News from the New Party

Elected mayors and term limits

It would appear that the Conservatives have given up the struggle to find a candidate big enough and mean enough to take on Ken Livingstone in next year's London Mayoral contest and actually win.  This, presumably, represents the sudden enthusiasm for term limits for the post of London Mayor on the part of Tory peers.

They may, however, have a point.  There is no tradition of elective executive office in British politics.  We tend instead to elect parliaments and councils, from which the administrations are drawn in one way or another.  The introduction of elected mayors was a gimmick of doubtful value, seized upon in frustration at the studied and persistent uselessness of what passes for local government in this country. As such, elected mayors stick out like a constitutional sore thumb.

But since we have imported the principle of elected mayors, it makes sense to consider other pertinent constitutional principles apply in its native environment.  Of these, the concept of term limitation is a key principle.  We can see this by comparing the tenure of British Prime Ministers with that of American Presidents.  The eleven prime ministers from Churchill to Blair will have served, collectively, sixty seven years in office.  The last eleven US Presidents, from Harry S. Truman to the end of the second term of George W. Bush, will have clocked up sixty four years in office.  In other words, the average period in office on both sides of the Atlantic is about six years.  Yet there is no term limit for British Prime Ministers, while American Presidents are limited to eight years.  The reason for this lies with Harry Truman's immediate predecessor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who served twelve years, and would have served at least sixteen had he not died in office.  Following FDR's unprecedently long tenure, the US Constitution was amended to introduce a two term limit for the presidency.  It was regarded as dangerous for democracy for an incumbent president to serve too long, even if returned at periodic democratic elections.

In this context, Ken Livingstone is London's FDR.  He is, in the words of Robbie Millen, a "vote hoover" - a highly astute electoral politician, remarkably popular in London, largely unassailable.  But if the people of London want to keep on voting for him, shouldn't the length of Ken Livingstone's term in office be a matter between him and the electorate? 

Unfortunately, it's not that simple.  Voters are notorious for not taking local elections particularly seriously.  If the people of Hartlepool want to elect a monkey as mayor, then that is largely a problem for the people of Hartlepool.  If the people of London want to do the same thing, repeatedly, then that is a problem for the whole country.  We have enumerated before the shortcomings of Ken Livingstone and his conduct as mayor.  Other jurisdictions which employ similar mechanisms in local government also employ other methods to ensure accountability. 

Only now, with the prospect of a virtual dictatorship in London, are these matters being considered.  However, these issues should not be tackled merely as a device to rid London of the scourge of Livingstone.  There should be a full review of local government, including London regional government, and the effectiveness of elected mayors should be considered as part and parcel of that process.  The lesson of Livingstone is that local government will not be saved by gimmickry - a more hard headed approach is needed with full recognition of the importance of local accountability, local democracy and value for money for the local taxpayer.