A mayor of a time
Ken Livingstone or Boris Johnson. Come May, one of those two (sorry Brian Paddick) will be Mayor of London. Maybe this is someone’s idea of a sick joke.
Neither candidate is particularly inspiring. Livingstone, the incumbent, has been fairly decent. The congestion charge is controversial, but is probably the best centre-left policy enacted in Britain since the minimum wage. Under Livingstone, London has cemented its position as a financial hub and, at the time of writing, no other banks have fallen into receivership this week.
There have been well-documented allegations of drunkenness and financial irregularity against him, but they have not damaged his poll ratings. Indeed, one allegation alleged by Channel 4’s Dispatches was that a clique of Livingstone’s wanted to turn London into a socialist state. However, most people are already aware that “Red Ken” is slightly left-wing, and these revelations have hardly damaged his reputation.
If you think that voting for Ken Livingstone despite his flaws is a special case, take a look at Boris Johnson. An Independent survey of London’s business leaders found that 57% think Boris isn’t serious enough, 40% don’t think he has a clear set of policies and 53% think he’s a buffoon. But 60% of respondents would still vote for him.
Put simply, Johnson is a buffoon and electing him would be disastrous. Yes, it would be “a laugh” to have him as Mayor of London, but the political fallout from a potential gaffe could be catastrophic. Electing Ken, despite it all, is the “least bad” option. It’s not sexy, but it’s practical, and it’s politics.
This is the problem with elected mayors of cities, such as London, and potentially Birmingham. An elected mayor could be a galvanising force for change, but could easily turn local democracy into a circus act. Labour has given local authorities the power to create directly elected “super mayors” in the US style. When Hartlepool held its first election for a mayor, a football mascot – a monkey – was elected. Boris Johnson may not be a man dressed in a monkey costume, but he isn’t a very large improvement.
In a 2001 referendum, more than half of Birmingham residents voted for a system of government that included a directly-elected mayor in some capacity. This result was, um, ignored by the city councillors. The Birmingham Mail is currently running a campaign to have another referendum to decide, once and for all, whether Birmingham should have a directly-elected mayor. This campaign is supported by, amongst others, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Michael Heseltine.
The main case for having an elected mayor is that they would be more accountable to ordinary people. He (or she) would have the “vision” to bring about the requisite amount of “change”. “Vision” and “change” seem to be the political buzzwords of the moment. Mayor of Hartlepool Stuart Drummond (not the monkey) has thinks that the business community believe he has the leadership to stimulate the local economy.
Those against having a directly-elected mayor warn that the UK is succumbing to American-style “personality politics”. In particular, it seems to have a “testosterone charged” style of leadership, as one Lib Dem councillor put it. Only one out of the thirteen elected mayors is female, and ten were party-political figures. Perhaps having elected mayors creates jobs for the boys.
If you follow the run-up to the Mayoral elections in London, and its aftermath, keep in mind the arguments for and against elected mayors in Birmingham. Would you want one in your city? Answers on a postcard to Birmingham city council.
This is the problem with elected mayors of cities, such as London, and potentially Birmingham. An elected mayor could be a galvanising force for change, but could easily turn local democracy into a circus act. Labour has given local authorities the power to create directly elected “super mayors” in the US style. When Hartlepool held its first election for a mayor, a football mascot – a monkey – was elected. Boris Johnson may not be a man dressed in a monkey costume, but he isn’t a very large improvement.
In a 2001 referendum, more than half of Birmingham residents voted for a system of government that included a directly-elected mayor in some capacity. This result was, um, ignored by the city councillors. The Birmingham Mail is currently running a campaign to have another referendum to decide, once and for all, whether Birmingham should have a directly-elected mayor. This campaign is supported by, amongst others, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Michael Heseltine.
The main case for having an elected mayor is that they would be more accountable to ordinary people. He (or she) would have the “vision” to bring about the requisite amount of “change”. “Vision” and “change” seem to be the political buzzwords of the moment. Mayor of Hartlepool Stuart Drummond (not the monkey) has thinks that the business community believe he has the leadership to stimulate the local economy.
Those against having a directly-elected mayor warn that the UK is succumbing to American-style “personality politics”. In particular, it seems to have a “testosterone charged” style of leadership, as one Lib Dem councillor put it. Only one out of the thirteen elected mayors is female, and ten were party-political figures. Perhaps having elected mayors creates jobs for the boys.
If you follow the run-up to the Mayoral elections in London, and its aftermath, keep in mind the arguments for and against elected mayors in Birmingham. Would you want one in your city? Answers on a postcard to Birmingham city council.
Cory
