The devolution settlements currently being agreed between city regions and the government will change the way that democracy works. Not only will more decisions be made locally but the creation of mayors will challenge the way the politics has to be done. This could have a knock on effect for those involved in public affairs, where there may be a number of implications as well.
The breadth of the challenge may be limited by how much political legitimacy newly elected mayors are able to garner. The irony of elected mayors being insisted on by central government when they were rejected in local referendums should not be ignored. Unless the role of mayors and their importance can be communicated then local electorates may not be enthused. Few were convinced by Police and Crime Commissioners so the electoral turnout was pitiful. Unless it can be shown that, in simplistic terms, mayors matter then there has to be a concern about whether people will bother to vote.
However, turnout could be effected if the quality of the candidates is high and / or they are already well known. The highest profile UK example of mayors comes from London. Out of the four elections so far, the city has elected one independent, one Labour (although the same person as the independent!), and a Conservative, twice. Neither man – Ken or Boris – is viewed as typical of their party or of politics / politicians in general. Both are known by their first names only and have often got away with making mistakes or being outrageous because they are ‘personalities’. Being one step outside of traditional politics appears to give them some flexibility and leverage that other politician’s lack. In other words, they can get away with more.
So if mayors become the norm and London, Liverpool and Bristol and the others are joined by the likes of Manchester what impact could this have on public affairs and campaigns?
- Alternative sources of power – Westminster will start to lose its absolute power and will be less the focus of attention. Issues could well be the preserve of mayors rather than central government. Just as the devolution settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland changed the ‘who did what’, the same will be true for the new devolution settlement.
- Non-politicians – personalities, known from work in other sectors, could start to be elected. Whether they will come through in the traditional parties or stand as independents can only be guessed at this stage. But this will impact on the way they behave, their priorities, their engagement with groups etc. There is no guaranteeing that they will want to stay in power for more than a single term.
- Differences across parties – so what the parties say and do at a national may vary from what is said and done at a local level. Sadiq Khan, Labour’s candidate to be mayor of London, is already distancing himself from Jeremy Corbyn. Likewise, Zak Goldsmith, the Conservative candidate, could soon find himself with a very different on airport policies to David Cameron and George Osborne.
- New parties? – As well as the potential for independents coming through, a one-off mayoralty vote could provide opportunities to smaller parties, single issue group and new parties as well. A well-organised local campaign has the potential to build support.
- Old skool politics – as well the opportunities for change, there is a very real prospect that the traditional ways of doing politics will continue. So candidates will be current or former MPs or council leaders. The parties centrally may try to influence the outcome of candidate selection. There is no guarantee that a new system brings change.
So what all this mean? There are three clear implications.
- The policy-making environment will become more complicated.
- There will be a need to stay closer to the local – across issues, stakeholders etc.
- The normal rules of politics need not apply even if the traditional parties dominate.
Taken together, devolution will bring with it change, not least to public affairs.