Registered user login:

Trusting in devolution

Merrick Cockell

Published 21 April 2008

London mayoral candidates say they will work with boroughs and local governments, but they need to be serious about representing the needs of local communities.

Take the time to glance through the main Mayoral candidates’ manifestos and a phrase you are likely to come across is ‘I will work with the boroughs to…”.

To London’s local councils, this is of course preferable to: “I will force the boroughs…”, but does it really mean anything? Despite the large portfolio of “strategic” powers enjoyed by the office of the Mayor of London, it is quite difficult to get much done in London without working with the boroughs in some way.

London’s borough councils are there to represent the needs of their local communities, and from time to time, these needs will be at odds with how a mayor might think the capital should work. The real test of the office of the Mayor of London is what happens on these occasions: should the mayor dismiss the views of local people and press ahead with his plans, or is there another way?

The leaders of London’s local authorities believe that there is, and London Councils recently released a new prospectus for government in the capital: Trusting devolution. Timed to coincide with the Mayoral campaign, this important document sets out how the biggest challenges facing the capital can be successfully addressed by putting local communities at the centre of developing policy.

A change in emphasis is needed in London government. We need to refocus government from a centralised approach that can all too easily ignore local views to one that embraces London’s unique diversity and puts local communities at the centre of decision-making.

It is fair to say that all the main political parties now make a case for devolution, and for local people and their representatives to have a far greater say in how their local area is managed. The wide consensus is that government in the UK is too centralised, too removed from local people to respond effectively to their concerns.

Anyone who lives in or has visited London will know that the capital is a diverse place – not only in terms of its population but also in terms of the range of areas it comprises. As Trusting devolution makes clear, London is not a top-down, one-size-fits-all city, so we should not attempt to govern it as such.

Instead, we need to develop local answers for local needs – and be bold in developing solutions that are tailored to what local communities want. We have set out five areas – ranging from the impact of poverty through to crime – where we think a more locally driven approach could bring about huge improvements for Londoners.

Underpinning this is a desire to reconnect Londoners with this city’s governance. Local people need to believe that they can make a difference, and ensuring they are involved in developing the solutions to the problems facing their local area will reinvigorate democracy in the capital.

The office of the Mayor of London is undoubtedly about leadership – but what does strong leadership for London look like? Is it imposing your will across the capital’s communities, or is it instead having the confidence to let go of power, to give local people the freedom they need to rise to local challenges?

London needs a Mayor that recognises its diversity, its plurality – and most importantly, one that is happy to respond to what local people need – even if it differs from their singular vision for the city. London’s next Mayor needs to ask how he or she can put London’s communities back at the centre of this city’s government. The answer lies in Trusting devolution.

Councillor Merrick Cockell is the London Councils Chairman

To find out who you should be voting for in the London mayoral election on May 1st, click here

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

6 comments from readers

Carl Jones
21 April 2008 at 19:57

London`s boroughs are a pain in the backside....there was a period of time after the GLC was trashed by that "EVIL" Thatcher and the return of Red Ken...during this period, London was an uttter mess!! The boroughs couldn`t cooperate with each other on anything!

It was widely understood that London, a supposed world leading city, was falling behind. Why should the elected mayor of London give the boroughs some respect? London needs a strong leader with vision, who will get things done. I don`t agree with all the things that Red Ken has done....but he did make Blair look STUPID.lol London has on the whole, improved and you can`t attribute any of this to the boroughs. I don`t think there is one candidate who can match Ken. Only Paddick on crime is stronger and for his sake, I hope he fails. because, if he got anywhere near reducing London`s crime by 20%, the powers at be will scandle him at best and kill him if all else fails.

ChrisH
24 April 2008 at 11:07

Interesting analysis, although your knowledge of local government in London seems to cut off about 1999/2000. The last eight years has seen the boroughs come on leaps and bounds. The best performing local authorities in the country are currently found in the capital - and London's boroughs are often singled out for praise for their ability to cooperate strategically with one another. The fact remains that they deliver the vast amount of services Londoners rely on from day to day. The office of the Mayor of London actually delivers very little.

Carl Jones
25 April 2008 at 15:10

ChrisH.....thankyou for making my point.....they have only come on leaps and bounds because of Red Ken!!! I think you should reread my first comment and I thank you for your support.lol :)

ChrisH
26 April 2008 at 18:07

Again, you don't seem to understand local government. Ken has no powers to improve the boroughs. Ken has had nothing to do with the boroughs' improvement - it comes completely outside the Mayor of London's remit. I could concede that they have upped their game because they were faced with a mayor who is on record as saying that he would prefer the boroughs to be abolished. So less 'thanks to Ken', more 'in spite of Ken'. Incidentally, borough performance is assessed every year by the Audit Commission, so you can track their progress; there is no assessment of the office of the Mayor of London.

Your point about London improving no thanks to the boroughs - what bits of London do you think have improved? There are often misconceptions of exactly what Ken has powers over.

Carl Jones
27 April 2008 at 15:28

ChrisH, I don`t claim to know all the ins and outs of local government, apart from what I`ve experienced in Lambeth....where the likely potential for corruption is staggering....but what would you expect with private companies servicing contracts. I didn`t say that Ken did anything special with the boroughs. The article suggest the next mayor should be all sweetness and light towards the boroughs....why? London`s boroughs were rubbish before Ken arrived. I would say Ken`s budget is the main reason why London`s boroughs pulled their socks up.

The biggest change that I`ve noticed, is that before Ken arrived, you could travel around London and each borough was going its own way, they are looked very different, this is still the case in some areas, however, if you travel around London today, it looks and feels like one city. There is no doubt in my mind, that meetings with Ken have imparted a lot of "rub-off". Ken needs more power and money for his third term....and I might add, I don`t agree with everything Ken`s done, but I don`t see a single alternative candidate doing any better.

ChrisH
28 April 2008 at 09:08

Yeah, Lambeth has a lot to answer for over the years...

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Is this the worst economic situation for 60 years?