The Government is pushing for directly-elected mayors – and there is talk of directly-elected cabinets. George Jones and  John Stewart argue councils

should be left alone to sort out their political structure

Political structures in local government are back on the agenda. Communities and local government minister, Ruth Kelly, has expressed interest in directly-elected mayors (DEMs), as well as in leaders appointed for four years, and others have mentioned elected cabinets.

Ministers are falling for the temptation to prescribe structures for local government, even when they talk of greater devolution.

It is strange that DEMs are being considered within government when many assumed the previous, unsupportive response had buried the issue. Only 13 authorities – including London – have DEMs. In the majority of referendums, the electorate rejected proposals to adopt this model.

The number of petitions requiring referendums has almost dried up, with only three held since 2002. In the few authorities with DEMs, there has not been the significant increase in turnout anticipated by the Government. The public have not responded with any enthusiasm.

Ms Kelly has emphasised DEMs in city regions, welcoming the precedent of the ~Greater London Authority~ where the mayor is proclaimed a great success. However, it is misleading to assume that other metropolitan areas are similar to the capital.

London has a distinct identity, not present in most of the other conurbations which consist of a collection of separate towns and cities, each with a proud history.

There was no controversy about the title ~Greater London Authority~ whereas in the West Midlands, the proposal that the city region should be called Greater Birmingham has been greeted with horror outside Birmingham.

The assumption that a single individual could represent all the towns and cities is unrealistic. A mayor from Birmingham would be treated with suspicion elsewhere in the city region, while a mayor from outside would be seen as an anachronism in Birmingham.

The problem of the DEM concept is its dependence on a single individual. Tendencies to presidentialism in either central or local government inspire no confidence. Rather there is a need for team leadership.

So, are elected cabinets the answer? That suggestion caught some policy adviser’s attention but has not been thought through. Cabinets change their composition as a means of ensuring their vitality.

In national government, it has become an annual ritual, and additional change are often required with great frequency to meet the unexpected events inevitable in politics.

Would it be possible for a leader to change an elected cabinet? Presumably not, if the cabinet was elected for four years, although it might be possible to shuffle the pack if cabinet members were not elected to specific portfolios. An ineffective member of the cabinet would presumably remain in situ for four years in the same way as an ineffective DEM.

An elected cabinet can be seen as attractive as long as one does not think it through.

Rather than central government designing new political structures for local authorities which understand the issues better than Whitehall, much greater freedom should be given to local authorities to develop their structures to meet their own requirements. They might even find mayoral models more attractive, if free to do so, learning from the variety of experience abroad.

The concept of executive mayors does not necessarily involve direct election. It can be based on appointment by the council, as in France and Spain.

There can be arrangements for DEMs to be recalled, as in many parts of Germany and the US.

Greater freedom for local authorities should extend not merely to mayoral models but to political structures generally, so there can be real scope for innovation.

Authorities should be given freedom to determine their own structures, changing the ‘musts’ in legislation to ‘may’.

If new structures cannot survive without compulsion, something is wrong. If such devolution is impossible, then reducing the piles of legislation, regulations, directives and guidance should be undertaken.

The committee system for more than 150 years depended on a minimum of legislation, so why do the new political structures require at least 300 pages setting out requirements? A test for double devolution is whether authorities can have more freedom to determine their own ways of doing business. n

George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the LSE, and John Stewart  is emeritus professor of local government at the University of Birmingham