Thoughts on Labour and mayors
I’m posting two article originally written for LabourList either side of the locval election 2024 which highlight the weaknesses and risk in the mayoral model.
- First published 24.3.24.
When Keir Starmer joined Sadiq Khan to launch the London mayoral election campaign, Labour seemed curiously downbeat about its prospects. Saying it will be the closest election ever, Khan is appealing to Green and Lib Dem voters to throw their support behind him.
It’s true that the election system is now first past the post, not transferable vote. Even so, surely Labour should be confident of a sweeping victory, and in a city in which it must win a big majority of seats, and under the same electoral system, if we are going to form the next government?
Labour ought also to be confident of winning all this May’s other English directly-elected mayors. There seem to be no reliable local polls — the London-centric political establishment probably think local elections outside the capital don’t really matter — but based on national polling, Labour must sweep Andy Street and Ben Houchen out of power in the West Midlands and Tees Valley. Street has at least occasionally stood up to the government.
Meanwhile Houchen has been roundly criticised over his combined authority’s handling of a major Teesside regeneration scheme. An independent review found “a number of decisions taken by the bodies involved do not meet the standards expected when managing public funds”, though found no evidence of corruption or illegality.
Both elections are again in areas where Labour must win many new MPs later this year. So why is there so little effort to drum up national excitement about these Labour gains?
Low-turnout elections will always be vulnerable to surprises
Perhaps this is just a cautious downplaying of Labour’s chances: the mayoral equivalent of ‘not taking voters for granted’ at the forthcoming general election. It’s possible that Khan is merely trying to maximise his support, and the low-key campaigns elsewhere are a manifestation of quiet confidence.
But there may be a deeper issue Labour needs to think about. Low-turnout elections that few voters really care about will always be vulnerable to surprises. Traditional allegiances may be overturned by populist candidates. Incumbents may be targeted, however unfairly, for their perceived failings. Even a party leading in the polls but generating little excitement may be hampered by voters alienated by issues like ULEZ or Israel/Gaza.
After all, London mayoral elections gave us 16 years of Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson: surely two of the politicians least fit to hold high public office in one of the world’s greatest cities. That Labour could not win — Livingstone was first elected against Labour — for so long in what was otherwise increasingly a Labour city should give us pause for thought.
Local elections often run against the party in power
We can hope that Labour will sweep the mayoral board this May. Anything less would be a huge embarrassment and give the Tories some hope of avoiding total disaster.
But what may happen in 2025 when mayors will be chosen for four new authorities (Norfolk, Suffolk, Hull and East Yorkshire and Greater Lincolnshire) and Labour is defending West of England and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough?
It’s a sad truth that local elections often run against the party in power. If Labour becomes the government after the general election, mayoral elections may become increasingly difficult to defend and to win.
Not only might this give the Tories a quick way back, but it could also open the door to even more disruptive forces. It was the low-turnout Euro elections that gave UKIP their influential foothold on the way to Brexit. It’s not hard to see Reform or some other right-wing populist force making ground and setting the agenda for all the other parties.
Labour must empower local councils and communities
This admittedly pessimistic perspective should make Labour wonder how much it wants to invest in the mayoral model. We can all recognise the real achievements of Labour mayors using their soft leadership skills and limited devolved powers. Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan had greater public recognition than Rachel Reeves in one recent poll.
But at the end of the day, the mayoral model has grafted a thin layer of new governance above local authorities who have been devastated by austerity and communities that have been progressively disempowered. It may suit Whitehall officials to deal with a handful of mayors who have to respond to Whitehall priorities rather than powerful and influential local authorities. Labour’s commitment to localism should be deeper and richer.
Given the political risks down the road, Labour’s starting point should be the real empowerment of local councils and the communities they represent. These should be the building blocks for creating the combined authorities they need to exercise powers over a wider geography. And they, not the government, should decide if they want a mayor.
2. First published 13.5.24.
Eight weeks ago, I warned of “huge embarrassment” if the party did not sweep the mayoral board. Richard Parker’s nail-biting win in the West Midlands and David Skaith’s triumph in Rishi Sunak’s Yorkshire avoided the worst case, but losing to Tees Valley’s controversial mayor where we dominate local government and must win many MPs remains a concern.
The election campaigns and the results underlined problems with the current mayoral model. There is the potential for a serious mismatch between the politics of the mayor and the wider local politics. In “low-turnout elections that few voters really care about”, there will always be potential for surprises triggered by discontent with the government or other factors: this time it was Gaza, but there will always be contingent issues. Both make Labour mayors look vulnerable under a Labour government.
Most commentary has stressed how mayors now burnish their personal brands. We would have struggled to identify Andy Street as a Tory from his West Midlands campaign.
For advocates of mayors, this is the whole point. They want to foster charismatic individuals with only loose party affiliations. Direct elections create their own mandate, one that insulates them from party performance at local and national level. Whitehall ministers and civil servants need only negotiate with one person, not elected local authorities. Mayors can be empowered in ways that enable them, at worst, to marginalise local authorities that have far more responsibility for the lives of local people.
Labour has promised to “turbocharge” mayors, implying that this will be the key layer of local government for investment. (Labour will apparently now have to ‘turbocharge’ Ben Houchen despite the controversy around the disposal of public assets.) The aim of mayors has always been to take the local out of local government and the politics out of local elections. That, surely, is not what Labour wants?
Mayors must be well-integrated with local councils’ leadership
Effective devolution cannot rely on empowered individuals, however charismatic and able. Reshaping a city region, rural county or mix of the two needs a deep, locally-rooted, democratic culture.
Labour’s devolution must foster an environment in which politicians at every level of local government, together with the communities they represent, share a sense of local identity and purpose. Of course, there will be disagreement about how, and local politics will always be pluralistic, but shared aspirations will be key.
In other words, the mayoral leadership of combined authorities must be well-integrated with the leadership of local councils and local communities and aligned with them. The independence of mayors stressed by their advocates, which is designed to bypass local councils and local elections, can undermine that effort.
Labour’s mayors in the North West and Yorkshire have rightly been seen as a success. As far as we can see, they largely foster and enjoy good relationships with their largely Labour-controlled councils.
This doesn’t happen everywhere. Not all the mayors in place before last Thursday enjoyed good relationships with all their local authorities. Andy Street certainly didn’t — four councils had publicly clashed with him just a few weeks before. Skaith and Claire Ward, the newly-elected mayor for the East Midland CA, face the challenge of finding common ground with some robust Conservative council leaders.
The power and autonomy of mayors is frequently overestimated
The current power and autonomy of mayors is frequently overestimated by casual observers. Andy Burnham showed skill and determination to drive through regulation of Manchester’s buses, but he relied on being given the right to do so by Conservative ministers.
His budget — heavily dependent on grants made by and dependent on Whitehall — is dwarfed by the budgets of the ten local authorities that make up the Greater Manchester combined authority. We neglect the importance of our cash-strapped councils at our peril, and the relationship between them and their mayors is crucial.
The last Labour government legislated for combined authorities. It would complete our vision to see them cover the whole of England. The impetus for them came from local councils who saw the need to pool their powers on issues like economic development that must operate over a much wider geography.
Many only reluctantly embraced mayors as the way to get the limited powers of a devolution ‘deal’. (Even those who most loudly celebrate mayors as a democratic innovation often concede that the public would often reject them in referenda.)
Labour should acknowledge mayors aren’t right for every area
Labour can tackle these weaknesses in the mayoral model. As the Society of Labour Lawyers recently proposed, local authorities and combined authorities could have statutory and constitutional status, gaining powers and resources as of right, not as concessions from Whitehall.
With the emphasis back on local authorities working together, combined authorities would own their powers. Mayors would become sub-regional leaders and advocates, not power brokers with Whitehall. Maverick mayors and political clashes might still happen but would be less damaging.
With a clear framework for devolved powers, the political logic that incentivises mayors to promote their own role and power would be diminished. Mayors would need to be seen as advocates for all local government systems in their area, including the services that are not mayoral responsibilities.
Where mayors work and are popular they should be retained. But Labour should acknowledge that they are not right for everywhere and let combined authorities — or dare we say it, the people — decide if they want one.
