Well! As we all now know, since my last post, nine out of ten cities have said No to a directly elected mayor. Shortly after I pressed "send", as predicted, Sheffield and Newcastle promptly announced their No vote. And Birmingham soon followed, also a resounding No. This will probably be a relief to new Brum Leader, Sir Albert Bore, who would have faced the prospect of standing for selection for mayor for Labour against some serious heavy hitters (wasn't in his game plan really!). Only Bristol bucked the trend, voting Yes for a mayor with an election now scheduled to be held in November (hot favourite there is George Ferguson, of course, which should please the design luvvies and of course he is a local guy, and far from new to Bristol local politics).
This wholesale resistance to the holy grail of elected mayors is a bit of a blow for the "city chatterati" who have, in time-honoured tradition, blamed the government for not communicating the benefits clearly enough. The most common comment is "a missed opportunity". But was it?
Keeping close to matters in Nottingham (as I do) I can confirm that the turnout there was less than a quarter of the electorate. And the most cited bone of contention was one of resourcing; a mayoral office would be an extra expense (although this had been robustly disputed by Mr Pickles) in a city already well-led. The official statement from the City Council on Friday reads: "The outcome means that the council will continue to run as it already was under the leader and cabinet model. Nottingham City Council had agreed a policy position ahead of the referendum that it was opposed to the introduction of an Elected Mayor as it would not represent value for money City Council Leader, Councillor Jon Collins, has said: 'This was a referendum imposed on us by the Coalition Government which the majority of local people clearly did not agree with. I am pleased with this outcome because an Elected Mayor would have been expensive and unnecessary. This outcome shows that local people recognise we have a system in Nottingham which is working well for them and the city'."
This wholesale resistance to the holy grail of elected mayors is a bit of a blow for the "city chatterati" who have, in time-honoured tradition, blamed the government for not communicating the benefits clearly enough. The most common comment is "a missed opportunity". But was it?
Keeping close to matters in Nottingham (as I do) I can confirm that the turnout there was less than a quarter of the electorate. And the most cited bone of contention was one of resourcing; a mayoral office would be an extra expense (although this had been robustly disputed by Mr Pickles) in a city already well-led. The official statement from the City Council on Friday reads: "The outcome means that the council will continue to run as it already was under the leader and cabinet model. Nottingham City Council had agreed a policy position ahead of the referendum that it was opposed to the introduction of an Elected Mayor as it would not represent value for money City Council Leader, Councillor Jon Collins, has said: 'This was a referendum imposed on us by the Coalition Government which the majority of local people clearly did not agree with. I am pleased with this outcome because an Elected Mayor would have been expensive and unnecessary. This outcome shows that local people recognise we have a system in Nottingham which is working well for them and the city'."
So there is now a controlled experiment in this country under localism (in itself one of the greatest political experiments of all time): will those cities with Mayors do better over the next few years than those without? I guess Centre for Cities will factor this into their annual "Cities Outlook Report" as a health factor in their index of city well being. And it certainly puts pressure on the existing leaders of those cities that resisted the institution of directly elected mayors. This is explicitly recognised in Cllr Collins's closing statement: "We in the city however are not complacent about the challenges faced in order to achieve our targets of cutting unemployment, continuing to cut crime and anti-social behaviour and keeping our streets and neighbourhoods clean. All city councillors will now continue the hard work of making Nottingham a better place to live and work."
Well.... the proof of the pudding and all that. But based on our own direct experience I would certainly put money on Nottingham cracking on under the General Power of Competence (and any other instrument at their disposal) to prove their credentials as city champion and inward investment magnet.
Well.... the proof of the pudding and all that. But based on our own direct experience I would certainly put money on Nottingham cracking on under the General Power of Competence (and any other instrument at their disposal) to prove their credentials as city champion and inward investment magnet.
Leave a comment
What a user pic? Get a Gravatar!