The question was put "A question: do I infer correctly from this that
Mayors in the UK are not currently elected? If so, how are they selected,
and to whom are they accountable? I presume there is some democratic
representation at the civic level?"
It's late at night, so this might get a bit garbled in places, but here
goes:
In the context of UK local governance it is important to put out of your
mind the personality obsession of "big men" (sic) that dominates Canadian
and US local politics. At least, with some notable exceptions such as
Livingstone with the late Greater London Council, until recently.
Many of us with considerable practical experience of local politics reckon
the lack of personalisation as a structural part of the local elected body
is a more democratic form than the trivialisation and image-based politics
that mayoral systems often/usually seem to promote.
The UK system, with minor differences between England and Wales and the
Scottish that are unimportant in this regard, is more collective.
Councillors are elected, usually 3 to a ward, on an annual rolling basis
in the "shires" (that is for local authorities outside of the big
metropolitan centres such as London) or in other words one each year, so
that a councillor stands for 3 years before needing re-election.
Metropolitan authorities have big bang elections triennially.
>From the body of the councillors a Leader of the Council is elected by the
representatives on an annual basis. This is usually the leader of the
majority party, also elected annually and capable of being deposed at any
time, and hence removed from Council Leadership. Saying the leader is the
first amongst equals is stretching it a bit, but you have the idea. The
Mayor is not directly elected as a specific post by the electorate.
The Mayoralty is an honorary and symbolic post, again chosen by the
Councillors on an annual basis, and when it works well confers recognition
upon a senior councillor, often nearing the end of their service/who has
stepped down to the "backbenches" who has given genuine service. I have
often seen good councillors honoured who have been members of the Party
which is not in the majority, and it can be one of the few occassions when
people will look beyond party differences and assess the quality of that
persons committment as a local representative, but to be frank this has
been in decline over recent years and place seeking has risen. (There is a
genuine tendency to distinguish "party" politics from elements of council
work in the UK. You often find Labour, Liberal and Tory councillors
working together on individual casework for electorate members with
problems, a committment to cooperate in the large amount of casework which
is only tangentially "political", at least on the surface. Don't get
idealistic about this tendency, plenty of opportunities arise for party
sniping, but it still exists even in the 1990s in some areas, although in
dangerous decline, a decline I fear will be hastened by Image Politics).
Often, of course, the Mayoralty can be an empty honorific given to people
who little deserve it, but not always by any means.
The upside of this Representative/Leader system is that policy and
decision making becomes a more negotiable activity which can gain some
seperation from the cruder levels of electoral and image-politics
pressures. When working well it reflects in my (considerable) experience
of local politics real needs and a surprising degree of consensus, and is
more amenable to pressure from the populace over direction, which might
sound contradictory to not being so vulnerable to transient fashion as
indicated immediately above, but isn't.
However, the downside can be a lack of a clearly seen "leadership"
personified in an easily identifiable individual or small group, capable
of high profile pushing through of change etc. There has been quite a body
of evidence that many areas that have developed significant responses to
"globalisation" etc. have had these spearheaded by clear leadership
capable of building alliances.
But this is not always the case, as during the 70s and 80s in the UK there
were a series of strong and powerfully identified leaders who emerged from
the system who could provide such leadership for change.
Interestingly, these leaders tended to emerge from elected groups where
the overall quality of the representatives was very high, where very able
people went into local politics. Since the emasculation of local political
power and massive centralisation into Governmental hands by the
dictatorial regime of Thatcher and Major - policies carried on by the
Phony Bliar regime - quality has dropped considerably, and few individuals
capable of leadership at the level of the old times emerge (golden ages!).
Obviously a positive feedback system in a spiral of decline...
The Phony Bliar regime's interest in instituting Mayoral systems may have
a genuine desire to see the potential for leadership put in pla
