Both the Government and the Conservative Party have still got a lot to learn from the public’s lack of interest in directly-elected mayors, suggest George Jones and John Stewart
The Government has published a consultation paper on Changing council governance arrangements – mayors and indirectly-elected leaders, in which the most important proposal is for a reduction in the threshold to be met by petitions from the public for a referendum on directly-elected mayors, from the present level of 5% of the electorate.
The reason for change given in the consultation paper is the perceived difficulty of petition organisers in reaching the 5% threshold level. But evidence that there is a problem is weak, and the consultation paper does not say how many petitions have failed to meet the threshold.
Even more important is to know why these petitions failed to meet the threshold. Since the threshold was fixed at a level to indicate whether there was significant interest in the proposal, the most likely explanation would seem to be there was no such interest.
Lack of interest is confirmed by the rejection of proposals for elected mayors in about two-thirds of the referendums held, including all but one of the seven referendums held since 2002, as well as by the failure to obtain the expected higher levels of turnout in most of the referendums and mayoral elections when compared with the turnouts in council elections.
The failure of the Government to establish the evidence before altering the rules, makes it look as if it is seeking the change because the public did not come up with the answer the Government wanted.
The 5% threshold was a marked reduction from the 10% suggested in Modern local government: In touch with the people (1988) paragraph 3.31.
If 5% was later fixed as the level for the petition to be successful, and to ‘rule out unnecessary and frivolous triggering of a referendum’ [Local leadership, local choice (1999) paragraph 2.12] then what has happened to justify this change other than that, in a number of cases, there was not sufficient interest?
It would be wrong to change an already-low threshold, just because it has not produced the hoped-for results.
The consultation paper stated there is a particular problem in meeting the 5% threshold because of the numbers involved in large council areas. It is not clear why that is a problem, since, in a larger authority, there would also be more resources and more helpers available.
If that as not so, it would, in itself, be evidence of the lack of significant interest.
The reason for change given in the consultation paper is the perceived difficulty of petition organisers in reaching the 5% threshold level. But evidence that there is a problem is weak, and the consultation paper does not say how many petitions have failed to meet the threshold.
Even more important is to know why these petitions failed to meet the threshold. Since the threshold was fixed at a level to indicate whether there was significant interest in the proposal, the most likely explanation would seem to be there was no such interest.
Lack of interest is confirmed by the rejection of proposals for elected mayors in about two-thirds of the referendums held, including all but one of the seven referendums held since 2002, as well as by the failure to obtain the expected higher levels of turnout in most of the referendums and mayoral elections when compared with the turnouts in council elections.
The failure of the Government to establish the evidence before altering the rules, makes it look as if it is seeking the change because the public did not come up with the answer the Government wanted.
The 5% threshold was a marked reduction from the 10% suggested in Modern local government: In touch with the people (1988) paragraph 3.31.
If 5% was later fixed as the level for the petition to be successful, and to ‘rule out unnecessary and frivolous triggering of a referendum’ [Local leadership, local choice (1999) paragraph 2.12] then what has happened to justify this change other than that, in a number of cases, there was not sufficient interest?
It would be wrong to change an already-low threshold, just because it has not produced the hoped-for results.
The consultation paper stated there is a particular problem in meeting the 5% threshold because of the numbers involved in large council areas. It is not clear why that is a problem, since, in a larger authority, there would also be more resources and more helpers available.
If that as not so, it would, in itself, be evidence of the lack of significant interest.
The consultation paper gives no evidence to support its statement about large local authorities. It is probably based on the experience in Birmingham, where the petition fell far short of the threshold required, despite significant resources devoted to securing signatures.
The Evening Mail, the city’s main evening newspaper, organised the petition. A petition form for signature was printed virtually every evening, often with news items supporting the petition. The local Labour Party organised support, as did some community and neighbourhood groups. Given the extent of the campaign, made possible by the size of the authority, it is difficult to draw any conclusion except that there was a significant lack of public support for the petition.
The Government’s disappointment at the lack of public enthusiasm for more directly-elected mayors is no reason for altering the rules for petitioning. It should accept that, in many areas, there is no demonstrable evidence of significant support for a referendum on elected mayors, which the threshold was designed to test.
Beyond the issue of the threshold, we are puzzled by the failure of the Government to review its approach to directly-elected mayors. It should ask why there have been few petitions, why the majority of the referendums rejected directly-elected mayors, and why turnout in both the referendums and in mayoral elections has not led, as was expected, to higher turnouts in mayoral elections than in general council elections.
The Government should have reflected on the absence of support for its policy of directly-elected mayors, and at least tried to find out the reason for this failure, rather than proposing an alteration in the rules to bring about the conclusions, not only by seeking a reduction in the threshold, but also by abolishing, in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act of 2007, the provision that councils proposing to move to directly-elected mayors had to hold referendums to approve the proposal.
Ministers should have asked themselves whether their arrangements for elected mayors were almost designed to create difficulties for their objective of more streamlined and visible leadership in local authorities. The choice of the title ‘mayor’, when what was proposed was a directly-elected leader of the council, rather than the traditional ceremonial role, was bound to cause confusion. But there are other issues.
One reason for the rejection of the mayoral model in many of the referendums, and the lack of general interest, is the power given to one, single individual, without any possibility of effective challenge until the end of the four-year electoral term. Opponents of the model stressed that objection.
There is no provision for the right of recall, triggered by a specified percentage of electors requiring a new election, and no provision for a resolution of the council with the same effect. Indeed, when, recently, such a resolution was carried by 46 to six in Doncaster MBC, the mayor decided to remain in office, as he was entitled to under the present legislation, making a mockery of local democracy.
Yet one of these provisions – either recall or votes of no confidence – is found in many of the countries with directly-elected mayors.
The powers over the budget and policy that are given to the mayor reinforce the impression of giving excessive power to a single individual. Under the leader and cabinet model, the council still determines the budget and policy on the basis of proposals put forward by the executive, which it can amend or reject, while under the mayoral model the council can reject or amend them only by a two-thirds majority, even if a majority of the council is opposed to them.
The Government could amend the legislation on the mayoral model to one which no longer puts the mayor into such an unchallengeable position. There is no justification for altering the rules. It would be better to leave the present provisions for the threshold unchanged, to recognise the lack of support for directly-elected mayors, and to cease to press the issue, leaving the option of directly-elected mayors open, but accepting that the public response has not favoured it.
To continue to press the issue, hardly sits well with a secretary of state who has argued passionately for listening to a public which have shown they have no great interest in having directly-elected mayors. Altering the rules will not create a significant interest where none exists. And just as the Labour Government still has much to learn from the experience of petitions and referendums on elected mayors, so too has the Conservative Party.
The Conservative’s Green Paper, Control shift: Returning power to local communities contains a proposal to impose referendums for elected mayors on what are called the 12 largest cities, without any suggestion of a petition. There is no indication that the party has given any consideration as to why there have been so few successful petitions, or why the proposal for an elected mayor has been rejected in so many of the referendums.
Rather than new thinking in the light of experience, the party is reverting to proposals put forward by former Tory minister, Michael Heseltine, more than 15 years ago – and, in the case of referendums on the budget, at least 25 years ago.
There is no indication that the party has even considered the need to revise the present arrangements. Surely the Conservative Party, like the Labour Government, should learn from what the public have already indicated. Or do they both listen, only when the public say what they have already decided? n
George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the LSE and John Stewart is emeritus professor at INLOGOV.
The Evening Mail, the city’s main evening newspaper, organised the petition. A petition form for signature was printed virtually every evening, often with news items supporting the petition. The local Labour Party organised support, as did some community and neighbourhood groups. Given the extent of the campaign, made possible by the size of the authority, it is difficult to draw any conclusion except that there was a significant lack of public support for the petition.
The Government’s disappointment at the lack of public enthusiasm for more directly-elected mayors is no reason for altering the rules for petitioning. It should accept that, in many areas, there is no demonstrable evidence of significant support for a referendum on elected mayors, which the threshold was designed to test.
Beyond the issue of the threshold, we are puzzled by the failure of the Government to review its approach to directly-elected mayors. It should ask why there have been few petitions, why the majority of the referendums rejected directly-elected mayors, and why turnout in both the referendums and in mayoral elections has not led, as was expected, to higher turnouts in mayoral elections than in general council elections.
The Government should have reflected on the absence of support for its policy of directly-elected mayors, and at least tried to find out the reason for this failure, rather than proposing an alteration in the rules to bring about the conclusions, not only by seeking a reduction in the threshold, but also by abolishing, in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act of 2007, the provision that councils proposing to move to directly-elected mayors had to hold referendums to approve the proposal.
Ministers should have asked themselves whether their arrangements for elected mayors were almost designed to create difficulties for their objective of more streamlined and visible leadership in local authorities. The choice of the title ‘mayor’, when what was proposed was a directly-elected leader of the council, rather than the traditional ceremonial role, was bound to cause confusion. But there are other issues.
One reason for the rejection of the mayoral model in many of the referendums, and the lack of general interest, is the power given to one, single individual, without any possibility of effective challenge until the end of the four-year electoral term. Opponents of the model stressed that objection.
There is no provision for the right of recall, triggered by a specified percentage of electors requiring a new election, and no provision for a resolution of the council with the same effect. Indeed, when, recently, such a resolution was carried by 46 to six in Doncaster MBC, the mayor decided to remain in office, as he was entitled to under the present legislation, making a mockery of local democracy.
Yet one of these provisions – either recall or votes of no confidence – is found in many of the countries with directly-elected mayors.
The powers over the budget and policy that are given to the mayor reinforce the impression of giving excessive power to a single individual. Under the leader and cabinet model, the council still determines the budget and policy on the basis of proposals put forward by the executive, which it can amend or reject, while under the mayoral model the council can reject or amend them only by a two-thirds majority, even if a majority of the council is opposed to them.
The Government could amend the legislation on the mayoral model to one which no longer puts the mayor into such an unchallengeable position. There is no justification for altering the rules. It would be better to leave the present provisions for the threshold unchanged, to recognise the lack of support for directly-elected mayors, and to cease to press the issue, leaving the option of directly-elected mayors open, but accepting that the public response has not favoured it.
To continue to press the issue, hardly sits well with a secretary of state who has argued passionately for listening to a public which have shown they have no great interest in having directly-elected mayors. Altering the rules will not create a significant interest where none exists. And just as the Labour Government still has much to learn from the experience of petitions and referendums on elected mayors, so too has the Conservative Party.
The Conservative’s Green Paper, Control shift: Returning power to local communities contains a proposal to impose referendums for elected mayors on what are called the 12 largest cities, without any suggestion of a petition. There is no indication that the party has given any consideration as to why there have been so few successful petitions, or why the proposal for an elected mayor has been rejected in so many of the referendums.
Rather than new thinking in the light of experience, the party is reverting to proposals put forward by former Tory minister, Michael Heseltine, more than 15 years ago – and, in the case of referendums on the budget, at least 25 years ago.
There is no indication that the party has even considered the need to revise the present arrangements. Surely the Conservative Party, like the Labour Government, should learn from what the public have already indicated. Or do they both listen, only when the public say what they have already decided? n
George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the LSE and John Stewart is emeritus professor at INLOGOV.
