• HOME
• ABOUT US
  • BOARD MEMBERS
  • KEY STAFF
• JOB VACANCIES
  • INTERNSHIPS
• CONTACT
  • ROOM HIRE
• LINKS

Chris Leslie, Director, NLGN
Yorkshire Post

Stacked high on a shelf in the Victoria Tower of the Houses of Parliament sits the original copy of the Local Government Act 2000, not quite gathering dust at this stage, but containing a little known and under-used section enabling local residents to raise a petition and fundamentally change the way their Council is run. In particular, it was this piece of legislation that allowed the creation of a system of ‘elected mayors’ to lead local authorities, rather than the alternative system of committees and cabinets that have typified most councils.



So why has this provision been scarcely noticed? Among the several hundred local authorities in England and Wales only 12 have changed to an elected mayoral style of executive leadership, all the rest opting for an executive cabinet with lots of ‘portfolio holding’ councillors. Perhaps this is because the trigger for a mayoral referendum requires a petition of 5% or more of local residents, which might seem like a small portion, but in a typical authority of 100,000 electors can be quite an effort to collect. Even where some residents have managed to discover this little known legislative provision and achieved their thousands of collected signatures, there have been referendums where residents have voted ‘no’ to an elected mayor, for example, in Crewe & Nantwich.



Here in Yorkshire only Doncaster has moved to an elected mayoral system, making a break with its past perhaps for good reasons, and opting for the clearer, more transparent leadership of a single elected individual at the helm. The evidence is that local residents and local media are able to pinpoint more immediately who is in charge of the council, who to credit when things go well or blame if things go wrong. This seems a good innovation in local democracy, and just as Londoners have discovered the heated debates about the virtues or otherwise of Ken Livingstone, could it be that Yorkshire’s towns and cities would benefit from a stronger sense of who’s in charge?



Research by the New Local Government Network indicates that elected mayors are vastly better known to their electorates than traditional council leaders and that businesses like the fact that they can communicate with one focal point in a town when discussing the possibility of investment. Public recognition of elected mayors continous to improve year on year – as does turnout in mayoral elections. And with the Greater London Mayor receiving fresh devolved powers over planning, housing, skills and the environment, the Government seems to be suggesting that stronger local leadership will be rewarded with greater freedoms and flexibilities from Whitehall.



Yet despite these benefits, most parts of the country seem reluctant to change. Such a radical change is often resisted by councillors who worry about placing power in the hands of a single individual – even though the rules do provide checks and balances against unreasonable behaviour of an elected Mayor. Of course, some communities have lots of different towns and neighbourhoods where an elected mayoral arrangement may struggle to span the diversity of different interests and concerns, and I would not want to see elected mayors imposed where they don’t fit. If a cabinet system fits the local character best, then so be it. Perhaps it would give a stronger mandate if that cabinet were directly-elected, or better still if the public could elect either a single mayoral candidate or a cabinet of candidates for the executive on the same ballot paper.



I do believe that there are some parts of Yorkshire where stronger positive leadership from the local council could make a big difference to the quality of public services and economic prosperity. Councils are more than just technical organisations who run certain services; they are ambassadors for the town or city itself, the first port of call for campaigning for better local facilities or for inward investment enquiries. Local councillors should pause and think more often than they do about whether change might be beneficial, because if the councillors don’t do this, the chances are local residents might campaign for such a change themselves. Rediscovering the lesser-spotted Local Government Act 2000 might be just the thing needed if local people want to shake up the way their council works!

Explore More

Tweet This Digg This Save to delicious Stumble it