The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Why all the fuss about mayors?

The 10 new city mayors would be among the most influential individuals in the country.

New Statesman
Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne plans to stand for mayor of Birmingham. Photograph: Getty Images.

The Boris and Ken show may be stealing most of the headlines but on 3 May ten of the largest English cities outside London will be hosting referenda to determine whether they will be run by a directly elected mayor instead of a leader and cabinet.

There has been much discussion about elected mayors – should we go for them or shouldn’t we? It was back in 2000 when cities were given the option to move to the mayoral model, yet since then only 12 out of 410 local authorities have chosen to do so. Conviction from government, however, remains strong, as demonstrated by David Cameron’s speech on Monday: “If you want to see your city grow more prominent, more powerful, more prosperous - get out and vote yes.”

Centre for Cities’ research suggests that mayors have the potential to make a difference in their cities. Our latest study shows that if mayors are introduced, they will be amongst the most influential individuals in the country. They would, for instance, represent far more people that the average MP. A mayor of Birmingham would represent over 1 million people, while Liam Byrne MP’s constituency in that city has a population of just 117,300.  This visibility would give mayors the opportunity to drive their cities’ economic priorities.

Our work also shows that the 10 city mayors would have big jobs to do because they need to focus on public services and supporting economic growth. In London, the mayor has 33 London boroughs to look after the everyday needs of their constituents, from social care to collecting the bins, meaning that the London mayor can focus on the economy. But a mayor, if elected in the other 10 cities, would have a much longer ‘to do’ list.

In Leeds, for example, a mayor would need to oversee education in around 250 schools, 50 of which are operating over capacity, at the same time as responding to unemployment challenges. In Nottingham, a mayor would need to provide high quality children’s services and help to coordinate work to improve the skills of the 14,600 people claiming Job Seekers Allowance (JSA).

Supporting business and physical development will also be a sizable task for new mayors. A mayor in Newcastle, for example, would need to efficiently process planning applications (there were 1,560 in 2010/11) as well as ensure that the city’s 7,500 businesses employing over 100,000 people are supported. And, all this must be done in an era of austerity, which a mayor will have to manage. The ten mayoral cities combined are expected to see their revenue spending power fall by at least 3.8 percent in the new financial year.

With all of this, plus responsibility for delivery of a wide range of public services there is a risk that the economic development agenda is pushed too far down the agenda. But in a time of slow economic recovery, support from mayors for the economy is vital – and this is where the experience of international cities suggests that having a mayor can be an advantage. Having one clear figurehead who acts as an ambassador for the city to government and to business, who lobbies for investment and who coordinates the work of the public sector has delivered benefits in cities as varied as Boston and Barcelona.

The government has resisted setting out the powers that mayors will gain, arguing that this should be up to individual cities to negotiate.  But a recent BBC poll suggested that 62 per cent of people in Doncaster, Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford and Wakefield didn’t know the referendum was taking place, so now is a good time for the government raise awareness by spelling out what powers will be afforded to mayors. 

Our research suggests that mayors should use their position to develop a strategic plan for the local economy that also considers how the local area relates to neighbours. They should be empowered to take planning decisions of strategic importance, delegating all others to the local authority planning committee.

Finally, the referenda in May are for local authority mayors. But, research by Centre for Cities suggests that mayors would have greater potential to support local economic growth if they operated over a geography which mirrors the natural economy, rather than current administrative boundaries. Bristol’s labour market footprint for example stretches out from Bristol local authority to Wotton-under-Edge 16 miles North and Weston-Super-Mare 18 miles south.  Government should therefore give cities the opportunity to move towards a metro mayor model over time.

Mayors are no panacea but our research shows that, particularly if they are given the right range of powers, mayors have the potential to deliver significant benefits for city economies.

Alexandra Jones is the chief executive of Centre for Cities.

7 comments

Claudia Clarkson's picture

I really do appreciate this great information. This was very interesting and so much fun for me to read. I cant wait to read more from this awesome and fun site. Click here to buy youtube views

Michael Taylor's picture

The city Mayor for Manchester makes no sense. Unseen by the so-called commentariat, Greater Manchester's TEN local authorities have already pioneered a unique form of governance - sharing key services (transport, skills, inward investment and running an international Airport) and allowing key functions to be run by the Combined Authority - an organisation made up of the TEN councils. A Mayor at the centre of this, with 2.5 million people to serve, would work.
But that's not what's on offer.
What is will amount to no more than a mayoral title for Sir Richard Leese, the leader of the city of Manchester council (the only credible candidate), and would just be the kind of deck chair shuffling the public despise.

Paul Danon's picture

The London-experience is enough to put you off. What'd needed is more power at parish/ward level.

Albert Tatlock's picture

"What'd needed is more power at parish/ward level"

No. I don't want my life ruled over by a local little Hitler and his/her parochial views and whims.

mr_wonderful's picture

I can't help feeling that the apathy generated by such mayoral elections will result in all kinds of cranks and extremists getting access to such important positions.

Celeriac's picture

They are talking about a five year term and no means to 'kick out' people who turn out like Berlusconi. Guaranteed to be ambitious rich turds who can wow the city with a flash campaign. I vote no, unless there are safeguards.

Barrie J's picture

Where is the funding going to come from to fill the troughs required by this new level of 'local democracy'?
Should it fail to deliver, will we get a chance to 'vote it out' or will we be stuck with it.
Eire had to be given two chances to pass the Lisbon Treaty and Wales, their Assembly.
What is the chance of them being given an opportunity to vote again?
Just another opportunity for failed politicians to keep their snouts in the trough.

We need less interference from these parasitic scum not more

Latest tweets