The state and local government
Yüklə 5,87 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Stoke-on-Trent CC Mark Meredith
- LB Newham Sir Robin Wales
- LB Lewisham Steve Bullock
- Watford BC Dorothy Thornhill
- Doncaster MBC Martin Winter
- North Tyneside MBC John Harrison
- Middlesbrough Council Ray Mallon
- Mansfield DC Tony Eggington
- Torbay Nicholas Bye
- 492 34.7 per cent considered other local councillors would have ‘too little’ say with an executive mayor 493
- Directly Elected, Direct Results: Reflections on the mayoral model in the UK
Poulson died on 31 January 1993; and, according to John Calder’s obituary in The Independent: The Poulson case was the bankruptcy of the century until the death of Robert Maxwell, but it was more far-reaching. Not only did many towns lose their old civic centres with all their historic period charm for needless and often ugly facelifts purely for the benefit of Poulson and to better the lifestyles of MPs, councillors and civil servants, but the Labour Party, associated until then with idealism and welfare, largely became seen on the grass-roots level as the party of free-spending, public waste and corruption.462 The Poulson case also led to a government inquiry under Lord Salmon, which recommended that councillors must declare any personal financial interest in matters being discussed by their authority and also enter their outside financial interests in a publicly available register.463 The Salmon Report did not, however, end corrupt practices in local government. In the 1990s the most sensational case involved Lady Porter, who, as leader of Westminster City Council, was found by the District Auditor to be arranging the sale of council houses within the borough so as to fortify the Conservative vote.464 The Local Government Act 2000 established a Standards Board for England: which, if Lord Hanningfield – who when leader of Essex County Council claimed £99,970 in “overnight subsistence” over the last seven years despite living only 46 miles from Westminster in West Hanningfield, near Chelmsford and having a full-time chauffeur provided by the local authority at the council taxpayers’ expense465 – is convicted will still not have prevented corruption. A parallel Scottish Act in 2000 set up a Standards Commission for Scotland. In Wales the role is effectively assigned to the Ombudsman. The increased potential for serious corruption The introduction of executive government by New Labour, as Peter Keith Lucas emphasises: has undoubtedly increased the potential for serious corruption. Direct election can produce mayors who have little experience or understanding of the public sector and are under intense pressure to produce results, to do the deal….The concentration of decision-making powers in fewer hands finds its most extreme example in the directly elected mayor, responsible for all executive functions, except those, which he chooses to delegate to his cabinet or to officers.466 For example, though no criminal charges resulted, both of the former directly-elected mayors in Doncaster and Stoke-on-Trent have been investigated over potential misconduct and corruption (see below). However, the first evidence of mayoral corruption was sexual not financial, as shown by the arrest on March 3, 2003 of North Tyneside Conservative Mayor Chris Morgan over allegations of indecency with a 15-year-old girl. He was released on bail and continued as mayor until April 18, 2003: when – following his re-arrest on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children – he resigned. Lawrence Goveas – the deputy mayor and leader of the Tory group in North Tyneside – then acted as mayor until the first mayoral by-election was held on June 12, 2003.467 The turnout of 31.4 per cent was 10.9 per cent less than in the first mayoral poll in 2002, which was an all-postal ballot; and below that of 33.9 per cent in the local elections held on May 1, 2003. Linda Arkley – a Conservative nurse – won the mayoral by-election by a majority of 4,861 over her rival Gordon Adam who was a Labour European Parliament Member: and the first count figures showed a net 4.5 per cent swing from Labour to Conservative compared to the 2002 mayoral poll. The National Front candidate got 2,554 votes – over six times more than the Socialist Alliance candidate’s vote of 400, which was down from 2,119 in the 2002 mayoral poll. Hence New Labour – whose hierarchy had ruled out local councillors from standing in the North Tyneside mayoral by-election – had now lost eight of the first 12 local government US-style mayoral elections, and though the mayor became Labour again in 2005, Tory Linda Arkley was re-elected in June 2009 (see Appendix 5). Doncaster On 26 February 2007 Doncaster Council received a petition which sought: ‘… a referendum on whether the electors for (the Council’s) area agree to the abolition of the Executive Mayoral System…’ On 25 February March 2007, Doncaster councillors voted 31 to 27 for a referendum on whether to abandon the only US-style elected mayoral system in Yorkshire. The decision followed the presentation of a petition with 11,000 signatures collected by the Doncaster Fair Deal Campaign. The referendum – the first challenge of its kind nationally – was expected to take place after a period of public consultation on Election Day May 2008. The Labour Group had first made an unsuccessful attempt to delay the decision on whether or not to have a referendum by referring it first to a committee for further scrutiny. Mayor Martin Winter also failed to persuade councillors that not referring the issue and the petition to the Elections, Corporate Governance and Finance Committee could render the vote "unconstitutional". Winter’s reign has been mired in controversy after a series of police and independent inquiries into his conduct. He was subject to an investigation into his involvement with the Glass Park Community Project which attracted criticism from an independent inquiry. No charges were brought. Winter was also criticised after he became involved in a planning application made by a businessman and more recently he made accusations against former managing director Susan Law which sparked an inquiry, leading to her leaving the authority with a £150,000 pay-off. Many had thought the new mayoral system would help draw a line under the controversial "Donnygate" period of sleaze and corruption: when 30 people – including 21 councillors – were convicted of fraud. For example, Ray Stockhill, a former deputy leader and civic mayor received a two-year suspended sentence on 12 March 2002 for receiving bribes totalling more than £30,000 from property developer Alan Hughes after being convicted of widespread expenses fraud and corrupt handling of council contracts. However, as Doncaster Fair Deal Campaign Secretary Joan Moffat said: The petition started because we kept hearing from people who felt that things were not right and were very discontented with the system. Many people seemed to regret voting for it in the first place and wanted the chance to vote again. Many feel it is too undemocratic with too much power resting in one man's hands. Conversely, Neville Dearden, chief executive of Doncaster Chamber of Commerce, said of the referendum campaign: I think it is very, very sad for Doncaster. I can say for definite that business leaders in the area believe the mayoral model is a tremendous advantage and gives the council the ability to drive things through and get things done. I think some people have become confused between the issue of whether we have got the right model or if we have got the right person for the job. I am very concerned that we could throw the baby out with the bathwater. I personally think Martin Winter has done a good job and he is like a stick of rock, Doncaster through and through.468 On 29 March 2007, according to the Yorkshire Post, Winter was told to consider resigning by opposition councillors after he was forced into a humiliating climb-down when he attempted to reopen the controversial inquiry into the council's managing director. The extraordinary meeting would have been held just two days before Ms Law was due to receive a financial settlement the council agreed in February 2007. Winter had attempted to reopen the inquiry on the grounds that the authority's agreed settlement, negotiated by council-appointed lawyers who were paid in excess of £100,000, should be annulled because it had stopped a full investigation of the facts. He made the move despite the agreement being rubber-stamped by the Audit Commission, as being in the best financial interests of the council. The motion said "the people of Doncaster deserve to know the truth of this matter and the behaviours and motivations of all the individuals involved in the process". But several councillors believed the mayor was instead being vindictive towards Ms Law who has always claimed that he engineered an inquiry into her conduct because she had blown the whistle on allegations surrounding his management of the publicly-funded Glass Park Project.469 Subsequently, following the resignations of his deputy and another cabinet member over his management style, Winter faced renewed calls to resign from his cabinet and backbench Labour councillors. On 12 May 2007, Winter announced he was forming a new party – following which he was expelled from the Labour Party.470 On 12 March 2009, Winter said he would not be seeking re-election in June 2009 after ministers imposed a group of experts to oversee the council's children's services department.471 On the 23 May 2007, the Council received a letter from a civil servant – perfectly illustrating Robert Lowe’s ‘safeguards against democracy’472 – confirming the view of Phil Woolas (then New Labour Minister for Local Government and Community Cohesion) that: In the case of Doncaster, which held a referendum on 20 September 2001, the earliest a second referendum could be held is 20 September 2011, and the earliest a new model could be implemented is May 2013. Thus the appropriate timetable would be to start a consultation over a six-month period, starting June 2011. If that consultation shows public support for moving away from the current governance model, then a referendum would be held in May 2012 to coincide with the Local Elections.473 The working class have been removed from this layer of local democracy and replaced by a brigade of full-time career politicians Table 7.1: Allowances for backbench councillors and the 12 directly elected local government US-style executive mayors (2008/09, £ rounded)
Source: Council websites At the apex of this system during 2008/09 were the 12 all-powerful directly elected local government US-style executive mayors: at the bottom – compounding their marginalisation – were backbench councillors (see Table 7.1). Before the Local Government Act 2000, as shown in Chapter 6, the average leader’s annual allowance of £7,749 in 1998 was twice that of the average backbench councillor’s annual allowance of £3,699. Now the average directly elected local government US-style executive mayor’s annual allowance of £58,188 is over seven times that of their average backbench councillor’s annual allowance of £7,996. Following the abolition of Stoke-on-Trent’s directly-elected mayor and the election of a council leader on 5 June 2009 there are now only 11 directly elected local government US-style executive mayors in England: and only three of them – all in London – are Labour (see Appendix 6). Though there will be 12 again in October 2010 when Tower Hamlets LBC holds its first mayoral election (see Appendix 4) The mayoral system is the optimal internal management arrangement for privatised local government services Capita Group plc – which until 2006, as shown in Chapter 6, was one the New Local Government Network’s major funders – in 1999 was already ‘one of the largest private sector companies providing a range of support services to local government’ with over ’45 per cent’ of its business ‘local government related’. Capita in its evidence to the Joint Committee on the Draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill supported ‘the introduction of elected mayors or their equivalent for all tiers and size of councils’: because it was ‘not convinced that only large metropolitan communities would benefit from this kind of democratic leadership’.474 Capita also considered it was easier to develop and negotiate effective leading edge…partnerships…where the council has a strong leader and effective Chief Executive and that it helped if the leader is able to commit the council and to have control over his/her group.475 Hence Capita proposed the involvement of businesses in the local community and which are in partnership with a council in the decision as to whether or not to pursue the elected mayor option…either mandatory referenda or lower thresholds for the popular calling of referenda on political management arrangements… mechanisms to ensure that elected mayors and/or council leaders have the opportunity to pursue the interests of the community, the customer and the local tax payer without the hindrance of party politics on a day to day basis (for example – not having to refer all matters for group approval) or over concern for the internal interests of the council when this suppresses the needs of the community and the customer…the ability to co-opt non-councillors onto cabinets and scrutiny committees including people with professional, community and business expertise and speedier council decision making which matches the private sector’s approach….476 This is why local capitalists, as shown above, are the strongest opponents of a referendum to decide whether or not to scrap the US-style executive US-style mayoral system in Doncaster. Employers (and the fascist BNP) are also the strongest supporters of such mayors in Stoke-on Trent (see below). The mayoral system has created an arena focused on personalities not politics They have opened the way for maverick candidates like Tory mayor Boris Johnson in London. In Middlesbrough Ray Mallon, the former senior policemen now twice-elected mayor, pleaded guilty to 14 disciplinary charges, ‘thereby paving the way for retirement, because the planned date for an internal hearing, believed to be in July, would have prevented him standing for election’ in May 2002.477 On 12 February 2002 Ray Mallon was ‘ordered to resign in disgrace...after admitting that he did not pursue drug allegations made against his men in 1997’.478 Barry Shaw, Cleveland’s Chief Constable, said Ray Mallon was at ‘the centre of an “empire of evil”’; and the documents compiled for the Mallon inquiry show in detail ‘the drug dealing, cover-ups and lies that made a mockery of “zero tolerance” policing’.479 Ray Mallon was upstaged by a monkey standing for mayor in neighbouring Hartlepool in 2002. Dressed in a hairy costume, Stuart Drummond, the former call centre worker now mayor, stood as an independent with a platform aimed almost exclusively at younger voters. His title on the ballot paper was H'Angus the Monkey - the name of Third Division Hartlepool United's mascot. The club endorsed Stuart Drummond and paid his £500 deposit. His main policy proposals, according to his Manifesto, were a free weekly banana for Hartlepool school students plus fewer councillors.480 Stuart Drummond was also re-elected in 2005 and 2009 (see Appendix 5). Peter Davies of the English Democrats – the “Boris of the North” who was accidentally elected Doncaster’s mayor in June 2009 – is pro-capital punishment, anti-immigration and EU; and describes climate change as a “scam”. He rents out 80 acres of farmland and has part-ownership of four racehorses, paid for by his betting winnings; and within two years wants to move back Doncaster’s school holidays back to St Leger week when the famous race takes place in the second week of September. Davies has already ended a £3,000 grant for the annual Gay Pride march; and axed membership of the Local Government Association and Local Government Information Unit. Though his plan to scrap all translation of council literature into minority languages has been held up by equality law. Davies has also targeted a raft of what he calls “politically correct non-jobs” – such as diversity officers – and has offered army veterans special treatment in job applications: and he has sent a plan to cull two-thirds of Doncaster’s 63 councillors to the Electoral Commission. Moreover, the Conservatives did not stand against him and their support for his policies has been crucial, with half his cabinet from the Tory party.481 However, following the identification of Doncaster as the worst performing English council in the Comprehensive Area Assessments, the conclusion of the ‘Edlington’ court case (which revealed that two brothers aged 10 and tortured and sexually humiliated two nine-year-olds) and the disintegration of the leadership team (when the previous chief executive resigned and a bitter dispute occurred between the directly-elected mayor and interim chief executive appointed by the full council), the Audit Commission announced it would carry out a corporate governance inspection of Doncaster’s management.482 Their report was published on 19 April 2010, which Michael O'Higgins, chair of the Audit Commission, says ‘is the worst report he has seen on a local authority in his time at the commission – and others believe it is probably the worst report ever published by the organisation about a local council’.483 The mayoral system has not increased turnout The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) in July 2001 commissioned market research company IFF Research Limited to undertake telephone surveys of representative random samples of the public in Birmingham, Bristol, Derby, Harrow, Liverpool, Middlesbrough, Oxford, Plymouth, Preston and Westminster. Ten minute interviews with 11,040 respondents were achieved between 10 August and 23 September 2001 – a response rate of 36 per cent. The results of the survey, which cost £103,650484, were published by the DTLR in December 2001; and 81 per cent of all respondents said they would be ‘likely’ to vote in a mayoral referendum.485 Yet, as Appendix 4 shows, the average turnout in the 38 actual referendums so far held was only 29.4 per cent (28.4 per cent when the eight referendums held on the same day as a general or local election are eliminated) – less than the 37.5 per cent average turnout in these councils at the previous local election. The Berwick-upon-Tweed, Isle of Wight and Tower Hamlets referendums were held on the same day as a general election, which boosted the average referenda turnout; and their turnouts (63.8, 62.4 and 62.1 per cent respectively) were the highest out of the 38. Ealing and Sunderland had the lowest turnouts (9.8 and 10 per cent respectively). Corby was in the middle of the range (30.9 per cent). Appendix 5 shows that the average turnout in the first 11 US-style mayoral elections held in 2002 was 29.1 per cent, which was less than the national turnout of 35 per cent in the May 2002 local government elections; and below the average turnout of 30 per cent in these 11 areas at the previous council elections. A mayoral by-election was held in North Tyneside on 12 June 2003 after Chris Morgan resigned, which the Conservatives again won: but the turnout fell from 42.3 to 31.4 per cent. The five mayoral elections in 2005 were held on the same day as the general election when the turnout was 61.4 per cent. The average turnout was 48.4 per cent for the five 2005 mayoral elections: ranging from 61.4 per cent in North Tyneside to 24 per cent in Torbay with Stoke-on-Trent in the middle of the range (50.8 per cent). The four 2006 and three 2007 mayoral elections were held on the same day as the council elections; and the mayoral turnouts were similar to the local council election turnouts. The turnout in the three mayoral elections held on 4 June 2009 – when there were no local elections in these areas – as Appendix 5 shows was less than at the previous mayoral election: Doncaster 35.8 per cent (18.7 per cent less than in 2005); Hartlepool 31.9 per cent (19.2 less than in 2005); and North Tyneside 37.9 per cent (13.5 per cent less than in 2005). Conversely, the four mayoral elections in 2010 were held on the same day as the general election when the turnout was 65.1 per cent – four per cent greater than in 2005 (see Table 11.9) – and the turnout in these mayoral elections was higher than at the previous mayoral elections in 2006: by 24.1 per cent in Hackney, 15.9 per cent in Newham, 26.9 per in Lewisham and 26 per cent in Watford (see Appendix 5). The difference increased turnout makes is also illustrated by the differences and similarities between the results for candidates who stood in both years. For example, the Communist Party of Britain’s mayoral candidate in Hackney, Monty Goldman, got 896 votes and two per cent of the vote in 2006 when there was no general election and 2033 votes and 2.3 per cent in 2010 when there was a general election. That is, Goldman’s share of the vote was similar in both years: but his actual vote in 2010 with the higher turnout – 58 per cent compared to 34.3 per cent in 2006 – was more double that in 2006 (see Appendix 5).486 The mayoral system lacks voter support The government – following the defeat of the US-style executive mayor option in the first three referenda (see Appendix 4) – now justified its push for US-style directly elected mayors by selectively citing the results of the Public Attitudes to Directly Elected Mayors December 2001 survey. The basis for the Government’s optimism was that:
Not included in the DTLR’s press release were the findings that:
Nor do the results of the actual mayoral referenda which have been held, as Appendix 4 also shows, confirm the government’s optimism. For no major city has yet endorsed the idea of US-style executive local government mayors: which has been defeated in 25 (two thirds) of the 38 referendums held since June 2001, with 594,148 (47.6 per cent) voting for executive mayors and 655,048 (52.4 per cent) voting against. Most devastating for the government’s optimism, however, is the fact that – despite 75 per cent of respondents favouring executive mayors in the DTLR survey500 – the overall average for the electorate actually voting yes in the 38 referendums held between June 2001 and May 2010 is only 12.9 per cent: ranging from 35.8 per cent of the total electorate voting yes in Tower Hamlets to only 3.5 per cent in Kirklees and Southwark. Hence, as a leading article in The Times – supporting US-style local government executive mayors – concluded: ‘There is nothing to inspire confidence that the concept of elected mayors can now be rescued’.501 Only 32.8 per cent of those who voted in the first 11 mayoral elections in 2002 opted for Labour candidates: and – when non-voters are included – only 9.4 per cent of electors in the 11 areas voted Labour. Hence the 2002 local government mayoral elections were an unmitigated disaster for New Labour whose candidate was successful in only four out of the 11 contests. Independents won five of the mayoral contests; and a Conservative and Liberal Democrat won in each of the other two contests (see Appendix 5). The government – immediately following these disastrous results – at first denied postponing imposed referenda in Birmingham, Bradford and Thurrock: because of fears that the fascist BNP might win. However, a parliamentary early day motion calling for a moratorium on further referenda was also gathering signatures of support at the time. Watford's Liberal Democrat executive mayor Dorothy Thornhill who opposed having such as mayor had already pledged to hold a referendum to scrap her own post before the end of the first term, though she subsequently changed her mind and is still Watford’s directly elected mayor.502 Thus, despite his earlier threats503, Nick Raynsford told the House of Common on 25 June 2002 that he would not force these three councils to hold referendums. The change in policy appeared to mean that councils may now decide against mayoral votes on the basis of consultation only; and have greater scope to ignore the idea. He said: We believe it will be right for each council to make and justify to local people its own judgement on the outcome of any consultation about proposals for a new constitution. In cases where, in our view, having regard to the outcome of the consultation, the judgement a council makes does not appear to be justified, our approach will not be to intervene to direct a referendum.504 However, as shown in Chapter 6, Nick Raynsford’s decision not to impose mayoral referenda was reversed less than two months later. Since June 2009 – following Stoke-on-Trent’s vote to abolish its mayoral system – there are now only 11 local authorities with US-style directly-elected executive mayors (Bedford, Doncaster, Hackney, Hartlepool, Lewisham, Mansfield, Middlesbrough, Newham, North Tyneside, Torbay, and Watford). Though there will be 12 again in October 2010 when Tower Hamlets holds its first mayoral election (see Appendix 4). By May 2013, however, if Doncaster abolishes its mayoral system, there could again be only 11 such mayors. In other words, only two per cent of councils would have such US-style executive mayors. The mayoral voting system is undemocratic The supplementary vote system is used to elect mayors in Britain. This allows voters to record their first and second choice on their ballot papers, though they are not required to make a second choice. The first choice votes are then counted. If a candidate obtains more than 50 per cent, he or she is elected. If not, all the candidates other than the top two are eliminated, and the second choice on the ballot papers for those voting for the eliminated candidates are counted if they are for the top two. Out of the 31 local government US-style mayoral elections held between 2002 and 2010, as Appendix 5 shows, only in six – Hackney (May 2010), Middlesbrough (May 2002 and 2007), Newham (May 2002 and 2010) and Watford (May 2006) – did the successful mayoral candidates get over 50 per cent of the votes cast on the first count. Analysis of the results of the other 25 contests – where a second count was necessary – also shows the absurdity of the supplementary system vote used to elect executive mayors: since voters need to be able to guess which two candidates will be the leaders on the first count. Any voter who is unable to do so has no effect on the second round which actually decides the result. Moreover, in 19 (76 per cent) out of the 25 contests where there was a second count, the number of voters who were denied any say in the second round was greater than the eventual majority of the winning candidate. The most extreme cases were Stoke-on-Trent in October 2002 where the winning margin was 314 votes on the second count and 18,922 (out of the 43,994 who voted) were disenfranchised; and Doncaster in June 2009 where the winning margin was 354 votes on the second count and 24,902 (out of the 75,236 who voted) were disenfranchised. Hence, as Colin Rallings et al point out, although more expensive than the supplementary vote system, a second or ‘runoff’ election system would at least ensure that voters knew which candidates were left after the first ballot before they cast their vote in the second round.505 The fairest and most consistent solution, however, would be to use the single transferable vote system (STV) for all elections: mayoral (until the system is abolished); local – as in Scotland’s council elections since May 2007 and in nine New Zealand local authorities for local and mayoral elections (see Appendix 7); Westminster; Europe; devolved bodies; and the Greater London Authority. For, as Professor Vernon Bogdanor argues, STV produces ‘much more genuinely representative’ results and ‘enables voters to vote across parties if they so wish, and to discriminate amongst members of their favoured party’.506 STV also has a history of support within the labour movement. For example, STV was proposed to the Speaker’s conference on electoral reform by Communist MP Willie Gallacher in 1944.507 Multi-member seats with STV would also improve the prospects of left-wing electoral alliances such as No2EU-Yes to Democracy (see Chapter 14). Mayors cannot be removed US-style executive mayors can only be removed if there is evidence of corruption or other law breaking. Whereas most mayoral systems in other countries, provide for removal either by a vote of the council – a kind of impeachment - or through a popular vote following a petition. For example, in Germany until the early 1990s only two Länder – located in the former American Occupation Zone – had directly elected mayors. Länder in the British Occupation Zone had the committee system. Following unification directly elected mayors were introduced in most German local authorities. Most have a recall procedure; and the decision to start it lies solely with the local council except in three Länder (two in the former East Germany) where the local population have the right to initiate the recall procedure. In Brandenburg 10 per cent of full-time directly elected mayors have lost their positions due to recall referendums. Moreover, as Hellmut Wollmann notes, the recall right ‘led the local councils to be more attentive and responsive to local debates and minority concerns.’508 Yet New Labour decided no such provisions were necessary here. As Chris Game points out: In a delightfully Yes Minister form of argument it claimed a recall mechanism would make mayors ‘unique among those in the UK directly elected to office in that they could be replaced, despite their democratic mandate, by actions of either their electorate or others’. This is the whole point of accountability through recall. Yet in Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey style the Government argued that: ‘Really unpopular mayors...especially if pressured by party or public opinion may choose to resign.’ Just like unpopular or incompetent ministers do, presumably.509 Little wonder then that one of the most emphatic findings of the wide-ranging enquiry published by Birmingham’s democracy commission in 2000 was that, while many electors were attracted to the principle of electing a mayor, they became sceptical on learning that there would be no way of removing one who was incompetent and/or undemocratic. Thus, as Game in 2001 concluded: ‘If ministers really want to break their own party’s 17-year hold’ on Birmingham’s local government, ‘their refusal to consider a mayoral recall mechanism might just achieve it’.510 In the event – despite a campaign launched by Birmingham’s leading evening newspaper, which printed petition forms each evening over a prolonged period, the petition for a mayoral referendum fell far short of the required five per cent511 – Labour still lost control of the council in 2004. Moreover, under the existing legislation, as shown above, voters in Doncaster who voted for such a referendum in February 2007 will have to wait until 2012 to vote on whether or not to abolish their executive mayoral system. Conversely, as shown below, Stoke-on-Trent moved to a new form of governance in June 2009, as their unique arrangements of a council manager and a US-style directly-elected mayor no longer exists as an option under the 2007 Act. Following the council opting for the elected leader and cabinet system on 11 September 2008 there was a majority ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum held on 23 October 2008.512 However, the recall provisions for directly-elected German mayors, have not prevented rampant privatisation in Germany. For, as Wolmann also warned in 2002, the ‘strategy to “outsource” and “privatise” the provision of public services and public facilities’ was likely ‘to whittle away the…scope of politically decided local issues, thus “de-politicising” the local area and “hollowing out” the recent advances in local democracy’.513 By 2008, moreover, policies introduced by the federal and Länder governments had deprived local authorities of some key traditional responsibilities, particularly in social assistance, long term care and labour market....under the impact of…"marketisation" and (EU-promoted) "deregulation", the provision of social services as well as the production and supply of public utilities (Daseinsvorsorge) have been undergoing further outsourcing, "corporatisation" and privatisation with the expansion of (single-purpose) actor networks of the governance sort—outside and beyond traditional local government.514 And ‘the process of hiving-off and “corporatisation” has been extended to an ever wider range of local government functions and activities, including cultural and recreational facilities, but also internal administrative operations, such as planning, accounting, data-processing etc. These hived-off functions institutionalised in organisationally and financially autonomous "holdings" (Beteiligungen) have become quite numerous….now about half of all local government personnel are employed in such "corporatised" structures outside the core municipal administration.515 The disastrous Stoke-on-Trent experience Stoke-on-Trent, as previously noted, was unique in opting for the US-style executive mayor and council manager model; and the experience was so disastrous that the government had to set up a Governance Commission. The Stoke experience also explains why the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 Act abolished the mayor-manager model option. The Stoke-on-Trent Governance Commission – set up by John Healey, ex-Local Government Minister, in October 2007 – reported in May 2008.516 In the mid-1990s the Labour Party held all 60 seats on the council and the three local MPs had five-figure majorities. Prior to the 1 May 2008 elections there were 60 members covering 20 wards with the Labour party having 23 members, the City Independent group 11 members, the Conservative and Independent Alliance 9 members, the Potteries Alliance 4 members, the fascist BNP 6 members, and the Liberal Democrats 4 members. There were also two non- aligned members and one Liberal Democrat Libertarian. In the May 2008 local elections the Labour Party won just four of the 20 seats up for election, leaving it with only 16 city councillors plus the US-style directly elected mayor (they now have only 14 councillors). The City Independents had 15 (now 16), the BNP 9, the Conservative and Independent Alliance 9 (now 7), the Liberal Democrats five, the Potteries Alliance two; and there were three non-aligned group councillors and one Libertarian councillor. There is also another non-aligned councillor now. The fascist BNP beat Labour in eight of the ten seats they both contested. Labour averaged 25 per cent across the city, while the fascist BNP averaged 24 per cent in the wards it fought. There are now two wards where the fascist BNP holds all three seats, though its performance overall was overshadowed by the strong vote for the City Independents, who gained six seats. ‘Thus fragmentation of the traditional political parties has continued’, as the Commission noted, ‘and it appears to be exacerbated by the willingness of individual councillors to “party hop” to an extent which is uncommon in most other local authorities’.517 ‘The breakdown of the traditional party structures into the current fragmented party Council and the loss of faith in the current Council to move the city forward have led to rising extremism in the city’.518 The Commission also found that ‘that currently 51 out of 60 councillors received Special Responsibility Allowances, significantly above normally recommended levels’;519 and, as Table 7.1 shows, Stoke had the highest paid directly-elected mayor. The evidence the Commission received ‘almost universally suggested that local people and local communities felt disengaged from the Council…people did not understand how decisions were made or where decisions were coming from…people felt disempowered and disenfranchised, and did not know how to get involved’.520 In addition the Commission found that ‘significant business and ‘external’ communities support the mayor and cabinet model’.521 For example, The North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry – which comprises over 1,000 member firms, the majority of which are companies in manufacturing, service industries and the professions with over 75,000 employees – used similar arguments to Capita in favour of US-style executive mayors.522 Hence local employers and the fascist BNP were the main supporters of such mayors.523 Whereas others commented that the mayoral model “had been so tarnished during the last few years it would be extremely difficult to make it work”.524 The Commission ‘also received evidence supporting an enhanced committee system which would involve all councillors but this did not meet the requirement of an executive model of leadership (that is, a separation of executive powers and scrutiny) required under the 2000 Act to enable it to be considered as an acceptable alternative option’.525 For example, from “Democracy4Stoke” (D4S) established in February 2002 as ‘a broad coalition against the idea’ of a US-style executive mayor: which consisted of local politicians from all four of the political groups on the City Council, several trades unions (including N. Staffs TUC – which was campaigning ‘against’ in Newcastle under-Lyme as well), other local organisations and bodies plus a very wide cross-section of individuals…The original spokesperson was a Lib Dem councillor, Ian Openshaw and a former Labour councillor, Mick Williams, acted as treasurer. Financial support came from various sympathetic sources which enabled the group to stage publicity events in the run-up to the referendum. These were intended to draw citizens’ attention to the importance of understanding the issues and participating in the vote.526 D4S was re-launched in July 2006: The City Council had by then seen an increase in political groups to eight, and it is a measure of the cross party nature of D4S that its members included people from five of these and its spokespersons included one Labour, one Lib Dem and one Tory councillor. A noncouncillor acted as Convenor….In the last eight weeks of 2006 D4S mounted its own petition to call for a referendum and persuaded over 10,000 people to sign it... The petition campaign ran concurrently with an examination of what system would be the best, and most acceptable to the citizens, for Stoke. A working party met several times and reported back to the full group that an “Enhanced Committee” system was preferred….Democracy4Stoke would like the present system of elected mayor and council manager abolished and replaced by a decision-making committee system...527 Hence, when the Governance Commission was set up in May 2007, D4S already had a sophisticated critique of both US-style executive mayors and all other aspects of New Labour’s neo-liberal ‘local governance’ project.528 Their alternative policies based on the enhanced committee system were also similar to those of the former Labour Campaign for Open Local Government, which its key activists prior to 2006 had all supported. Stoke-on-Trent moved to a new form of governance in June 2009, as their unique arrangements of a council manager and a US-style directly-elected mayor adopted after the Local Government Act 2000 no longer existed as an option following the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Meanwhile, according to legal advice received by the council, a referendum had to be held where the council’s preferred option was either of the two models available – directly-elected mayor and cabinet or council elected leader and cabinet. Moreover, if the council opted for the directly-elected mayor and cabinet model and there was a ‘No’ vote at a referendum, the legal advice was that the fall back position would also be a directly-elected mayor and cabinet model. Similarly, if the council opted for a leader elected by the council and there was a ‘No’ vote at a referendum, the fallback position would also be a directly-elected mayor and cabinet.529 Thus, as the Chief Executive noted in this case the outcome of a referendum on a Mayoral model, regardless of the votes of the people of Stoke-on-Trent would, according to the advice that has been received, see the Mayoral model introduced in any event. The law, as so interpreted, produces a surprising result (that whatever the outcome of a referendum, only one model of governance can be adopted – Mayor and Cabinet).530 Moreover, as the Governance Commission had also emphasised, Robert Lowe style “safeguards against democracy” precluded D4S’s third option of the enhanced committee system. The council opted for the council elected leader and cabinet system on 11 September 2008531 – following a consultation which found that the majority preferred this system. The numbers of people expressing a preference was 5,304 from a total of 5,525 returns. These showed the following preferences: Elected Mayor and Cabinet 1,554 (28 per cent) Leader and Cabinet 3,750 (68 per cent).532 Conversely, a representative sample survey of 500 adult residents carried out over the period 11-14 August 2008 by Ipsos MORI North found 57 per cent supported a directly-elected mayor and only 30 per preferred a council leader elected by the council.533 The referendum was held on 23 October 2008 and the vote was 21,231 (59.3 per cent) for a leader and cabinet; and 14, 592 (40.7 per cent) for a US-style directly-elected mayor and cabinet. The turnout was 19.2 per cent compared to 30.9 per cent at the previous local election; and only 7.8 per cent of the electorate voted for a US-style directly-elected mayor (see Appendix 5). The leader and cabinet system was therefore introduced in June 2009. This decision – spearheaded by D4S, as chair of Save the Labour Party and member of Labour's National Executive Committee Peter Kenyon subsequently observed – ‘was not accepted magnanimously by either the Labour Government or the party machine’.534 For example, as D4S Convenor Mick Williams observed in September 2008: However, today's truth is that Labour is being driven to extinction by control freakery and is being aided in this by unelected paid officials at national and regional level. The latest example of this is a "Protocol for Conduct" sent to all Stoke-on-Trent Labour Party members who may wish to be involved in the upcoming referendum. This lays down instructions and promises disciplinary action against any member who breaches it.535 Moreover, Mick Williams commenting on the resignation from D4S in April 2009 of Councillor Mike Barnes – to become Leader of the Labour Group on Stoke-on-Trent Council though he is now a non-aligned councillor – thinks he may have been ‘leaned on’ by full-time Labour Party officials.536 The Labour Group has been fragmented over the last few years with several members leaving and then returning and there being no less than three Leaders in a four-month period – the latest (Mohammed Pervez) having been deputy elected mayor until June 2009 when the system changed to Leader and Cabinet. Conversely, if voters had opted for the US-style directly elected mayor, there would have been the appalling prospect of the fascist BNP seriously challenging for mayor in 2009. In the first mayoral election in 2002, as Appendix 6 shows, the fascist BNP took 18.7 per cent of the vote, missing out on going through to the second round by only 1,500 votes. In 2005 the fascist BNP polled 19 per cent, which was a remarkable achievement considering that the election was on the same day as the general election. Since then, as Nick Lowles writing in Searchlight warned: …support for the BNP has grown. Over the past three years it has averaged between 24 per cent and 28 per cent in the wards the party has contested and the BNP has now moved out of its previous Stoke-on-Trent South heartland into other parts of the city.537 A vote in excess of 20 per cent, if Stoke had had a US-style directly-elected mayoral election in May 2009, was likely to have taken the BNP into the second round, in which the second preferences of the defeated candidates are distributed. Given the strong anti-Labour feelings in the city a run-off between Labour and the BNP might well have seen the fascist party gain another high-profile victory: which is why they are such strong supporters of US-style directly-elected mayors.538 The arrest on suspicion of corruption of Councillor Roger Ibbs (who resigned as leader of the Conservative and Independent Alliance group and from membership of the Executive and Members’ Board and relinquished his responsibilities as the Children and Young People's portfolio holder) and Stoke’s now former New Labour Mayor and ex-Militant supporter Mark Meredith – then the highest paid directly-elected mayor (see Table 7.1) – a week later on 8 March 2009 marked a new low in the troubled recent history of the city's local authority. Mayor Meredith, according to the BBC’s West Midlands Politics Show on 12 March 2009, ‘agreed to stand down from most of his duties’ while a police investigation was conducted.539 Staffordshire Police – following their investigation – announced on 8 July 2009 that ex-mayor Mark Meredith, Councillor Ibbs, and millionaire businessman Mo Chaudry would not face criminal charges.540 Subsequently, in November 2009, correspondence between Mo Chaudry, senior politicians (including Mark Meredith) and officers (including the former Council Manager Steve Robinson who is now chief executive of Cheshire West and Chester Council) revealed that they had secretly agreed to shut the Dimensions Leisure Centre splash pool in January 2008. Mo Chaudry would have been paid about £100,000 a year to offer cut-price entry at Waterworld for Dimensions swimmers after the splash pool was closed by the council; and was also offered £50,000 to provide free child swimming sessions.541 Meanwhile on 8 May 2009 John Healey (the former Local Government Minister) had written to the council indicating that he was ‘minded to intervene to make an order under section 86 of the Local Government Act 2000 specifying a scheme of whole council elections for Stoke-on-Trent City council from 2011', no elections in 2010, fewer councillors and special responsibility allowances: because the council had ‘failed to progress’ the Governance Commission’s key recommendations. John Healey also announced ‘the appointment of a new private sector Chair to push forward essential economic development and regeneration projects’ to replace the Mayor.542 Opposition to government intervention and the move to all out elections are therefore now the main priorities for D4S: which is impeded by the fact that the Transition Board’s website contains no minutes after the first three meetings - despite there being three further – very significant meetings – since then. There are only two press releases listed, no details of composition of the Board – despite there being four additions on 8th May – and the dates and venues of future meetings has (in bold) the strict reminder that none of these meetings are open to the public.543
D4S Convenor Mick Williams – following a dispute between Stoke Central CLP and the new-look ‘City Labour Party’ when a delegate from the Co-op Party, and Stoke Central’s nominee for the Chair – was refused admission to the June AGM. This occurred despite him having represented the Co-op Party for almost 20 years. The Regional Director, Ian Reilly, ruled that his nomination was invalid since it did not conform to the new procedure. Stoke Central delegates walked out in solidarity and demanded a re-run of the AGM. This was refused so they have not attended since. Promises by a senior official (Eric Wilson) and an NEC member (Mike Griffiths) failed to resolve the deadlocked situation and several long-serving former councillors were then rejected by ‘interview and assessment teams’ drafted in from outside the area. The list of ‘rejectees’ includes the CLP Secretary (Gary Elsby) , a former Labour Group Leader (Barry Stockley), a former County Council Chief Whip (Terry Crowe) and Mick Williams himself who is former councillor. This ‘Old’ Labour cull in Stoke has attracted the thanks of prominent BNP people, including Nick Griffin, for giving them a ‘clear run’. It is widely believed that the Regional Office is using the selection procedure to exact revenge on D4S and its supporters for the result of last October’s referendum, when they successfully campaigned to abolish the directly elected mayoral system. The Boundaries Committee is also currently examining the Council with recommendations of a reduction in councillors from 60 to 45 and an increase in wards from 20 to 45; and whole council elections are being imposed from 2011 despite very many local objections.545 Compulsory US-style directly elected local government mayors are back on the New Labour and Con-Dem coalition government agendas In April 2008, Michael Kenny (Professor of politics at the University of Sheffield) and Guy Lodge (Head of the democracy team at the Institute Public Policy Research) – despite the fact that less than three per cent of English councils have opted for US-style directly elected mayors – urged the government to impose them in every major town and city in England. Kenny and Lodge’s definition of urban authorities includes all unitary councils and metropolitan district councils (82 in total); and they think non-metropolitan district councils adjoining such urban centres, for instance towns such as Oxford, should also be included. Local electorates, under their proposals, would then be given the right after four years to hold a referendum to abolish the role should the office of mayor prove unpopular. This could be triggered either by a two-thirds majority vote of councillors, or a petition supported by three per cent of the local electorate.546 In June 2008, the New Local Government Network and the Institute for Public Policy Research published Directly Elected, Direct Results: Reflections on the mayoral model in the UK with contributions by Chris Leslie, Director of NLGN and Guy Lodge; Secretary of State for Communities, Hazel Blears; Lucy de Groot and Judi Billing from the Improvement and Development Agency; Sir Steve Bullock, New Labour Mayor of Lewisham; Stuart Drummond, Mayor of Hartlepool; Sir Robin Wales, New Labour Mayor of Newham; Jules Pipe, New Labour Mayor of Hackney and Tony Eggington, Mayor of Mansfield. There were no contributions from Doncaster and Stoke-on Trent, however. The essay by Leslie and Lodge bizarrely – given the massive evidence on the dangers of the concentration of power in the hands of one person demonstrated above – claims that: Yüklə 5,87 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|