Imposition of Tory mayor will cast a shadow over Birmingham

By Claire Spencer / @thedancingflea

In the latest in a series of rather befuddling decisions, it is now certain that Birmingham, and possibly several other UK cities, will have their current leader of the council as a Shadow Mayor: all the power of an elected mayor without the bother being elected to the post.

Short of refusing to install a Shadow Mayor and letting the cards fall where they may (unlikely), Birmingham will be stuck with the already-shadowy Mike Whitby until it either votes no in the referendum, or elects another candidate as mayor following a yes vote. The fact that Labour are the largest party in Birmingham City Council, and are almost certain to take control next year with a healthy majority, has been discarded.

Few seem particularly enthused at this idea, least of all Birmingham City Council itself. They asked the government to think again:

“From an operational and, perhaps, democratic point of view, it would make more sense to avoid making changes to constitutional documents if the executive leader remained an executive leader – instead of a shadow mayor – until any elected mayor was duly elected for the relevant authority.”

Quite so. In my view, there are two better solutions for the period between the passing of the Localism Bill and the referendum:

1. Flexibility: simply that whoever is the head of the council performs the role of ‘Shadow Mayor’ until the referendum. This means that Mike Whitby would occupy the role of Shadow Mayor for whatever remains of 2011/12 after the Localism Bill is passed, but if Birmingham City Council passes from no overall control to Labour in 2012 (which it almost certainly will), the Shadow Mayoralty passes to Albert Bore.

2. Patience, Pickles: the people of Birmingham haven’t even said that they want an elected mayor yet. If we say yes, I think most people will be perfectly content to wait for their elected mayor until they, um, elect a mayor.

While I am in favour of elected mayors, I think the second of the pair is the better option. I don’t believe that the electorate will get anything like a “sense of what is on offer” in between the passing of the Localism Bill and the referendum. There’s not enough time to bold, and even if there were, Mike Whitby’s lack of democratic legitimacy and time would make boldness difficult. If Labour win strongly next year, they will be well on the way to holding two-thirds of the council, and with support from just a handful of councillors from other parties, could block every path that Shadow Mayor Whitby wished to take. Not that that’s a bad thing, as his ideas are generally terrible, but watching a weak mayor spin on the spot would hardly be the best showcase for such a change.

On the other hand, if Labour doesn’t reach that two-thirds, it could highlight the ugly conflict that can occur when a proud mayor refuses to pay heed to legitimate scrutiny from a majority of councillors.

So if David Cameron is serious about this policy, he should think again. Otherwise, Birmingham could embarrass his government in more way than one next year.