.

Another feature of the mayoral system is a tendency for candidates not from thetraditional parties to be successful. This is no bad thing in itself, but often peoplewill cast one vote for their chosen party for election to the council and a differentone for mayoral candidate in the belief that they are “balancing” one against theother. In reality the ability of councillors to hold mayors accountable is extremelylimited. Thus we have ended up with an English Democrat being elected to succeedWinter in Doncaster, “Robocop” Ray Mallon in Middlesborough, and the footballclub mascot in Hartlepool.

What is driving the Respect campaign in Tower Hamlets?

Firstly, it is true that the only allowed alternative to a mayoral system is a leaderand cabinet system of governance. This is where the council leader rules with acabinet group of councillors from the ruling party or coalition. It contains the samepitfalls as the mayoral system (centralisation of power, lack of accountability), butthe mayoral system is no improvement. Yet the Tower Hamlets Respect campaignseeks to portray an elected mayor as somehow preferable.

Secondly, Respect activists in Tower Hamlets perhaps see their campaign as a blowagainst the political establishment, given that all of the other parties in the boroughoppose elected mayors but this is simply because the leader and cabinet system suitsthem well enough. It does not in itself make an elected mayor a good thing.

This campaign also says something about how Respect has failed to develop aconsistent approach to policymaking, which is what leads to these sorts of ad hocdecisions. It has also left Respect in the position appearing face two ways on thisissue, given that Respect activists in other places have campaigned against this veryproposal.

Respect’s priorities in local government should be around fighting for decentresources for councils alongside community groups and trade unions, and againstthe privatising agenda of the main parties. It should not be wasted on campaignswhich seek to choose one system of undemocratic governance over another.

Andy Richards

Join the resistance!

Ecosocialist

Feminist

Revolutionary

midlands@socialistresistance.org

Birmingham Mail letters 20 June 2011

Our city doesn’t need this An elected mayor would be a dictator in the Council House. The mayor is in office for four years and cannot be unseated by a vote of council members; appoints the Cabinet (it can be as few as three members, who do not even have to be councillors); also becomes the chief executive of the council, in charge of the council’s head of paid services. The mayor holds all the reins of council power, in charge of, among other things, transport, policing and economic development, with the power to make policy. The council would only be able to overturn a proposal put forward by the mayor if at least two-thirds voted against. The mayor sets the budget, again only subject to council veto by a two-thirds majority; has the power to hire and fire chief officers, a sanction previously in the hands of a committee of senior councillors. Elected councillors would have little power, their role reduced to scrutiny – largely toothless - and casework. The answer to the lack of effective leadership in Birmingham is more citizen involvement in decision-making - more democracy, not less. Richard Hatcher