The idea has been presented by both Tory and Labour that elected mayors – one strong leader (usually a man, because the candidates and the winners have overwhelmingly been male) – would, through their charisma, their force of personality, their leadership, be able to stand up to London, fight for their communities, beat smaller local institutions into line.
‘Levelling up’ – the Conservatives’ latest version of this story – also sees an increase in the number of elected mayors as foundational – with York, North Yorkshire, West Midlands and Greater Manchester directly in its sights.
It is a model of leadership. A very popular model of leadership historically (you might call it Victorian), and even today. But not a good one.
That’s because it is essentially a reprise of the ‘strong Westminster’ model. Constituent parts of Greater Manchester, and other similar bodies, have seen power and resources, offices and decision-makers concentrated in a central core – boosting its wealth and influence, while poorer periphery areas have languished. I think of visiting Ashton-under-Lyne several years ago and hearing how ‘local’ services had moved into central Manchester – an utterly unaffordable tram ride away for many who needed them.
‘Strong leader’ has been the model of ‘devolution’ embraced by Conservatives and Labour alike, but one in which there’s increasingly obvious public disenchantment, as demonstrated by another outcome of this week’s elections – albeit one that’s unlikely even to get a footnote in the mainstream media coverage.
Bristol last week voted to get rid of its post of elected mayor. The alternative proposal is for the city to be run by committees of councillors making decisions about different areas, with the decision to take effect in 2024.
Comments
We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.