This Government, the last one and the one before it have all enthusiastically backed the idea of creating strong local leaders by creating mayors along the French or US models. After last week’s wrangling between the Government and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham over compensation for lockdowns, ministers might be wondering whether they have uncorked a genie and want to shove it back in the bottle. It is a testing time for devolution.
Mayor Burnham, a former health secretary in the last Labour government, left national politics to become mayor of the new combined authority in 2017. At the same time mayors were elected in other city regions – Cambridgeshire, Liverpool, Tees Valley, West of England and West Midlands – while South Yorkshire followed in 2018 and North of the Tyne in 2019. They joined an earlier wave of directly elected city mayors in 2012 when the Conservative-led coalition under David Cameron also enthusiastically promoted the idea. At a Downing Street press conference that spring, before a wave of referendums on 3 May, speakers included Lord Heseltine and Boris Johnson, then London’s mayor.
The public however was less interested in the concept. Although there were referendums on low turnouts for new mayors in Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield, in the end only Bristol voted yes. Its new independent mayor, the red-trousered architect George Ferguson, became something of a mayoral favourite for the Government until his electoral defeat in 2016. In addition, Doncaster voted to retain its mayoral system while Liverpool, Leicester and Salford also opted for mayors. These in turn followed an earlier wave of mayors in 2001 under the 1997-2010 Labour governments, mostly in smaller towns and cities like Bedford, Hartlepool and Watford plus Lewisham and Newham LBCs in the capital.
The powerful mayors however have emerged with the city regions. What was striking about last week’s impromptu open-air press conferences by Burnham was that even though his powers are limited he was still put forward as the face of Greater Manchester. The leader who has far more powers – not to mention longevity – Manchester City Council’s Sir Richard Leese, was by him, but to one side. But then this is precisely why governments like the concept of directly-elected mayors: they feel mayors provide a focus especially for inward investors. Mayors also of course provide a power base, usually for the opposition.
Having picked a fight with Mayor Burnham and squared up for possible scraps with mayors in Liverpool and Sheffield (which in the end did not materialise), the Government then turned to London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan. In an extraordinarily clumsy intervention transport secretary Grant Shapps told the mayor that unless he agreed to fare rises, council tax increases for all Londoners and an extension to the congestion charge, the Government would nationalise near-bankrupt Transport for London (TfL).
Sadiq Khan, who oversees a budget of £17bn, has rejected its demands, not least because the Government is so far bankrolling national rail operators and because TfL has been especially hit because of the huge collapse in commuting. He is likely to have a majority of Londoners behind him when the postponed mayoral elections come up next May.
The party political wrangle between Downing Street and Mayor Burnham has been settled for the moment although Number 10 expressed its displeasure by dispersing its promised £60m for local businesses hit by the tier three lockdown via local authorities in the city region. A day later the chancellor announced more generous settlements for employees and businesses hit by lockdowns. Number 10 will not be inclined to give more publicity to local leaders like Mayor Burnham. Whether the devolution bandwagon will now roll into a siding remains an open question.