Why would you say No?

I’m disappointed. Not with the local election results, because I always figured Labour would do well. Not with the London results because I always knew – and hoped – that Boris would win, though a higher position for Siobhan Benita would have been nice.

No. I’m disappointed beyond belief with Birmingham, Bradford, Coventry, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield. They were all presented with the opportunity to say yes to the idea of having a directly elected mayor and they all said no. The only place to say yes to the idea was Bristol. I would have thought that Birmingham at least would have said yes to it.

It’s the AV vote all over again. There was not enough information given to the electorate about how it would work. There was too much noise from the no camp and not enough from the yes camp. People were not willing to embrace change. “The system works right now,” people cried, “Why should we change it?” Or more often, “Why should we vote for more money grabbing, arrogant politicians?”

Except that it doesn’t have to be like that. Of the three places outside of London that have now elected mayors, both Salford and Liverpool have chosen former councillors, who already know the city they will now govern and how it works. And Doncaster’s mayor is a member of the small English Democrat party and therefore can’t be said to be part of big party politics. There would be plenty of opportunities for people who understand their cities to become mayors, if only the opportunity was available.

Those of us who believe in greater local government are currently smacking our heads into the wall. You only have to look at first Ken and now Boris in London, or across the pond to guys like Rham Emmanuel in Chicago, Michael Bloomberg in New York and Corey Booker in Newark, to see that elected mayors can and do work. They work for two main reasons.

Firstly, a mayor provides a level of visible accountability, so that people know who is in charge. Ask anyone you like who the head of their local council is. They won’t know. The only reason I know is because I’m a massive politics nerd. However, if there is a mayor then the electors all know who is responsible for running their city and they can contact that individual with their queries, their problems or their complaints.

Secondly, and most importantly, a mayor provides a figurehead, someone a city can unite behind during times of both triumph and tragedy. Rudy Giuliani was that for New York after 9/11 and, whatever you think of him personally and politically, Ken Livingstone was that for London after 7/7. He provided a face and a voice, vocalising the fears and feelings of millions of Londoners in a way that the Prime Minister couldn’t. The PM had to speak for the whole country. But Ken spoke for London.

Liverpool and Salford now have mayors. Bristol will have one shortly. Hopefully they will show the UK’s other cities that the post can work. Then maybe the next time the idea is suggested, there will be a more positive response.