John Oxley: What exactly are Mayors for?
Trust is earned, not demanded.
John Oxley is a consultant, writer, and broadcaster. His SubStack is Joxley Writes.
Labour’s drama around Andy Burnham was heartening to watch for most Conservatives.
Despite our party’s own problems, it is gratifying to see the other side grapple with the same sort of drama that undermined us in office.
Their public spat and a latent leadership challenge were a reminder that we are not the only ones who can succumb to the drama of internal machinations.
The official reason for the hamstringing of Burnham’s return to Parliament was the same thing that has driven his popularity: his mayoralty. For the Labour NEC, it proved a convenient way of blocking him. The party didn’t want the cost or the electoral risk of a by-election for Greater Manchester. There was also the fair criticism that walking out after less than half a term was a cynical move.
The more interesting question here, though, is not about the internal management of the Labour Party, but what it says about the role of mayors themselves. Metro-mayoralties were meant to cultivate leadership beyond Westminster. The role was introduced with the hope of attracting innovative outsiders—operators and builders with strong local leadership. Instead, the position looks increasingly like a holding pen for national politicians. It’s an extension of parliamentary career management by other means.
Of the current crop of strategic authority mayors, half are former MPs. London, the longest-standing and most prestigious, has never had a mayor who didn’t first come from the Commons. Mayoral roles have attracted characters who have lost their seat, hit a ceiling in their Westminster careers, or else have sought to harness the position to boost their profile. Andy Burnham would not, of course, be the first person to leverage mayoralty into a bid for Number 10.
It weakens the purpose of mayoralties and devolution in general to see them in such terms. Rather than spreading power downwards, it reinforces the centralisation of the British state. Instead of an office empowered to reshape how cities and regions are run, it starts to look like mayoralties are a place to bide your time until you can swing back into where the real power is – Westminster.
This drift is the result of the incentives we have baked into our political system. Candidate selection remains tightly controlled by national parties, favouring recognisable figures. The long campaign periods for mayoralties compound this. Someone already inside politics finds it far easier to dedicate a year or more of their lives to a full-time electoral fight, especially when the outcome isn’t guaranteed. Meanwhile, media attention still flows overwhelmingly through Westminster, rewarding mayors who maintain a national profile rather than those who …
Trust is earned, not demanded.
John Oxley is a consultant, writer, and broadcaster. His SubStack is Joxley Writes.
Labour’s drama around Andy Burnham was heartening to watch for most Conservatives.
Despite our party’s own problems, it is gratifying to see the other side grapple with the same sort of drama that undermined us in office.
Their public spat and a latent leadership challenge were a reminder that we are not the only ones who can succumb to the drama of internal machinations.
The official reason for the hamstringing of Burnham’s return to Parliament was the same thing that has driven his popularity: his mayoralty. For the Labour NEC, it proved a convenient way of blocking him. The party didn’t want the cost or the electoral risk of a by-election for Greater Manchester. There was also the fair criticism that walking out after less than half a term was a cynical move.
The more interesting question here, though, is not about the internal management of the Labour Party, but what it says about the role of mayors themselves. Metro-mayoralties were meant to cultivate leadership beyond Westminster. The role was introduced with the hope of attracting innovative outsiders—operators and builders with strong local leadership. Instead, the position looks increasingly like a holding pen for national politicians. It’s an extension of parliamentary career management by other means.
Of the current crop of strategic authority mayors, half are former MPs. London, the longest-standing and most prestigious, has never had a mayor who didn’t first come from the Commons. Mayoral roles have attracted characters who have lost their seat, hit a ceiling in their Westminster careers, or else have sought to harness the position to boost their profile. Andy Burnham would not, of course, be the first person to leverage mayoralty into a bid for Number 10.
It weakens the purpose of mayoralties and devolution in general to see them in such terms. Rather than spreading power downwards, it reinforces the centralisation of the British state. Instead of an office empowered to reshape how cities and regions are run, it starts to look like mayoralties are a place to bide your time until you can swing back into where the real power is – Westminster.
This drift is the result of the incentives we have baked into our political system. Candidate selection remains tightly controlled by national parties, favouring recognisable figures. The long campaign periods for mayoralties compound this. Someone already inside politics finds it far easier to dedicate a year or more of their lives to a full-time electoral fight, especially when the outcome isn’t guaranteed. Meanwhile, media attention still flows overwhelmingly through Westminster, rewarding mayors who maintain a national profile rather than those who …
John Oxley: What exactly are Mayors for?
Trust is earned, not demanded.
John Oxley is a consultant, writer, and broadcaster. His SubStack is Joxley Writes.
Labour’s drama around Andy Burnham was heartening to watch for most Conservatives.
Despite our party’s own problems, it is gratifying to see the other side grapple with the same sort of drama that undermined us in office.
Their public spat and a latent leadership challenge were a reminder that we are not the only ones who can succumb to the drama of internal machinations.
The official reason for the hamstringing of Burnham’s return to Parliament was the same thing that has driven his popularity: his mayoralty. For the Labour NEC, it proved a convenient way of blocking him. The party didn’t want the cost or the electoral risk of a by-election for Greater Manchester. There was also the fair criticism that walking out after less than half a term was a cynical move.
The more interesting question here, though, is not about the internal management of the Labour Party, but what it says about the role of mayors themselves. Metro-mayoralties were meant to cultivate leadership beyond Westminster. The role was introduced with the hope of attracting innovative outsiders—operators and builders with strong local leadership. Instead, the position looks increasingly like a holding pen for national politicians. It’s an extension of parliamentary career management by other means.
Of the current crop of strategic authority mayors, half are former MPs. London, the longest-standing and most prestigious, has never had a mayor who didn’t first come from the Commons. Mayoral roles have attracted characters who have lost their seat, hit a ceiling in their Westminster careers, or else have sought to harness the position to boost their profile. Andy Burnham would not, of course, be the first person to leverage mayoralty into a bid for Number 10.
It weakens the purpose of mayoralties and devolution in general to see them in such terms. Rather than spreading power downwards, it reinforces the centralisation of the British state. Instead of an office empowered to reshape how cities and regions are run, it starts to look like mayoralties are a place to bide your time until you can swing back into where the real power is – Westminster.
This drift is the result of the incentives we have baked into our political system. Candidate selection remains tightly controlled by national parties, favouring recognisable figures. The long campaign periods for mayoralties compound this. Someone already inside politics finds it far easier to dedicate a year or more of their lives to a full-time electoral fight, especially when the outcome isn’t guaranteed. Meanwhile, media attention still flows overwhelmingly through Westminster, rewarding mayors who maintain a national profile rather than those who …
