BEFORE the end of March and the dissolution of Parliament, in a committee room on a corridor high above the House of Commons chamber, 18 MPs from all parties will meet for 90 minutes and pass an Order which will enable Greater Manchester to appoint a non-elected mayor.
The democratic changes would be worth it just for the powers to reregulate the buses and take the smiles off the bus owners’ faces who have exploited the travelling public far too long.
Any ambitious councillor, MP or even the police commissioner can apply for this powerful and prestigious position. Hats are already flying into the ring. The Leaders of our 10 councils will decide who will be the first Mayor of Greater Manchester. The appointment lasts until 2017 but if circumstances demand could be extended for 2 years.
This is by far the least satisfactory part of the deal between the Greater Manchester Leaders and the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne.
George Osborne has demanded an elected mayor for Greater Manchester as his price for handing over control of services delivered locally but controlled by central government. Fair enough. It would have been irresponsible to have turned down this opportunity to improve our local health service, buses, housing and the economy.
In fact an elected mayor is a democratic bonus.
There are two obvious alternatives. Recreating the Greater Manchester Council is costly and impractical and leaving it to the Leaders leaves a democratic deficit.
Unfortunately the law needs to be changed before an election can be held hence the appointed mayor. I think appointing a Major is a contradiction in political terms. Leaders appoint officials and the electorate appoint mayors.
Until the law can be changed the Leaders should remain in charge. Although not elected on the basis of the new powers and resources they have political legitimacy in a way an appointed mayor never will.
I suspect an appointed mayor is a convenience for officials and nothing else.
All this begs one very big question: should the people not only have the right to elect the Greater Manchester Mayor but decide whether one is desirable at all.
In local referenda Salford voted for an elected mayor but Manchester and Bury rejected the concept.
This has been used as evidence for the unpopularity and lack of support for elected mayors leading to the conclusion that before any change is made, an enabling referendum should be held across the county.
This is comparing apples and pears. The referenda in the three districts were concerned with the current services and democracy and how they could be changed.
What is on offer in this case is a major decentralisation of resources and powers. In my mind there is no question that the electorate should have the final say and as the two alternative democratic structures are expensive or less accountable; an elected mayor is a no brainer.
This is an extraordinary turnaround after 50 years of centralisation. The democratic changes would be worth it just for the powers to reregulate the buses and take the smiles off the bus owners’ faces who have exploited the travelling public far too long.
This is a recognition that centralisation has failed. After all the cuts we have faced in Greater Manchester over the last 5 years public expenditure is still at the same level as in 2010. It has just been moved from productive to non-productive areas.
Of course there's a long way to go but Greater Manchester must not look a gift horse in the mouth. The UK is one of the most centralised countries in the world to the benefit of London and the disadvantage of Manchester. This should be seen as the start of Manchester taking control of virtually all our public services. Having an elected Mayor is the correct democratic solution
Graham Stringer is a regular columnist for Manchester Confidential. He is the Labour Member of Parliament for Blackley and Broughton with a majority of 12,303. He was elected to Parliament in 1997 for the now abolished constituency of Manchester Blackley. Prior to this he was the Leader of Manchester City Council from 1984-1996. He is one of the few MPs to have science experience, as a professional analytical chemist. He is a member of The Science and Technology Committee at Westminster.
