My Weblog

The Million Vote Mandate

 

The Million Vote Mandate, a new report from Policy Exchange and Localis, the local government and localist think tank, (which has contributions from Andrew Gilligan, London Evening Standard journalist, Tony Travers, the leading London expert at the London School of Economics, Phil Taylor, Ealing Borough Councillor and London blogger, Gavin Lockhart, Head of the Crime and Justice Unit at Policy Exchange, Zac Goldsmith, Environmental Campaigner, and Steve Malanga, Editor of the City Journal, the policy powerhouse of the Manhattan Institute) is the first major report, since the Mayoral election, to ask the question: How can Boris use his million vote mandate to make his first term a success?

Five weeks after his dramatic election victory in which Boris received the votes of over a million Londoners in an election which saw a 10% increase in turnout, the heavy policy lifting is about to begin. A spate of new appointments and positive announcements – a range of talented deputy Mayors, a high powered CEO from the GLA drawn from business and the establishment of a forensic audit team charged with examining the costs of the GLA line by line – have all sent the right message: that this administration marks a decisive break from the past and that Boris is serious about delivering for London.

However, the big, high impact issues on which Boris’s first term will be judged are beginning to loom large. The continued intractability of the fight against knife crime; the delivery of the bloated Olympics project in a radically changed economic environment; clearing the ground for the roll-out of Crossrail, a £16bn headache in which the financial deal between the previous Mayor and the Treasury looks far from water-tight and the need to continue to take steps to improve the quality of life for all Londoners in the context of continued economic and environmental pressures, will all present considerable policy challenges to the Mayor and his team.

The successful delivery of the Olympics and Crossrail both require the Mayor to examine their respective business cases from first principles.  The credit crunch and economic slowdown (particularly the slow down in London’s property market) has fundamentally altered the financial assumptions upon which these massive projects are predicated. As Boris himself said in an interview on the Daily Telegraph on Saturday (link) there is an urgent need for a new Olympic ‘master-plan’. Our report argues that Boris needs to take a much more sober and realistic view of the games than his predecessor.

 He needs to treat with a high degree of scepticism the two strands of the legacy promise on which the benefits case for the Olympics were based: the grass-roots sporting legacy which is likely to be minimal and the regeneration of parts of East London plans for which are already proving to be controversial in the light of the likely economic backdrop to London 2012. The proximity of London 2012 to the next Mayoral elections gives it a potent political significance. Public perceptions of the success or failure of preparation for the games will, to a large extent, shape public perceptions of Boris’s first term.

This is where a distinctive governing style comes in. In order to navigate his way through the Scylla and Charybdis of these large scale projects with the potential for huge political aggravation he needs, as Andrew Gilligan argues in the report, to shape a distinctive governing style which is open, transparent and uses his instinctive populism and obvious popularity to really go into battle for London. He needs to take independent advice and attack vested interests and received wisdom wherever they present a block to progress. As Steve Malanga, Editor of the City Journal argues from a US perspective, the success of Giuliani and Bloomberg in New York was as a result of the fact that both men had a clear vision of what they wanted to achieve – particularly in relation to crime – and were prepared to be ruthless and relentless in the pursuit of their objectives.

Public perceptions of the rising tide of knife crime and youth gang violence in London have reached such a pitch that Boris needs to equally clear, ruthless and relentless in his fight against crime in London. As Gavin Lockhart argues, there specific measures that he can take to start to tackle the problem: crime mapping, making the police more accountable to local communities, using the power he has as the Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority to determine police priorties; working in partnership with local authorities and the voluntary sector to tackle the root causes of the problem. However, Boris also needs to use his ‘bully pulpit’ to smash the institutional resistance and complacency which he will find in some areas of the Metropolitan Police establishment; he must stand up as the directly elected representative of Londoners and demand action from London’s police.

He should also use his mandate, as Tony Travers argues, to argue for a radical re-shaping of London government. The Mayor of London is now, arguably, the second most powerful position in British political life; but the latter days of the Livingstone era demonstrated how unaccountable the Mayor can become when the current system lacks a coherent structure of

accountabilies: on the conduct of the Mayor’s office, the appointments he makes and how the money he dispenses on behalf of Londoners is spent.

Institutional reform of London government may not sound sexy; but it is of fundamental importance in taking the office of the Mayor to the next level where increased powers can be traded for increased powers and policy responsibilities.

So Boris’s first term will be judged on the basis of how he handles these demanding policy challenges. However,as Zac Goldsmith also argues in the report on of the ironies was that Ken Livingstone put the big issue of the environment at the centre of his re-election campaign but still lost. This may have been because the environment notoriously oscillates up and down the political agenda according the political and economic circumstances of the times; but also because the emphasis of Livingstone’s environmentalism was wrong. It was characterised too much my gesture politics and on issues which seemed remote from the lives of ordinary Londoners.  Londoners, as many surveys show, are concerned about the future sustainability of the city; but want practical action not the gesture politics of increased charges for so called ‘gas guzzlers’. As far as the environment is concerned small should be beautiful for Boris.

The million vote mandate Boris received presents him with a significant political opportunity. The transition is now all but over. The real work is about to begin.

James Morris, Chief Executive of Localis and Director of the London Policy Institute

The results

Here's the breakdown of the London results. More later.

What is at stake?

If you go into the most difficult estates around London and talk to people you will immediately become aware of one thing: the almost complete disengagement with the political process.  Many people, living in some of London's most deprived and difficult areas, simply do not believe that elected politicians can do anything for them. Many people in these estates are trying to live decent lives, bringing up families in difficult circumstances. They are, however, vulnerable to crime, gangs and drug related problems which blights their lives and the communities in which they live.   There are many things at stake in the London Mayoral elections on Thursday but the future of these communities is perhaps one of the most important.

Some argue that it is inequality which is the issue; that the gap between rich and poor has become too great. Yet 10 years of a Labour government and 8 years of a Labour Mayoralty has done nothing to close this gap; in fact the problems of these communities has been exacerbated by policies which have involved complex tax credit solutions and top down solutions like Sure Start which have had little or no impact on the communties they were designed to help.

When you see gangs of kids on the streets with no apparent purpose the issue is not one to do with inequality. Inequality does not create the vacuum at the heart of so many young lives in this city. It is the fact that we are wasting the creative and human potential of these people as human beings by treating them with state solutions which have no real impact on their lives apart from encouraging a dependency which, in itself, undermines self-esteem and acts as a barrier to realising opportunity.These communities need to find a way of breaking out of a cycle of under achievement that leads to crime, drugs and family breakdown.

We need new thinking and fresh ideas to solve these problems not the tired solutions which have been tried and have failed some many people. People living on some of London's most difficult estates deserve better. We need to harness the creative ideas of London's voluntary organisations, entrepreneurs and community activists to find solutions. The next Mayor needs to be the champion of fresh thinking and innovative ideas for giving London's most deprived communties renewed hope and a renewed sense of a stake in the society in which they live.

The future of the London Assembly

It is clear that the role and powers of the London Assembly needs to change.  Many have argued that the London Assembly should be replaced by a body which consists of representatives of the borough leaders. There is some merit in this idea. However, in mapping out a future re-organisation of the constitutional arrangements in London careful attention needs to paid to balancing the need for a Mayor to remain effective at taking the strategic decisions needed for London and the accountability that would come with connections with the elected members of London's 32 boroughs.  Any reform must concentrate on ensuring that the structures put in place are focused on improving the effectiveness of London government and not in creating an unwieldy superstructure which hampers the effective governance of London.

More scrutiny required

This is a damning analysis from the Public Accounts Commitee as part of their on-going review of Olympic Costs. See here

Decentralising power: the future imperative

Anatole Kaletsky, writing in the Times yesterday, made the following reflection on the Mayoral election:

It seems to me there are two main reasons why Britain refuses to take this election seriously, and they have little to do with the personalities involved. The first is the generalised disdain for local politics in Britain's uniquely overcentralised system of government. Because local government is constitutionally nothing more than an agency of Westminster and Whitehall, British politicians with national ambitions are naturally contemptuous of local politics. Instead of being treated as co-equal with national politics, or at least as a natural pathway to national power, as it is in America, France, Germany and most other democratic countries, involvement in local politics is treated by the British Establishment as either a pitiful consolation prize or, in the case of London, which cannot be denied some status, as a practical joke.

This is a very neat summary of the challenges ahead for all those who believe in the importance of a radical decentralisation of power in the UK.  The political establishment - including leading figures from all the main political parties - have expressed the belief that decentralisaing power is an essential step forward in the effort to revive democratic participation in the UK and build a culture where local communities are genuine participants in, for example, the provision of local public services.  Yet, the expressed belief in decentralising power has not yet translated into a real model for change or a notion of a new settlement between central and local government.  To overcome fifty years of all pervasive centralisation will take a massive effort of political will; but it is essential for the future of the country.   

Is that a vision emerging from the fog of war?

We have entered the fog of war stage of the London Mayoral elections. However, amidst the accusations and counter accusations, the rebuttals and the You tube clips we can, perhaps, see a real difference between the candidates in terms of their vision for London.

Ken Livingstone has had a vision for London. It is one that is characterised by a traditional view of a bureaucratic, state controlled centre dishing out public services to the people, favoring publicly owned mechanisms for managing London's transport infrastructure, and driven by the idea that reducing poverty and improving opportunity in London is one that can be solved by national and devolved government intervention. He has also pragmatically embraced globalisation; a conversion which sits uneasily with his political history. Livingstone's vision is characterised by what one might call a pragmatic municipal socialism. He has also continually stressed the strengths of London's multi-culturalism in a way which seems to emphasise differences between groups rather than what is common between them.

Johnson's vision for London, though not explicitly articulated, is beginning to emerge. In the idea of a Mayoral Fund, which is designed to direct resources to a network of voluntary organisations in an effort to fight poverty and deprivation in London, it is possible to see the outline. It is one that sees London as a diverse, entrepreneurial city and is convinced that the problems the capital faces can be solved, not by beneficent national and local governments, but by the people themselves through their initiative and free association with others and through networks of voluntary groups not constrained by the dead hand of a bureaucratic state. 

The role of the Mayor is, therefore, as an enabler; creating the conditions in which London can build on its strengths and where, while celebrating diversity, the Mayor emphasises the common interests of all Londoners in addressing the problems this city faces as a free community in one of the most vibrant city states in the world.

This battle of visions is of pivotal political signficance.

Will the BNP gain a seat on the Assembly?

It is probable that the BNP will win a seat on the London Assembly. They received 4.7% of the vote in the last London Mayoral elections in 2004 and could do better this time given the general collapse of support for UKIP who achieved a high water mark performance in London in 2004 due to the Euro and London Assembly elections being held on the same day.  As Andrew Gilligan writes today in The Evening Standard the BNP is putting an extraordinary array of candidates in these elections. They won't be contesting any of the constituency seats for the Assembly, concentrating their efforts on maximising their London wide party list vote. 

Breakdown London

The Centre for Social Justice have produced a fascinating study on the problems of povery and deprivation in London. See here

Reform of London Development Agency

Whoever becomes the next Mayor will face a series of decisions about what to do with the London Development Agency.  It is widely held belief that the LDA has been an organisation that, despite having a budget of 2bn pounds, has lacked direction and focus. There is a widespread view that the LDA lacks a proper strategy and has become far too politicized in the sense of dispensing largesse to pet projects of dubious benefit to London as a whole. It is not possible simply to abolish the LDA. It performs the same statutory role for London as the other RDA around the UK. However, it is in urgent need of reform. 

Here are three ideas for reform:

1) LDA should focus on a re-defined core mission. It should focus itself exclusively on helping London's small business sector, investing in London's training and skills base, and contributing, where appropriate, to regeneration. These areas should be its core mission. Everything else is irrelevant.

2) The way in which the LDA awards grants needs to be totally transparent.  The process by which the LDA evaluates grant proposals should be totally transparent. Proposals for funding, the benefits case of the proposals, details of the organisations involved and the performance evaluation criteria for each grant proposal should be publicly available via the GLA web site. Londoners have a right to know where the LDA is spending its money.

3) Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure the LDA is not a creature of the Mayoral fiefdom.  It should develop independent mechanisms for ensuring the Mayor cannot use the LDA as a mechanism for providing particular interest groups with preferential treatment.