Local government in England comes in many different formats, unitary, district and county councils all cover different parts of the country. In recent years, mayoral combined authorities have become an established part of the English constitutional set-up – if Greater London is included, 41 percent of England’s population (representing 43 percent of economic output but just 14 percent of land area) now lives in areas with some form of mayoral devolution deal.

Metro mayors themselves have come to increasing prominence in recent years, notably since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.Turnout increased in the 2021 combined authority mayoral elections, compared to the same contests in 2017. The Tees Valley election witnessed the most significant turnout change in 2021, with incumbent mayor Ben Houchen being re-elected with a 12.7 percentage point increase in turnout.

What are combined authorities?

Combined authorities (CAs) are formed by the coming together of two or more unitary authorities, which agree to a bespoke ‘devo deal’ with central government in order to obtain some devolved powers. There are now 10 combined authorities in England, nine of which have a directly elected ‘metro mayor’ (mayoral combined authorities or MCAs). The North East Combined Authority does not have an elected mayor.

Directly elected mayors are seen as key to the success of the combined authority model of devolution, as they can provide a single, clear point of accountability, while being supported by a cabinet made up of local authority leaders and representatives of local economic sectors. By speaking ‘with a single and democratically mandated voice’ for their local area, mayors are seen as offering visibility for their community at the national level. Their election via the Supplementary Vote helps prevent unpopular candidates being elected on a small share of the vote, as can happen under First Past the Post, thereby ensuring that these important executive roles can command the support of a broad range of voters.

Why were combined authorities established?

The impetus for the ‘devo deals’ and the creation of mayoral combined authorities can be found in the aftermath of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. In addition to promising further devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, then Prime Minister David Cameron announced that there would be a ‘wider civic engagement about how to improve governance in our United Kingdom, including how to empower our great cities.’

This policy was based upon a plethora of think tank reports published in 2014 and which, in turn, drew upon the 2012 independent report by Lord Heseltine on how to increase UK growth, which had proposed a fully unitary system of local government in England.

The first devolution deal, for the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, was announced in November 2014. Following the 2015 general election, the Conservative government set out its commitment ‘to building strong city regions led by elected mayors, building on the ground-breaking devolution deal with Greater Manchester in November 2014.’

To date, all devolution deals have initially been negotiated and agreed in separate, private, meetings between government teams and local authority leaders. After a deal was agreed and published, the local councils involved had to approve their participation in the deal (‘ratification’).

How does devolution work in combined authorities?

Devo deals typically consist of a ‘menu with specials’, with each metro mayor having different powers and budgets. Most deals include the devolution of powers around further education, business support, economic development, planning and land use, and local transport. In some cases, such as Greater Manchester, unique powers (the ‘specials’) are devolved as well, such as over housing and health.

Metro mayors make decisions about policy and spending alongside local authority leaders in their area, who may have different political standpoints or belong to different parties, and decisions must be signed off by a majority of council leaders. Metro mayors retain an effective veto over combined authority decisions in most areas, meaning their approval is needed to take a decision forward. Important decisions, such as on spending or local transport plans, can be rejected by a two-thirds majority of council leaders. Some decisions require unanimous approval from the mayor and CA members. This is unlike the situation in London, where the mayor can take decisions without reference to the boroughs.

Unlike arrangements in Scotland and Wales, and the London mayoralty, metro mayors are still a weak institution – they have limited powers and resources, lack meaningful control over funding and spending decisions, and cannot determine their own priorities where these diverge from the centre. But in spite of their few formal powers, mayors have sought to increase their clout in other ways. For example, they have taken on ‘orphan policies’, where no level of government has a clear duty to act, such as tackling homelessness or improving mental health provision. As shown during the coronavirus pandemic, mayors can also command attention from the national media, unlike other local government leaders.

Where next for metro mayors and combined authorities?

The government’s recently published levelling up white paper commits to extending and deepening devolution across England, including in mayoral combined authorities. The white paper makes it clear that the government’s preferred devolution model remains the mayoral one, with the highest level of devolved powers being available to areas with a single institution or county council and a directly elected mayor. A new MCA will be agreed with York and North Yorkshire, and existing MCAs will be expanded including in the North East, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. The latter two will be able to access ‘trailblazer deals’ for further powers.

It is crucial that the targets set out in the levelling up white paper to extend and deepen devolution across England by 2030 are met. To date, progress on devolution has been very slow – almost 10 years after the first devolution deals were agreed, nowhere has yet the same powers as Greater Manchester.

Citizens themselves should also be much more involved in discussing the future of their communities, including around devolution and local government reform, as the ERS has long called for. Citizen involvement during the ‘devo deals’ negotiations was limited and this impacted public support for and legitimacy in these institutions.

Recent government proposals raise further concerns about the extent to which it is committed to ensuring local communities have a strong voice and representation. The Elections Bill currently making its way through parliament would change the method by which metro mayors, alongside local authority mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners, are elected from the Supplementary Vote to First Past the Post.

Scrapping the Supplementary Vote in favour of First Past the Post would be a step back for voters. The Supplementary Vote has been used for over 20 years and is an improvement on First Past the Post, which forces voters to vote tactically. Rather than making elections more accessible and enhancing participation, this addition to the Elections Bill would lead to voters having less of a say in our democratic processes.

Find out more about English local government and how it can be reformed, in the latest ERS report Democracy Made in England.

You can support the work like this by becoming a member of the Electoral Reform Society

Join the Electoral Reform Society today

The excitement of the general election aside, it’s important to remember that there are other important elections coming up – ones that have gone largely under the national radar.

As well as important local elections in Scotland, Wales and much of England, the first ‘metro-mayors’ will be elected. Six new city-region mayors will be elected with wide-ranging powers over the local economy, transport – and in Greater Manchester even some parts of the NHS and welfare.

These new institutions represent the greatest change to the governance of England in decades. It is vitally important then, to think about how they will work as democratic institutions. The Electoral Reform Society has hence produced a new report, From City Hall to Citizens’ Hall: Democracy, Diversity and English Devolution.

Many of these new combined authorities are in areas made up of local ‘one party states’, where a single party dominates the council far out of proportion to their local popularity. There’s a big worry this will have negative repercussions for scrutiny of these new mayors.

One party domination has a huge impact on the composition of the combined authorities – but more worryingly, the scrutiny committees, given that these will be drawn from the highly disproportionate (and one-party dominated) seat make-up of the councils.

The Cost of One Party Councils report commissioned by the ERS has shown the costs imposed by poor scrutiny in one party councils. It founds that public procurement budgets in councils overwhelmingly dominated by a single party spend are more prone to waste – estimated to cost £2.6 billion per year. If the scrutineers are mostly from the governing party, it’s no surprise that they are less effective at holding their own party to account.

But we’re also raising the alarm about potential issues of diversity in the new combined authorities.

The ERS predicts that just one female Mayoral candidate will win next month (most likely in Tees Valley), with only seven female candidates out of 39 in the six races.

In the most gender-diverse cabinet of the Combined Authorities, only one of five leaders is a woman, while in four there are no women at all. 93% of the top jobs in the new CAs are likely to go to white men. It bodes badly for public faith in these institutions, and therefore their sustainability.

The ERS is calling for candidates and the new Mayors to back reforms to open up the Combined Authorities, including: basing scrutiny committees on vote share rather than seat share, prioritising gender balance in upcoming local elections, adopting proportional representation via the Single Transferable Vote for local elections, implementing a ‘Transparency Charter’, and experimenting with new forms of democracy such as citizens’ assemblies.

The new mayoralties are an opportunity to do politics differently: an opportunity that should not be missed.

Read our new report, From City Hall to Citizens’ Hall

Does Bristol, Birmingham or Bradford want a Boris? We find out next Thursday when these and seven other English cities give voters a choice as to whether to adopt the directly elected mayor model.

Yet just days before the poll, there is little understanding of what benefit directly elected mayors might bring, what their role and powers are likely to be and what, if anything, they will do to reinvigorate local democracy.

Turnout for Mayoral referendums has ranged from lows of 10% in Sunderland and Ealing to a high of 64% in Berwick upon Tweed. Most mayoral referendums have returned a ‘no’ vote (27 out of 42) but areas that have chosen a directly elected mayor seem to like them; most Mayors elected in 2002 are now serving their third term. A ComRes poll in April this year asked whether ‘London is a better city for having a Mayor’ – 69% agreed and only 12% disagreed.

The latest British Social Attitudes survey reveals mixed response to elected mayors. Whilst 58 per cent agree that an elected mayor can speak up for an area, only 37 per cent think an elected mayor makes it ‘easier to get things done’. More people agree than disagree with the claim that it gives too much power to a single person, but almost the same percentage of people simply don’t know.

Opponents of the role see it as too great a concentration of power in a single individual and fear it leads to unaccountable, authoritarian leadership, opening the door to corruption. Yet the formal powers of existing elected mayors do not differ greatly from those of council leaders. The arguably more important powers are ‘soft powers’ deriving from direct election and the position itself which expands influence.

However, this new set of city mayors are to have greater powers in relation to economic growth, infrastructure, planning and employment. The government intends to take a ‘bespoke approach’ to devolving power through ‘tailored city deals’. This means people will be voting in referendums with no idea what powers their future mayor may have. Whether this uncertainty will impact on the result of the referendums remains to be seen, what we do know is that a lack of knowledge will always sway voters towards the status quo.

In the opposite corner, advocates of elected mayors argue that they deliver strong and stable leadership; that they can act as champions of an area, driving economic development and growth. As representatives chosen by citizens rather than their party colleagues, directly elected mayors are arguably more externally focused. Many mayors see themselves as leader of a place rather than leader of a council.

The position also appears to attract leaders from outside the usual political channels. To date, six elected Mayors have been independents including a former detective inspector, a former newsagent and a former football mascot. Yet whilst the position has attracted new political voices, it has not attracted candidates from across society. The Centre for Women and Democracy reports that in next week’s three Mayoral elections only 15% of candidates are women. This is the lowest percentage in the history of the post of directly elected Mayor. In Liverpool’s election there are no female or minority ethnic candidates.

Devolving powers to city regions could be seen as an important move to reinvigorate local democracy and mitigate against the centralization which shapes governance in England. But it is not clear on the evidence to date that it is always the right move. The Warwick Commission on elected mayors and city leadership has concluded that whilst elected mayors are right for some places, they might not be necessary for cities which are already ‘vigorously and strategically led’.

Next week may see more citizens gaining the opportunity to elect a leader for their area. But the jury is out on whether directly elected mayors offer a better version of democracy or just a different one.

What are your views on Elected Mayors? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.