Post code lottery or choice?

We have often heard the expression "post code lottery" - as if any variation in a public service was not democracy working but a sin against the constitution. If you change the word "lottery" to "choice", there is a less pejorative sound about it. It also implies that the post code area has decided where its priorities lie and acted accordingly. One would hope that this decision making process and the necessary consultation would be predicated upon a strong electoral basis on a small intimate and geographically small neighbourhood. "Central government had denied the electors the freedom to choose better local services by taxing themselves as in every other country in Europe" (Simon Jenkins Thatcher and Sons) In an earlier post I suggested that most inhabitants of an English borough would be unable to name their mayor. I know some people will find my following suggestion a total anathema because it over-rides an English tradition of Mayoral selection and offers a Gallic alternative.

The English tradition is to pick a committee or council and then for the elected body to decide who should be its leader or chairman or mayor. Often of course the leader is actually someone else and the mayor is an office used as reward for service to the elected body and as a figurehead. This works pretty well as a ceremonial post but it does mean the English public do not know who is in charge of their local affairs. We still get bogged down in party politics and the poor old elector has no idea who is the person in charge. This always smells too much of cigar smoke filled committee rooms and "City Hall". It heightens the class divisions and seems determined to cast an opaque smog over what is happening at the seat of power. The mayor of London is an elected one and although there is still a strong reek of party politics, everyone knows who the mayor of London is even if they are not Londoners. I believe central government had plans for other cities or unitary authorities to follow suit and perhaps that should warn me off the idea as part of my thesis is that anything that suits central government doesn't necessarily prove beneficial to the local elector.

What is my alternative? You've guessed it. I want elected mayors. A named person who stands for the post with a manifesto and at the end of four years is judged by the electorate on their record. I don't expect this will do away with party politics but it might lessen their hold slightly. The mayor of course will need to build an elected body of officers around him or her and will probably in the first instance rely upon a party machine to help provide those people. However as the elected mayoral system progresses mayors might find it best for their chances of re-election to appoint the best people for the job, whatever their political allegiance, as this may ensure the mayor is returned at the next election. The mayor will be a controversial figure rather than someone carrying out a civic timetable of ceremonial duties. Only the English equate controversy with bad - it can stimulate, it can innovate and it is rarely dull. Yes the mayor will have to be seen to do things that are vote catching and especially no doubt in an election year. But where is that any different from what happens now and it would be a lot more obvious under my new system than under the present one. The present Hampshire County Council is Tory run and decides where the road improvements take place. The County Council is applauded for the excellence of its road improvement and that only a minority of roads fall below the standards set overall. Being of a paranoid frame of mind, I wonder how many of the councillors who are not Tory find their wards fall in that minority. The subliminal message is clear but only if you can see beyond the party political hedge.

I suggested above that we look at the Gallic alternative knowing full well that this will send a number of people into apoplexy. The idea that we should learn from and copy the Europeans is appalling enough (as why else would UKIP exist) but to suggest that the French would have anything to offer us is doubly aggravating. However I am not suggesting the French commune system (and commune is a word also designed to raise English blood pressure)is perfect but it does offer a model worth looking at. Also after decades of visiting France (and I know that is different from living there and I hope my friends in the Lot valley are reading this and will send me their comments) I am impressed by the community pride and sense of belonging expressed in these communes and have been impressed by the many mayors I have met.

There are 37000 communes in France. Some are as large as Paris but 80% have fewer than 1000 inhabitants. Mayors are powerful and perhaps the British have a problem with power residing officially in the hands of one person. However Simon Jenkins (see above) says " Mayoral elections are often bitterly fought and the turnouts are high" He goes on: "The result is a civic pride visible in every French municipality". The idea of a high turnout is what attracts me having attended a recent local election where the turnout was 28%. I believe that having a named mayor will bring people out. It would be good to have feelings about elections that can be expressed at the ballot box or in the street. There will be no apathy about withholding one's vote because if one did that then the mayor you hate will get in again. We go on constantly about our lack of civic pride. Well the French example shows that this can be rekindled and an elected mayor is one step in the right direction.

We would need to look at the powers and responsibilities of the elected mayor and see how this could be dovetailed into a system of local government with which every citizen can feel involved.

One of the tricks that central government has achieved is the community tax being collected by the local borough council. In my local area only 13% of this tax goes to the borough, who have to pass on 70% to the county and 10% to the Police Authority. However the electors at public forums are always haranguing the borough council for roads (responsibility of County) and crime (responsibility of Police Authority). This is an anomaly that needs to be clarified if we are ever to have elected mayors otherwise the latter are going to be lynched for matters beyond their control.

I also feel a need to review how local taxation is determined. Patrick Jenkins, the new environment secretary in 1983, declared, in his White Paper that "rates were well understood, cheap to collect and very difficult to evade." Subsequent environment secretaries, and the turnover in that post is quite incredible, pushed for reform but don't seem to have improved the situation one bit and seem to be determined to muddy the waters of local finance in order to maintain control from the centre. "Thatcher seemed determined to punish local government, Tory as well as Labour, if only for being right" (page 139,(Simon Jenkins Thatcher and Sons) The New Labour governments that have followed have continued to punish local government rather than redress the situation.