It should be the decision of the people
So Liverpool's Labour Party has suddenly decided that they want an elected Mayor.
I've spent a few days thinking about this issue. Much to the horror of some of my fellow Liberal Democrats I have always been somewhat open to the idea of elected Mayors. I think the arguments are finely balanced and worth thinking about and considering carefully.
Labour in Liverpool don't believe in thought and deliberation though. Sooner than wait for a referendum in May so that the people of Liverpool could have their say they have jumped the gun and put the choice into the hands of just 90 councillors. None of those councillors were elected on the basis of a manifesto pledge to introduce an elected Mayor. This is entirely a backroom deal. This is the sort of thing that gets politicians a bad name.
There are good arguments for an elected Mayor. Arguments around accountability, around having a strong vision and implementing it. Also there are arguments about Mayoral election campaigns leading to great debates between candidates laying out different visions, travelling to different parts of the city and trying to win people over.
The reasons for such a dramatic change to the governance of the City could have been discussed with Liverpudlians, those opposed could have brought up the experience of Doncaster where the right wing English Democrats managed to win election and those in support could bring up London where the Mayoralty has brought extra prestige to the capital. Both sides could have brought up Hartlepool where the town elected a football mascot (which made them look silly) but he turned out to be an excellent Mayor (he has been re-elected twice).
All of those arguments have been thrown away by Liverpool's Labour Party who have instead decided to spring a snap election on people, with no debate, no chance for discussion and no opportunity for Liverpool's 300,000 voters to make the final decision. Instead the decision on how our shared City will be run will be made by 90 councillors, subject to party whips in a debate confined to the council chamber.
They can't even claim a massive groundswell of support for an elected Mayor of the city. There are certain inalienable truths of Liverpool politics. The Council chamber will always be a bearpit, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party will be at each others throats and Liam Fogarty will always be "a matter of months" away from handing in a completed Mayoral petition. I'm fairly sure that the A Mayor for Liverpool organisation was set up by Victorian philanthropists and it has never managed to persuade the people of Liverpool.
So this isn't about pent up demand from citizens and it isn't about a vision that was put before the city. It is instead the political equivalent of a smash and grab where an unsuspecting public has little chance to realise what Labour are up to and where everything is done for Labour's advantage rather than that of the City. Labour have been in control of the City for lss than two years after their time in the wilderness and already they think the City is their own toy and that none can stand before them.
They may well have won the argument. They might have persuaded people to vote yes in a referendum. But they don't want Liverpool to have a say. They think they know what's best and they don't trust the voters to agree with them so they take the decision out of the electorates hands. In May there will clearly be an election for an elected Mayor. There will also be an election for councillors. Labour councillors took the power out of the voters hands and if the voters don't like it they can take the power out of theirs.
10 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
What you fail to mention is that with the mayor comes £130million pound in direct funds, which would go into redeveloping schools (your govt. did scrap the BSF scheme). There would also be 5 mayoral development zones to regenerate 5 deprived areas of the city (which could bring in a further £300million). Well done Joe Anderson for negotiating a fantastic deal with central government and you should grab it with both hands! Your government has made it clear that we can only get this money with a directly elected mayor. It would be a disgrace if we were to let this money go by. What a load of Lib Dem garbage!
Like many people, I suspect, I'm not sure whether a directly elected mayor is a good thing or not - because we don't know anything yet about how it is supposed to work. Why can't we be given the information, and then decide for ourselves if it is what we actually want?
Not allowing people to have a vote on this issue is being justified by the 130 million pounds in direct funding which it is suggested will be lost if we do not go straight to an elected mayor after May.
But this doesn't seem to be the case - it will at worst be delayed.
Arif Ansari, BBC Political Editor for the NW, interviewed Jo Anderson about this on the Sunday Politics shows on Sunday (on iplayer).
He quoted from a leaked letter from Nick Clegg, which stated clearly:
"It is important to clarify that no deal, including Liverpool's proposal, is contingent on having an elected mayor.", and stated that it appeared that LCC could have the powers, and the money, without an elected mayor. Anderson's response was pretty evasive - if he can assure us we'll get the money in May... no, right now.... or words to that effect.
He also talked a lot about negotiating with the government - but you've got to have some ammunition, something to bargain with, when you negotiate. What does he have? It was at best a "consultation" - lip service (like many of the council's own consultation exercises.
Why exactly are they jumping the gun?
The first argument appears to be to save the £350,000 a referendum will cost, and the second appears to be to get the money 6 months earlier. The cost is certainly something to think about - but there are still areas where savings could be made. Leaving aside LDL,around half a million just on Blackberries, and another million on mobile phones - is all that really necessary? All essential?
And if it is true that the money and powers will be available anyway, don't they need to consult and plan on what they're going to do with it? Or just rush in? A referendum would give us all the time to examine the issues properly.
A typically sophisticated ending there, from a Labour plebicite.
Of course, what Curtis Gladden fails to recognise - and bless him, who can blame him - is that the Lib Dem position will always be based upon democracy and fair voting. Yes, I know the Liverpool Labour party abhor such piffles, but there we are, there in lies our differences.
A Mayorality of this nature - one that determines a different decision-making process, and one, Curtis, that affects the lives of every day folk (and not just the Anderson-led drones in the council chamber that collect their £8000 a year for their elected positions), should be put to the people with a vote.
Ah there's an idea Curtis, why don't you petition Anderson to reduce his inflated wage and contribute it to the development zones establised by the Coalition Government before genu-flexing, hmm? Promise us that.
Hilarious to see the Lib Dems claiming to be the defenders of democracy when they are in power nationally without mandate delivering an agenda that was not voted on.
Hang on - did I say hilarious? I meant "hypocritical"
Tell us Richard/Chris - when did the country get to vote on the coalition's manifesto? Or the idea of a coalition? Or the cuts?
Tell us just how asking for votes on the back of getting rid of tuition fees then voting to increase them makes you the protectors of democracy?
The same Government document which says that brokering the deal which triggers the extra funding is not dependent on having an elected mayor (although it is a preferred model) also makes it clear that having a directly elected mayor or not should be decided by the local population. If this goes through Joe Anderson will of course NOT be a directly elected mayor.
When I was involved in budget making in 2008 the amount set aside for a possible referendum was £100k althouigh we were told by officers that it would be nearer £50k. Bearing in mind that a referendum would be on the same day as the local election why has the putative cost increased 4 or 5 fold in 4 years?
The issue here seams to be that there will be no referrendum on this issue. By having a referrendum this would delay the process by 6 months. The thing is Chris, Connexions centres, charities and other council services are getting closed now. There is nothing stopping your government from altering the deal in those 6 months or taking it away. This is too big of an offer to turn down. The only reason why your party is opposing this is because you know the people of Liverpool are wise enough to never vote for a Lib Dem council in the forseeable future. Instead of attacking Joe, who is doing an excellent job serving the people of Liverpool, you should shift your attention to your party leader, and hold him accountable for the way his government are attacking this city.
Crikey Curtis, that's verging on Pravda-like in slavish adherence to the Labour Party.
Do you have any evidence for the idea that the "deal" would not be there in the event that Joe consulted the people of Liverpool as opposed to the Labour Party or are you just throwing mud in the hope that no-one will spot this bypass of democracy?
The extra money being dependent upon having a lord mayor now appears to be an untrue statement.
The cost of the referendum seems to be grossly inflated.
There are very few people in the city who believe that the reason for not having a referendum is anything other than the fact that it would get a no and Joe Anderson wants this one.
A 'free vote' by 200 members of Joe's labour party on whether they want Joe - their leader to become lord mayor insults the inteligence more than a little.
I think people will be looking to the 'you can not be serious' candidates as a comment on the lack of referendum.
Very good article. I am going through some of these issues
as well..
After looking at a few of the blog articles on your site, I truly
like your technique of writing a blog. I saved it to my
bookmark webpage list and will be checking back in the near future.
Take a look at my web site as well and let me know what you think.