Dermot Finch

28 May, 2008 | By Dermot Finch

Elected mayors are back on the agenda again.

Elected mayors are back on the agenda again, fuelled by the strong turnout in the London mayoral election. But it’s not yet clear how, or when, any more will emerge.

If Labour or the Tories seriously want to introduce a new wave of mayors, they will need to show some leadership and set out a clear, principled case in favour.

Following Boris Johnson’s victory, the Conservatives have become converts to the mayoral cause. Sir Simon Milton (Con), London’s new planning supremo, has called for directly elected mayors with genuine powers over policing and health, as well as transport, housing, skills and economic development.

The government is more muted in its support for mayors. Communities secretary Hazel Blears is a fan, but the Whitehall machinery is focused more on the regional agenda and it’s not yet clear what Prime Minister Gordon Brown thinks.

Three big questions stand out. Why are elected mayors a good idea? Where are they needed most? And how could they become a reality?

To help answer those questions, it’s worth reviewing the Labour government’s record on elected mayors, which has been based on a cautious and voluntary approach.

Labour got off to a good start, installing the mayor of London in 2000 (albeit with limited powers over transport, regeneration, police and fire). But elsewhere, the initial enabling legislation didn’t adequately incentivise incumbent leaders to make the switch. So we ended up with that curious batch of smaller-scale mayors, without any real powers, in random places like Hartlepool and Lewisham, but no mayors in any big cities outside London.

David Miliband briefly tried to argue in favour of mayors in 2005-06, but he wasn’t secretary of the Department for Communities & Local Government long enough to make the case. Since then, Ruth Kelly and her successor Ms Blears have continued to flirt with the idea of more mayors.

The Local Government Act 2007 was a small step in the right direction, but still left the odds heavily stacked against elected mayors.

Unsurprisingly, no towns or cities have since gone for mayors. Instead, suspended animation set in, based on assumptions that mayors would be an unwelcome extra tier of governance, and we don’t want maverick personalities running our towns and cities.

But in the last few months, the ground has shifted again. This latest surge of support for mayors is from both Labour and the Conservatives. Parts of the Labour Party are starting to see mayors as a way of re-engaging with a disaffected electorate. Meanwhile, following Mr Johnson’s victory, the Tories view elected mayors as an opportunity to win control of the big cities outside the capital.

So what should happen next? Here’s my advice to both parties.

First, decide in principle that mayors are a good thing, and explain the democratic and economic case for them. Voters should have the right to directly elect their local leader. Elected mayors, armed with a direct mandate and real powers, will be better able to take the difficult decisions needed to promote economic growth.

Second, decide where elected mayors are needed most. Some are calling for mayors in every major English town and city. We think that ‘super mayors’ would be the most effective option, operating across a ‘real economy’ city-region like greater Bristol or Merseyside where they could make a real difference on transport, for example. We could, of course, have single-authority and super mayors, as we do in parts of London.

Third, legislate or make council leaders an offer they can’t refuse. The voluntary, bottom-up approach of the last decade has delivered only a few mayors. Both parties should commit to imposing new mayors and offering them a range of major financial powers.

Immediate action is unlikely, although the empowerment white paper will no doubt include some warm words. In reality, this is manifesto material for the next general election. If Mr Brown doesn’t go for it, I bet David Cameron will.