02 November 2001
As a cluster of councils – including Watford, Doncaster and Hartlepool – took the traditional route of referendums, others such as Bradford and Southwark felt the heavy hand of ministerial intervention.
The message for those wavering was made unequivocally clear, and for those unsure about the government's commitment to its own policy it made welcome news.
But as ministers sit back in the knowledge that the countdown to the first elections have begun, it appears they still have a public relations battle in local government to overcome.
In the monthly survey conducted jointly by Public Finance and Reed Accountancy Personnel, council finance managers displayed a distinct apathy towards the policy.
Asked if they thought elected mayors were a good idea, 41% said yes. This is a definite majority when just a quarter said no. But that still leaves a third without any real opinion.
These preferred to stay 'neutral', despite mayors being a highly controversial policy and after several months of intensive press coverage culminating in last month's 'Super Thursday' – a day of referendums around the country.
A number of the officers surveyed did indicate the source of the apathy – that mayors are still widely seen as a London-based policy with little to offer the regions.
'Directly elected mayors are not really applicable to the north of England,' one finance officer said. Another similarly said: 'I don't live near London so I don't follow it.'
Another said mayors were only applicable to major cities and would have no impact in smaller conurbations or rural areas.
Apathy also spread to the question of service delivery. When asked if they thought mayors would help to improve services, just over a third were neutral on the subject, while 34% disagreed.
This could indicate a worrying trend for ministers. If the very officers who will ultimately work closely with mayors on budgetary changes and funding service improvements think they will have little impact – how can the policy expect to succeed?
Without the support of staff and political groups, mayors will be ineffective. As one manager pointed out: 'If a mayor does not get on with a local authority no improvements will ever be made.'
Another said: 'Services to people should be provided around what they need, rather than to further political agendas.'
This presents a significant dilemma for the government as it prepares for more interventions, possibly in bigger cities such as Birmingham and Newcastle upon Tyne, in the coming weeks.
Finance managers were also asked their views on the powers of directly elected mayors. Just over a third said they should be given the same powers as their US counterparts, while 37% disagreed, suggesting that fears over the concentration of power in too few hands are still rife. Twenty-seven per cent remained neutral.
But one manager said: 'If we are going to have mayors they should have appropriate powers.'
Another finance manager expressed a preference for a continental model. 'If they [the government] adopted the same policies as France in respect of directly elected mayors, then it would work well. If mayors could liaise directly with the Treasury for local government then they could have a really beneficial effect,' he said.
However on a more positive note, those polled did have strong opinions on local accountability. Almost 50% said that directly elected mayors would improve local accountability, compared with just 27% who disagreed and 23% who remained neutral.
Incidentally, across the public sector, 54% of finance managers in education, 45% in health and 57% of those working for the emergency services also saw mayors as a welcome boost to local democracy, which suggests that ministers will have less work to do in some quarters.
PFnov2001
