In England, the role of mayors has evolved far beyond their traditional ceremonial purpose. Historically, mayors acted as ambassadors, boosting the profile of their towns or cities, representing civic pride, and attending public events. With the introduction of directly elected mayors, the role has shifted towards regional authority, blurring the lines between ceremonial and political functions. This transformation has often led to confusion and dissatisfaction, as the position, once symbolic and community-centered, is now tasked with governing expansive regions that may lack cohesive identities.
Navigating the maze of local governance
England’s local government is a patchwork of overlapping authorities, county councils, district councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan boroughs, and town or parish councils – all with different responsibilities. The introduction of mayors has only added to this complexity. Yorkshire itself now has three mayors, with a fourth proposed for Hull and East Riding, while part of the Yorkshire region south of the Tees is included in Tees Valley.
The mayoral system, designed to decentralise power, is hindered by erratic funding and heavy oversight from Whitehall. Many mayors are constrained by conditional funding streams, forcing them to prioritise central government goals over regional needs. This system undermines mayors’ ability to allocate resources based on local demands, reducing their accountability to voters. Additionally, mayors often face pressure to align their policies with their political parties’ broader agendas, creating tension between local and national priorities.
Mayors under fire
Directly elected mayors in England are now expected to drive progress, manage public services, and address societal challenges. However, two central issues emerge. The concentration of power in a single individual and the problem of limited powers, make mayors ineffective. Some mayors hold significant authority, like London’s Sadiq Khan, accountable to a 25-member assembly, while others, like Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, operate under a bespoke devolution deal that grants them unique powers.
Meanwhile, areas like Middlesbrough have two mayors with different authorities – Ben Houchen, Tees Valley mayor, and Chris Cooke, Middlesbrough mayor – leading to further governance confusion. This uneven distribution of power undermines the intended purpose of decentralising authority.
Mayors in England have varying levels of authority, with some having more powers than others. However, even the most developed mayoral combined authorities, including London, have significantly fewer powers compared to the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Senedd. Many political commentators, along with the mayors themselves, have called for more devolved powers, but Westminster and Whitehall have been hesitant to relinquish further control. The new Labour government, however, has pledged to extend mayoral powers as part of their commitment to greater regional devolution. Without significant regional autonomy regions will continue to decline,
The double-edged sword of concentrated power
While the office of an elected mayor can offer significant executive power, it risks over-centralising authority in one individual. Burnham’s tenure as mayor of Greater Manchester is frequently cited as a model of regional leadership. Despite operating within constraints, Burnham has delivered tangible benefits, which might tempt policymakers to expand mayoral powers.
However, concentrating too much power on a single person is risky, because effective leadership is not guaranteed by the office but depends on the individual. Burnham’s success underscores both the potential and the danger of devolved mayoral power – future leaders may not have his vision or competence, risking instability and poor governance.
Ben Houchen, the Conservative mayor of the Tees Valley, has garnered attention for his development projects and the controversies that have dogged his tenure. One of the key issues has been the management and oversight of the Teesworks project, a flagship redevelopment plan aimed at revitalising the former Redcar steelworks site. While Houchen has been praised for his ambition in driving forward economic regeneration in the region, serious allegations of malpractice and lack of transparency have cast a shadow over his leadership.
Teesside: private interest vs public good
A major controversy erupted when concerns were raised about the Teesworks project’s governance and the sale of public assets. Labour MP Andy McDonald, representing Middlesbrough, has been particularly vocal in criticising Houchen, accusing him of overseeing a “scandalous transfer of public assets into private hands”. McDonald has demanded answers over how a significant portion of Teesworks land, originally under public ownership, was transferred to private developers without clear public accountability. These concerns have gained traction, with many calling for a full independent investigation into the dealings.
Adding fuel to the fire, Private Eye magazine, known for its investigative journalism, published a scathing exposé on Houchen’s involvement in Teesworks. The article alleged conflicts of interest, improper processes, and questionable financial deals that benefited private stakeholders at the expense of the public. These claims have further damaged Houchen’s credibility, prompting critics to question whether the mayor’s office is being used to serve private interests rather than the public good.
Houchen has consistently denied any wrongdoing and defended his actions as necessary for economic regeneration in Tees Valley. However, the mounting accusations and media scrutiny have highlighted the risks associated with concentrating too much power in the hands of one individual. The ongoing Teesworks saga serves as a reminder of the need for greater transparency and checks and balances, especially when significant public assets and taxpayer money are involved.
Liverpool: questions of impropriety
One of the most high-profile mayoral scandals involved Joe Anderson, the former mayor of Liverpool. In December 2020, Anderson was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit bribery and witness intimidation in connection with a corruption investigation related to building and development contracts in Liverpool. The scandal, known as the ‘Operation Aloft’ investigation, revolved around alleged corrupt practices within Liverpool City Council and the awarding of building contracts.
Although Anderson denied any wrongdoing, the arrest led to his suspension from the Labour Party and his decision not to run for re-election in 2021. The fallout from the scandal led to the UK government taking over parts of Liverpool City Council, with commissioners appointed to oversee certain areas of the council’s operations, particularly related to planning and development.
A viable alternative: regional elected parliaments
Many of the UK’s metro mayors govern regions without a cohesive civic identity, imposed more for administrative convenience than reflecting local pride or historical ties. The lack of a shared identity between the towns and cities they oversee dilutes the effectiveness of metro mayors. Residents of these regions may feel disconnected from a governance structure that does not fully represent their community’s unique concerns.
The UK suffers from some of the world’s worst regional economic disparities. While London and the Southeast thrive, many regions struggle with stagnation and underdevelopment. The current mayoral model has not succeeded in bridging this gap and Westminster is still holding on to power. To address these issues, we must explore decentralisation models that distribute power more evenly and empower regions to shape their futures.
One promising alternative is the establishment of regional elected parliaments. Unlike the mayors who centralise power in one individual, parliaments distribute authority across multiple elected representatives. This system fosters greater scrutiny, encourages diverse viewpoints, and enhances transparency in decision-making.
Countries like Germany, Spain, and Canada have successfully adopted this model, giving regional governments real decision-making power over infrastructure, education, and economic development. This approach tailors solutions to regional challenges, fostering innovation, attracting investment, and ensuring economic growth is more evenly distributed.
By transitioning to regional elected parliaments, the UK can take a crucial step towards addressing its entrenched regional inequalities. This shift would empower local governments, create more balanced economic growth, and ensure that prosperity is shared across the entire country.
