Mayors – how do they improve things?

We can vote for a new Mayor in our area in the May elections – to cover Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. But I can’t help feeling they just bring another layer of needless bureaucracy and expense. I’m more for slimming down local government not adding to it.

So those who have a Mayor – have they brought anything more in the way of improvement than a County Council would do?

Well, in Teeside it brought a lot more wealth and success to the area. Ok, just a couple of local businessman. Allegedly.

I think it helps on transport. It allows more joined up thinking across a bigger geography and bus routes though ultimately there’s still a border to work up to. It also is currently the only way you can franchise a bus network as this is only permitted under a mayoral combined authority.

There is also a case for better devolution of funding through a mayor, but the total amount of funding doesn’t change so it’s not as if there’s more money, you just get the opportunity to decide what your priorities are.

But they do add a layer of bureaucracy and with that cost.

Vote for me* and you will see the miracles I work**

*Other candidates are available

**Only around the Southampton and Hampshire area though

In Bristol, we’ve had an elected mayor since 2012.  There have been two. Last year, the public voted to get rid of the position.

I’m not entirely sure what has been achieved.  The first mayor had some traffic-free Sundays in the city centre, which were fun, and he kicked off plans for a major arena next to the train station. This was controversial because there was no real plan for parking.

The second mayor heard the complaints about the arena, and moved it to the outskirts of the city. This was controversial because there’s no public transport, and work already done in the centre has now lain dormant for years.  He also banned certain journalists from his press conferences because he didn’t like the cut of their jib.

After next month, we will have neither a mayor nor an arena. Which is much the same as it was 12 years ago.

They could be used to reduce levels of bureaucracy

Without Mayor – People > Local Councillor > Local Counsel Committee > Central Council Committee = Decision

With Mayor – People > Local Councillor > Local Counsel Committee > Mayor’s Committee = Decision

Without the Mayor each council within the Mayors remit replicates the same structure with each Council committee stuffed with the great and the good. Replace 10 committees of 10 people with 1 committee of 10 people and you have remove 90 people from the process

You get devolved powers so instead of everything being put forward to Government, the Mayor has the powers to just do “it” (whatever”it” might be) directly. Generally a good thing for public transport in particular plus you tend to get wider regional benefits – instead of “thing” being done slightly differently by various different city and county councils, you get “thing” done with a wider regional view.

Also helps prevent the bulk of the funding going to already well off towns and cities leaving the environs crying out for more; it tends to spread investment around a bit more.

Plus you get more clout in Westminster as a Mayoral Authority cos the Mayor is speaking for more people.

#anybodybutbradley

I think the idea is that they fail to deliver and then blame Westminster.

In the same area as OP….

Only candidate we’ve heard from is the (carefully hidden in the leaflet) Tory. I don’t want to vote for him cos he’s a Tory, came across as a right cocky arse as an MP and just seems really good at promoting himself.

But we’ve had a leaflet, targeted mailshots, and he’s been to our village and filmed a little promo clip that was well received on local FB groups, all about local issues and helping local people.

Until yesterday I didn’t even know that Labour, Lib Dems, Green and Reform had candidates. Seen or heard nothing. Was on local news coverage.

So do I vote for a Tory whose made an effort, or A N Other who has made zero effort?

(Kind of a rhetorical question, but wtf?)

I think the idea was that it would be easier for New Labour/Tony Blair to have political control of large metropolitan areas such as London and Liverpool. With a directly elected mayor it was very easy for Tony Blair to control who the candidates would be. Although they balls up the first London Mayoral election with New Labour’s determination to stop Ken Livingstone.

Keir Starmer is currently still using the power it bestowed on party leaders to his advantage.

It puts a lot of power into the hands of one person rather than a committee which is quite possibly dangerous and in the case our our mayor, Lord Houchen, is so keen to keep everything one sided that he blocks anyone who questions him on his very glossy social media, has been reported to have been fairly loose with procurement rules by a government report, has sold off 90% of the old steel works site that had hundreds of millions of public money spent cleaning up making a few local business men a stack of cash and as all the development money is channelled through the mayors office holds the completely skint councils to ransom if they want anything doing.

He is now bidding for re-election by among other things promising to remove about the only North to South cycle path in Middlesbrough that he opened having used mayoral fund a couple of years ago to install it.

Worst of all is that he has a good chance of getting back in!

Apart from the fact that encourages regional rather than narrow council area thinking and brings much needed investment money I am not a fan of the system. The previous county council over the district councils worked more effectively until that went and all councils got defunded.

PS I think I needed that rant. Sorry.