Abstract
Over the past decade and a half in Britain, citizens have been consulted by referenda on questions of devolution, the office of Mayor of London (1997), directly elected mayors (2002-2012) and, more recently, the voting system (2012). The office of Mayor has a long-standing history in Britain. What is new is the manner in which some are now elected and the significance this office has taken on with the changes in their electoral legitimacy. This paper examines the debates about the advantages and disadvantages of directly electing mayors and on the nature of democracy and the reliability of democratic institutions in Britain. It also analyses reasons for the relative successes and failures of the changes introduced, looking in particular at the scale at which direct democracy can operate.
Highlights
Local self-government denotes the right and the ability of local authorities, within the limits of the law, to regulate and manage a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interests of the local population
“Mayors, we argue, are necessary if we are to begin to unravel the excessive levels of centralism that characterize English governance
23 Alongside arguments in favour of independence from traditional local or national party political division, the visibility and accountability offered by a directly-elected mayor, are seen as advantages which would cancel out the anonymity of a 'local council' where the 'buck' could be passed on to a committee
Summary
Independent (d.2009) Liberal Democrat Independent Independent Independent (Labour) English Democrats Labour Labour Independent Labour Labour Labour Labour Conservative Independent Independent Independent Labour Labour. 23 Alongside arguments in favour of independence from traditional local or national party political division, the visibility and accountability offered by a directly-elected mayor, are seen as advantages which would cancel out the anonymity of a 'local council' where the 'buck' could be passed on to a committee. This would be replaced by approachability and interaction with an accountable mayor. The Warwick Commission concluded in favour of elected mayors who: offer a real opportunity for change in a place where change is needed and a way of invigorating a body politic that seems to look more like a nautilus than the vigorous and committed body of leaders and voters that once turned the Victorian slums that shamed us into the Victorian cities that the world envied. [...] the mayoral system might not be the best system but it might be better than the current system in some places; it might be the least worst.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Mémoire(s), identité(s), marginalité(s) dans le monde occidental contemporain
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
