Heseltine's plan for a renaissance in city governance

The hitherto low-key Cities Taskforce chaired by Lord Heseltine has revealed it is going in a very localist direction, recommending the party builds on Labour's introduction of directly-elected mayors and town hall cabinets by establishing American-style mayors in all cities (something he advocated after resigning in the 80s). They would have power over government services such as transport, the emergency services and welfare.

In what they've dubbed a transfer of power from "quangocrats to democrats", the mayors would be accountable to local councillors and voters. Funding for "government puppets" like RDAs and LSCs would be diverted to city government. One of the main reasons for having a mayor's office is that it can pull together the multitude of different regeneration funding streams. Heseltine said:

"These radical proposals build on the hard experience of the 1980s and 90s and meet many of the criticisms made of present government policy by their own advisors. I hope they will commend themselves to a future Conservative government. I believe they could herald a broad renaissance on English city governance.

10am update: The report can be downloaded here. It also includes the idea of giving city governments the power and their own credit rating to issue bonds and borrow on the open market.

Deputy Editor

Comments

[malcolm]

Not sure about this and will need to see the detail. My initial thought is that I don't want to see yet more professional politicians created who are paid from the public purse.
I'm not sure about the success or otherwise of the mayors that have been created outside London. In London however I think Livingstone has been a complete waste of money. That is not a party political point as I think the GLA has been a waste of space too. Can anyone really point to a single piece of evidence that London is in any way better governed in the last 10 years?
Why could Heseltine simply not transfer these powers to local councils therefore saving significant amounts of money?

[NigelC]

and who governs the countryside?

[tapestry]

Funny how Heseltine's going the same way as Ken Clark. They stopped Maggie saving us from the biggest quango of them all, the EU - because they didn't have her foresight that the EU was going to be the ends of democracy in Britain.

Now they're both going round moaning that he have no democracy any more.

As some one wrote, it's getting close to the Alec Guinness moment at the end of the Bridge Over The River Kwai. 'Oh My God, What Have We Done' from Heseltine and Clark is unison.

[Bradford]

Does Heseltine get his ideas from Blair ?

The Government is making Leeds City Region the centre of its new domain and incorporating Bradford, Wakefield, York and Harrogate into a new Metroplex.

Funny why Hesletine talks of the Us with elected mayors - Germany has them too - Buergermeister - both Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt started out that way

[Curly]

I'd be interested in hearing evidence from someone in Middlesbrough or North Tyneside, and to hear of their experiences of an executive controlled by an elected Mayor. Do they think that the ability to raise funds on the open market might enhance the position of the elected Mayor, add to or detract from the council tax payers worries?

[Simon Denis]

As Malcolm observes they should simply give power back to the local councils; power to decide whether or not they offer selective education, for example, or whether they bother to collect refuse more than once a year. What Lord Heseltine offers is more snouts-in-the-trough: a posse of time-serving celebrity centrists pontificating a public expense. It is this sort of thing which leads to corruption - witness the examples of Italy, France and Germany. Where politicians are untalented, lacking in conviction and protected from public disapprobation, till-dipping thrives. Was it not Chancellor Kohl in a carpark with a suitcase full of dosh? Behind corruption lurks injustice, of course and the further erosion of liberty - but I'm not sure that many people actually care about liberty or anything very much.

[John]

As someone who believes in democracy I applaud any initiative which increases democratic accountability and localism.

However, I also agree with those who have pointed out that such powers can be abused. As we have seen over the last ten years with incidents scaling from quad-bikes to Cash-for-peerages there is already a problem and there is already a need for an independent body to guard against the abuses of politicians.

This report fails to provide the necessary safeguards for the electorate and the suggestion that we should accept that a two thirds majority in assembly is required to stop a Mayoral initiative is derisory. Mayors and assemblies will always be influenced by party interests.

What is wrong with having a straight majority to block initiatives?

What is wrong with having an independent body to monitor the behaviour of these elected mayors and the assemblies?

In fact, what is wrong with having a truly independent body to safeguard the public and our constitutional monarchy against the abuses of professional politicians at all levels?

If our party really believes in open democracy perhaps they should start thinking along these lines instead?

Perhaps if they did there would be less general cynicism about politicians and even more members and more trust for the party?

[spagbob]

i'm not sure about heseltine himself, but here i congratulate him - yes! yes! yes! thats exactly where we should be heading, please accept his ideas cameron!

[Dave Wilson]

More EU foisted on us - 'city regions' they call them.

[Traditional Tory]

recommending the party builds on Labour's introduction of directly-elected mayors and town hall cabinets by establishing American-style mayors in all cities

A miserable failure in Bedford and, I understand, elsewhere.

It's an open invitation to every egomaniac in town with time on his hands.

[RedSam]

Heseltine has been advocating reform of Local Government since the 1960s, you ignorant, Europhobic fools...

[Richard]

I recall Hesiltine "banging on" about this more than 20 years ago. Is there anything significantly different from what he was proposing then? If not, then what does this do not only to "modernise" policy but also show that the party has changed?

[Matt Wright]

We need to think from basic principles. No system is perfect but are many decisions better made as close to the people as possible? On balance I think, yes but not all. This is not rocket science, we need to identify which decisions are best made at what level. When we've done that we alter the tiers of Govt suit. This will see more power returning to local Govt and to people themselves. In turn this will allow Westminster to focus properly on what matters at their level and to do their job properly unhindered by all the other dross.

Matt

[Ed]

The reason the Mayor and GLA doesn't seem to make much difference is because 1) it doesn't have enough power 2) until it has enough power London will keep electing publicity junkie Mr Livingstone

[TomTom]

we need to identify which decisions are best made at what level. When we've done that we alter the tiers of Govt suit.

WE ? Ah top-down again. The Party will decide what the voter may vote on.

Why not reverse the process and draw up a restricted catalogue of powers for Westminster - after all it is EU policy to by-pass Westminster with Government of the Euro-Regions........

Chartered Boroughs PAID Parliament in the 19th Century to pass bills granting them Chartered Status - how about refunding those £20.000 fees from the 1840s now that Whitehall runs them all as ciphers ?

[David Belchamber]

Matt @ 21.56:

"We need to think from basic principles. No system is perfect but are many decisions better made as close to the people as possible? On balance I think, yes but not all".

I hope that all the policy groups are thinking things through from basic principles but more likely they are just trying to adapt existing models.

"Subsidiarity" is a particularly ugly word but it is a valuable concept.

As Simon Denis pointed out @ 12.38:

"As Malcolm observes they should simply give power back to the local councils; power to decide whether or not they offer selective education, for example, or whether they bother to collect refuse more than once a year".

I have argued before that such councils should be composed solely of independent councillors, stripped of all party affiliations, under a mayor with the sort of far reaching powers being discussed.

[Jason]

Traditional Tory @17.18

"A miserable failure in Bedford and, I understand, elsewhere."

Do you live in Bedford, because i do and having a Mayor seems to have been quite effective. Progress has started to be made with developments like the Nirah project coming to Bedford, of which the Mayor had a leading role in.

[james cullis]

mayors will have to much power what will the councils role be? the structure of London is that the GLA has NO POWER
this is a bad idea due to it taking away powersn from the Council
DC we need evidence that the councils powers will not be reduced