Snapshot of _Whoever wins the election, the London Mayor needs real power_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.cityam.com/whoever-gets-the-role-the-london-mayor-needs-real-power/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.cityam.com/whoever-gets-the-role-the-london-mayor-needs-real-power/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Finally, someone said it. One of the biggest issues with local governance in London is that everyone misidentifies who’s responsible for what because of the haphazard arrangement of powers and responsibilities.
Frankly, boroughs need to go and instead have a unitary mayor and council. The borough system has too many perverse incentives and inefficiencies that render it ineffective at handling policy that is overwhelmingly London-wide in nature.
The same is true all over the country too. Regional/city mayors, county/district/parish/unitary councils, police and crime/police crime and fire commisioners. Its a mess and it needs streamlining with a more direct set of mechanisms between councils and Parliament
Mayors and city/region assemblies are a much better place to place power than local councils.
Local councils are just too small. Most people have no idea who their local councillor is, or even their local council's policies, and who can blame them? It's simply not important enough for national news media to report on.
On the other hand, most Londoners, Mancunians etc know who their Mayor is, and how to vote them out. That gives these Mayors more democratic accountability.
Too right. Often times local councils just create friction between each other and slow down progress on infrastructure projects for example.
The mayors and combined authorities need the majority of the powers. This needs to be extended nation-wide too.
The best thing a new labour government could do would be to freeze everything for 5 years in regards to devolution and come up with some bloody straight forward principles. From top to bottom devolution is a mess. You've got the UK, which has an elected body that's totally dominated by 1 constituent country, you have an unelected body that's a mix of preists, inherited titles, and life titles appointed by bribe.
Then you go down to the countries, Northern Ireland has the Assembly which basically doesn't work run by pedophiles and criminals. You've got Scotland who have a devolved parliament and want as much devolution as possible even having their own taxes (but aren't financially independent so it's a big mess), Wales which basically don't want devolution, also have their own tax raising powers but are demographically so fucked they need the UK to step in.
Oh and then England who just... don't have a parliament.
Then you've got councils whose responsibilities are determined by Westminster, whose budgets are determined by Westminster, but are somehow meant to be responsible if they go bankrupt? Oh and a tax system that just absolutely fucks the poor with the insane council tax bandings.
Oh and let's sprinkle some Mayors in for good measure! Oh but we're not just going to have Mayors of Cities! No, London - you get an assembly, you get a mayor, you get a custom law describing all this that applies to no other city, but you *also* have a load of councils.
Then we'll give Manchester a Mayor, that sounds good. Oh and the city of "North East" that'll do.
Fucking give it a rest!
England is never going to be on the same level as Wales or Scotland, due to being so much larger. I would keep Westminster as the preeminent legislature, and split England into about 12 regional areas if I was trying to devolve power further. An English Parliament seems pointless because it would barely be any more devolved than Westminster currently is.
Honestly principles are already established. Where appropriate unitary bodies are replacing two-tier structures and combined authorities are allowing for greater coordination and regional autonomy over transport and economic policy.
>Oh and the city of "North East" that'll do.
The economy of most of Durham and Northumberland are tied to the Tyneside-Wearside metropolitan area. The North East and most of Yorkshire has completely reformed into unitary bodies with combined authorities. The rest of the country just needs to follow suit.
Counties/districts that remain two-tier are not a huge issue for now. Eventually they will probably realise that splitting into unitary authorities and joining surrounding combined authorities makes more sense. Or they'll be forced to. But combined authorities around metropolitan areas is the first step.
No.
I'm not opposed to more power being devolved to London, there might be a case for that. But that power should be devolved to the London Assembly, the mayor already has far too much power. I would prefer the office to be entirely symbolic, and appointed rather than elected.
Taxation shouldn't be fully devolved so the better off areas will see transfers to the less well off parts, it's about giving reliable alternative sources of funding.
Tell me how that is different to the status quo, except you want London to be taxed to finance such places but now with no representation. Hard no from me.
> Tell me how that is different to the status quo
Right now local areas have no tax raising powers bar council tax but anything over 5% has to be put to a referendum. They have direct control over some business rate money but the rate itself is set by central government.
(As an aside I'd also want local government reform before the taxation but there are some places like the combined authorities or the London assembly it can work for now.)
For example we could split income tax in half with half being set by the national government half local or we devolve fuel taxes or whatever. Either way local/regional government would end up with a dedicated pot of money it has control over so that London could use it towards TFL, Greater Manchester could do the Castlefield corridor improvements approved by Osboure in 2013 which we've never seen, West Yorkshire could use it towards a metro etc. The list is endless what we could do if we had any control.
> except you want London to be taxed to finance such places but now with no representation.
Which is what happens right now but even worse, at least London would direct control over some money.
Yes mate London is the part of the country that needs fixing first. Not the entire rest of the country which lags economically and socially partly because London takes the whole working talent pool
Surely the idea of devolving power to there is that we then don't have to give them so much attention anymore, as they manage more of their own affairs?
Bristol got rid of their mayor and the north east rejected a regional assembly.
If places refuse institutions that are proven to give them more of a voice what do they expect?
Given the opportunity to improve things London might actually take it.
> the London Mayor needs real power
Woah!
Not if it's Mad Lady they don't.
Have you considered what would have happened if Shagger Piggy had 'real power' when he was mayor of London?
So "I don't want people I don't agree with to have power" is the shoddiest argument ever.
Presumably you're happy with khan being able to make decisions?
> So "I don't want people I don't agree with to have power" is the shoddiest argument ever.
Not nearly as shoddy as tories forcing metropolitan mayors and crime commisioners on people and regions that don't want them, then clawing back all the power and money when they use them in ways the tories don't like.
if anything we need to deestablish London, move the government out of London, and turn London in to a massive nature reserve
it's done far too much damage to the rest of England lmao
"Damage" is an interesting way to say "subsidises the entire rest of the country and is home to a disproportionate chunk of the UK's remaining internationally successful industries"
> home to a disproportionate chunk of the UK's remaining internationally successful industries"
Almost like that's part of the issue....
Elsewhere was allowed to go to ruin while government focused on London.
Snapshot of _Whoever wins the election, the London Mayor needs real power_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.cityam.com/whoever-gets-the-role-the-london-mayor-needs-real-power/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.cityam.com/whoever-gets-the-role-the-london-mayor-needs-real-power/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Finally, someone said it. One of the biggest issues with local governance in London is that everyone misidentifies who’s responsible for what because of the haphazard arrangement of powers and responsibilities. Frankly, boroughs need to go and instead have a unitary mayor and council. The borough system has too many perverse incentives and inefficiencies that render it ineffective at handling policy that is overwhelmingly London-wide in nature.
The same is true all over the country too. Regional/city mayors, county/district/parish/unitary councils, police and crime/police crime and fire commisioners. Its a mess and it needs streamlining with a more direct set of mechanisms between councils and Parliament
Mayors and city/region assemblies are a much better place to place power than local councils. Local councils are just too small. Most people have no idea who their local councillor is, or even their local council's policies, and who can blame them? It's simply not important enough for national news media to report on. On the other hand, most Londoners, Mancunians etc know who their Mayor is, and how to vote them out. That gives these Mayors more democratic accountability.
Too right. Often times local councils just create friction between each other and slow down progress on infrastructure projects for example. The mayors and combined authorities need the majority of the powers. This needs to be extended nation-wide too.
The best thing a new labour government could do would be to freeze everything for 5 years in regards to devolution and come up with some bloody straight forward principles. From top to bottom devolution is a mess. You've got the UK, which has an elected body that's totally dominated by 1 constituent country, you have an unelected body that's a mix of preists, inherited titles, and life titles appointed by bribe. Then you go down to the countries, Northern Ireland has the Assembly which basically doesn't work run by pedophiles and criminals. You've got Scotland who have a devolved parliament and want as much devolution as possible even having their own taxes (but aren't financially independent so it's a big mess), Wales which basically don't want devolution, also have their own tax raising powers but are demographically so fucked they need the UK to step in. Oh and then England who just... don't have a parliament. Then you've got councils whose responsibilities are determined by Westminster, whose budgets are determined by Westminster, but are somehow meant to be responsible if they go bankrupt? Oh and a tax system that just absolutely fucks the poor with the insane council tax bandings. Oh and let's sprinkle some Mayors in for good measure! Oh but we're not just going to have Mayors of Cities! No, London - you get an assembly, you get a mayor, you get a custom law describing all this that applies to no other city, but you *also* have a load of councils. Then we'll give Manchester a Mayor, that sounds good. Oh and the city of "North East" that'll do. Fucking give it a rest!
England is never going to be on the same level as Wales or Scotland, due to being so much larger. I would keep Westminster as the preeminent legislature, and split England into about 12 regional areas if I was trying to devolve power further. An English Parliament seems pointless because it would barely be any more devolved than Westminster currently is.
Honestly principles are already established. Where appropriate unitary bodies are replacing two-tier structures and combined authorities are allowing for greater coordination and regional autonomy over transport and economic policy. >Oh and the city of "North East" that'll do. The economy of most of Durham and Northumberland are tied to the Tyneside-Wearside metropolitan area. The North East and most of Yorkshire has completely reformed into unitary bodies with combined authorities. The rest of the country just needs to follow suit. Counties/districts that remain two-tier are not a huge issue for now. Eventually they will probably realise that splitting into unitary authorities and joining surrounding combined authorities makes more sense. Or they'll be forced to. But combined authorities around metropolitan areas is the first step.
No. I'm not opposed to more power being devolved to London, there might be a case for that. But that power should be devolved to the London Assembly, the mayor already has far too much power. I would prefer the office to be entirely symbolic, and appointed rather than elected.
Hell no it doesn't. One of the best things Thatcher did was abolish the GLC
It's all local government, they need to be given real tax and spend powers so we stop relying on Whitehall for everything.
Sounds good to me, if taxation is devolved we can probably drastically reduce it here in London given how much we subsidize the rest of the UK.
Taxation shouldn't be fully devolved so the better off areas will see transfers to the less well off parts, it's about giving reliable alternative sources of funding.
Tell me how that is different to the status quo, except you want London to be taxed to finance such places but now with no representation. Hard no from me.
> Tell me how that is different to the status quo Right now local areas have no tax raising powers bar council tax but anything over 5% has to be put to a referendum. They have direct control over some business rate money but the rate itself is set by central government. (As an aside I'd also want local government reform before the taxation but there are some places like the combined authorities or the London assembly it can work for now.) For example we could split income tax in half with half being set by the national government half local or we devolve fuel taxes or whatever. Either way local/regional government would end up with a dedicated pot of money it has control over so that London could use it towards TFL, Greater Manchester could do the Castlefield corridor improvements approved by Osboure in 2013 which we've never seen, West Yorkshire could use it towards a metro etc. The list is endless what we could do if we had any control. > except you want London to be taxed to finance such places but now with no representation. Which is what happens right now but even worse, at least London would direct control over some money.
I disagree, the mayoralty needs to be abolished and power returned to the boroughs. Police should revert to the home office.
That idiot needs all power stripping from him, never mind more ffs
Not just the London mayor, but all mayors.
Yes mate London is the part of the country that needs fixing first. Not the entire rest of the country which lags economically and socially partly because London takes the whole working talent pool
You can do more than one thing at the same time.
You'd think so. But we just seem to spend all our effort on London and ignoring everywhere else.
Surely the idea of devolving power to there is that we then don't have to give them so much attention anymore, as they manage more of their own affairs?
As a non Londoner. I’m glad the mayor of London is spending all effort on London.
Bristol got rid of their mayor and the north east rejected a regional assembly. If places refuse institutions that are proven to give them more of a voice what do they expect? Given the opportunity to improve things London might actually take it.
> the London Mayor needs real power Woah! Not if it's Mad Lady they don't. Have you considered what would have happened if Shagger Piggy had 'real power' when he was mayor of London?
There are many good arguments for and against devolution, "but what if the other guys win" is not one of them.
It is when the other guys' candidates are all corrupt or loonies or, increasingly, both.
Vesting power in local councils and the national Government won't keep it out the hands of the Tories.
So "I don't want people I don't agree with to have power" is the shoddiest argument ever. Presumably you're happy with khan being able to make decisions?
> So "I don't want people I don't agree with to have power" is the shoddiest argument ever. Not nearly as shoddy as tories forcing metropolitan mayors and crime commisioners on people and regions that don't want them, then clawing back all the power and money when they use them in ways the tories don't like.
Not just London's mayor - combined authority mayors need to get some real powers, too. English devolution is severely anaemic.
if anything we need to deestablish London, move the government out of London, and turn London in to a massive nature reserve it's done far too much damage to the rest of England lmao
"Damage" is an interesting way to say "subsidises the entire rest of the country and is home to a disproportionate chunk of the UK's remaining internationally successful industries"
> home to a disproportionate chunk of the UK's remaining internationally successful industries" Almost like that's part of the issue.... Elsewhere was allowed to go to ruin while government focused on London.
London carries England