The Government seems committed to strengthening the role of cities in general, and to devolving more power, resources and even finance to the major cities in particular as part of the new city deal. This is both exciting and welcome, could kick-start a process of devolution and decentralisation across England, and will serve to give real substance to the localism agenda. The Government now has to fulfil its promise!
Being optimistic, potentially the majority of the English population could be the beneficiaries given that they live in these cities - which have the potential to be power-houses for economic growth. Local democratic control of and influence on transport, economic infrastructure and inward investment is to be hugely welcomed though it will clearly not address the gaps left by the abolition of the regional economic planning bodies, not least because the cities themselves are islands, albeit big islands, in their wider regions. And as the creation of the single Greater Manchester Authority and the consideration of a Greater South Yorkshire/Sheffield local authority alliance and similar arrangements demonstrate, there is much to commend in focusing greater devolution and power on city regions.
The current topical debate about the merits and demerits of directly elected mayors for our major cities has correctly highlighted the long-missed opportunity to have directly elected leaders with authority and accountability across the city regions. Without doubt, directly elected mayors in the major cities will exert influence across their city regions but will have to find ways of working with other elected mayors and council leaders in those areas. This is understandably problematic. Candidates and elected mayors will have to work out how to provide leadership in this asymmetric world of local government, just as they will have to find the best way of working with directly elected police and crime commissioners who will be elected often on the same day but for larger areas.
As the Warwick Commission report has identified, whilst elected mayors are to be given more powers and statutory duties by the Government, these powers will be limited. In truth, to be effective, much more needs to be devolved to them.
Still, whatever their legal powers, elected city mayors will nonetheless have a moral authority and legitimacy to drive their agenda through influence, negotiation, ceding and sharing power with others, and using their limited resources to leverage additional resources from the wider public, business and voluntary sectors. Control and command leadership will play badly and serve elected mayors poorly. In consequence, they will require more subtle skills and display the behaviours and authenticity necessary to persuade, rather than to direct.
I appreciate that a mayor of Birmingham, Bristol, 0r Liverpool or Leeds will have more control over a wider spread of services than even the Mayor of London as they will also have responsibility for all local authority services. However, even here they will have to partner, encourage and persuade when addressing schools, health and other core services. And they will need to devolve to empowered communities and community groups. Centralist control simply will not work. Accordingly, and harnessing their democratic mandate, they must deploy power but more particularly 'influence' across their cities, their wider city regions and with central Government.
This is why the Government's commitment to strong cities led by strong accountable mayors (and where there are not mayors, by strong council leaders - for example in Manchester) - is so exciting and could result in a timely and major shift of power and democracy from Whitehall and Westminster.
Finally three further observations.
First, the importance and relevance of these powers and opportunities to make a difference are too important for control freaks in the national political parties to try and suggest that Westminster is more important and to put barriers in the way of sitting MPs contemplating standing as mayors.
Second, these mayoral elections could and rightly should attract some impressive candidates who may not necessarily come from traditional political parties. Campaigning could be more challenging for people not in mainstream parties but whatever their background, when specifically electing a city mayor, the electorate will wish to understand candidates' values and philosophies - and are likely to react badly to those backed by political parties who revert to the old behaviours of simply presenting their manifestos. Of course, these parties could look to widen their pool of candidates!
Third, as the major core cities and city regions gain more devolved power and resources, and a greater confidence and a restoration of the civic pride that was so prevalent in the past - it is important that Government does not ignore the claims and entitlements of the rest of the country, even if these areas represent a minority of the population. Shire counties and shire unitary areas must and should assert themselves and develop their own enhanced democratic leadership - and not just wait for initiatives or suggestions from central government.
There is a real opportunity for a major step forward to a more decentralised and locally accountable state but this will requires not only Government action but more critically bold local political leadership. Mayors must exert their political authority on behalf of their communities and not wait for Ministers to hand them power!