PSAMediaBriefing

MayoralContestsTuesday12thApril2016

ProfessorTonyTravers(LSE)

Phone:07958-005078/Email:a.travers@lse.ac.ukProfessorRobinHambleton(UniversityoftheWestofEngland)

Phone:01179249844/Email:Robin.Hambleton@uwe.ac.uk

#PSAmediaTel: 02073212545Email:helena.djurkovic@psa.ac.uk

stefanie.mair@psa.ac.ukjosh.niderost@psa.ac.uk

PSAMediaBriefing

Tuesday12thApril2016

ProfessorTonyTravers

LondonSchoolofEconomics

Phone:07958-005078

Email:a.travers@lse.ac.uk

4/11/16

1

TheLondonMayorandAssemblyelections

TonyTraversLSE

a.travers@lse.ac.uk07958-005078

Fourmayoralelectionsin2016

• London• fifthsuchcontest

• Bristol• secondsuchcontest

• Salford• Second suchcontest

• Liverpool• first suchcontest

London-wideelectionssince1965- voteshare

Con Lab Lib/LD Others Turnout

1964 41.7 46.0 10.3 2.0 44.2

1967 54.3 34.6 9.1 2.0 41.1

1970 51.6 40.5 5.4 2.5 35.2

1973 38.0 47.4 12.5 2.1 37.0

1977 52.5 32.4 7.8 7.3 43.4

1981 39.7 41.8 14.4 4.1 44.4

GRE UKIP Others

2000 29.0 30.3 14.8 11.1 2.1 12.8 31.0

2004 28.5 25.0 16.9 8.6 8.4 12.7 37.0

2008 34.6 27.6 11.4 8.4 1.9 16.0 45.2

2012 32.0 41.1 6.8 8.5 4.5 7.0 37.5

Vote share inGLCelections and GLAAssembly ‘lis t’ elections . NBdifferent voting systems inuse for GLCand GLA

4/11/16

2

London-wideelectionssince1965- seatswon (GLC/LondonAssembly)

Con Lab Lib/LD Others

1964 75 41 0 0

1967 92 24 0 0

1970 76 40 0 0

1973 38 67 2 0

1977 64 28 0 0

1981 41 50 1 0

GRE UKIP Others

2000 9 9 4 3 0 0

2004 9 7 5 2 2 0

2008 11 8 3 2 0 1(BNP)

2012 9 12 2 2 0 0

Vote share inGLCelections and GLAAssembly ‘lis t’ elections . NBdifferent voting systems inuse for GLCand GLA

DifferencebetweenLondonvoteshareandGBvoteshare,GeneralElections,1955-2015

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Con

Lab

Lib/LD

Others

GLA votingsystems• Mayor:‘SupplementaryVote’

• 1st preference• Mayuse2nd preference• Ifnocandidatereceives50%of1st preferences,thentoptwocandidatesgoforward,othersknockedoutandtheir2ndpreference votes(fortoptwo)counted

• Assembly:‘Additionalmember’• 14first-past-the-postconstituencies• 11‘top-up’membersfrompartylistelection

• overallresulttodeliverbroad‘proportionality’

4/11/16

3

Londonmayoralelection- 1stand2nd preference

KenLivingstone(Ind/Lab)

SteveNorris/Boris Johnson(Con)

Margin

2000 57.9 42.1 15.82004 55.4 44.6 10.82008 46.8 53.2 6.42012 48.5 51.5 3.0

Mayoralelection2000

20001stpref 1st+2nd

KenLivingstone (Ind) 39% 58%SteveNorris (Con) 27% 42%FrankDobson(Lab) 13%SusanKramer(LD) 12%RamGidoomal (CPA) 2.5%DarrenJohnson (Green) 2.2%MichaelNewland (BNP) 2.0%DamianHockney (UKIP) 1.0%

Mayoralelection2004

20041st pref 1st+2nd

KenLivingstone (Lab) 37% 55%SteveNorris (Con) 29% 45%SimonHughes (LD) 15%FrancisMaloney (UKIP) 6.2%LindseyGerman(Respect) 3.3%JulianLeppert (BNP) 3.1%DarrenJohnson (Gre) 3.1%

4/11/16

4

Mayoralelection2008

20081stpref 1st+2nd

Boris Johnson (Con) 43% 53%KenLivingstone (Lab) 37% 47%BrianPaddick (LD) 10%SianBerry (Gre) 3.2%RichardBarnbrook (BNP) 2.9%AlanCriag (CC) 1.6%GerardBatten(UKIP) 0.9%

Mayoralelection2012

20121stpref 1st+2nd

Boris Johnson (Con) 44.0% 51.5%KenLivingstone (Lab) 40.3% 48.5%JennyJones (Gre) 4.5%BrianPaddick (LD) 4.2%SiobhanBenita 3.8%LawrenceJamesWebb(UKIP) 2.0%CarlosCortiglia (BNP) 1.3%

Mayoralelection2016[pollofpolls*]

20161stpref 1st+2nd

Sadiq Khan (Lab) 46% 54ZacGoldsmith (Con) 38% 46CarolinePidgeon (LD) 5%PeterWhittle (UKIP)) 5%SianBerry (Gre) 4%GeorgeGalloway(Respect) 1%Others 1%

4/11/16

5

Rallings &Thrasher ’sNEVSprojection- PSAmediabriefing5.4.16

Suggestsa3.5%LabtoConswing

Assemblyvote%,2000,2004,2008and2012- London-widepartylist

Con Lab LD Green UKIP BNP Other

2000 29.0 30.3 14.8 11.1 2.0 2.9 9.9

2004 28.5 25.0 16.9 8.6 8.4 4.8 7.9

2008 34.6 27.6 11.4 8.4 1.9 5.4 10.6

2012 32.0 41.1 6.8 8.5 4.5 2.1 4.9

2016 (projection) 30-31 36-37 7-8 6-7 7-8 0-1 8-9

Sou rce (2 0 0 0 to 2 0 1 2 resu l ts) :David Cowl in g;P ro jection s :TonyTravers

Assemblyelection2016Constituency 2012 result Swing to change Possible change? Likely?

Barnet &Camden Lab 0.8 Con gain from Lab? 10%

Bexley &Bromley Con 13.0 No

Brent &Harrow Lab 8.9 No

City &East Lab 24.5 No

Croydon &Sutton Con 2.5 Labgain from Con? 5%

Ealing &Hillingdon Lab 3.4 Con gain from Lab? 5%

Enfield &Haringey Lab 11.8 No

Greenwich &Lewisham Lab 13.7 No

Havering &Redbridge Con 1.0 Labgain from Con? 10%

Lewisham &Southwark Con 15.1 No

Merton &Wandsworth Con 2.5 Labgain from Con? 10%

North East Lab 16.9 No

South West Con 4.5 No

WestCentral Con 9.2 No

4/11/16

6

Assemblycomposition

Con Lab LD Green UKIP BNP

2000 9 9 4 3 0 0

2004 9 7 5 2 2 0

2008 11 8 3 2 0 1

2012 9 12 2 2 0 0

2016 (projection) 8-9 11-12 2-3 1-2 1-2 0

Givenvoting sys temand current polls ,s ignificant change unlikelyChanges toflow from changes in Assembly ‘lis t’vote share

Minorityethnicvoting– 2015GE

Sou rce:Su rvation fo rBri ti sh Fu tu re,May 2 0 1 5

Religion andvoting– 2015GE-within ‘minority’ vote

Source: Survation for British Future, May 2015

4/11/16

7

Conclusions

• Londonhas,marginally,becomemoreofa‘Labourcity’• since1997• if Sadiq Khanweretowin,lessrevealing aboutGBpoliticsthanEnglishlocalelections

• There issomeevidencethattheminorityethnicvotemaybeshiftingtowardstheConservatives• OuterLondonisnowlesseasilywonbytheConservativesthaninthepast,becausethecity’spopulationismoremixed(byincomegroups)inbothinnerandouterLondon• TheMayoralmodelisnowembedded

• 2016isthef irst‘non-celebrity’contest

• Expectthe resultlateonFridayMay6(atbest)…..

TheLondonMayorandAssemblyelections

TonyTraversLSE

a.travers@lse.ac.uk07958-005078

PSAMediaBriefing

Tuesday12thApril2016

RobinHambleton,ProfessorofCityLeadership

CentreforSustainablePlanningandEnvironments,UniversityoftheWestof

England,Bristol

Phone:01179249844

Email:Robin.Hambleton@uwe.ac.uk

1

Briefing Note by Robin Hambleton 6 April 2016 Briefing Note for Political Studies Association (PSA) Media Briefing on Mayoral Contests at the Institute for Government, London on 12 April 2016 Mayoral governance in Bristol: Has it made a difference? Robin Hambleton In a referendum, held in May 2012, the citizens of Bristol decided to introduce a model of governance headed by a directly elected mayor. The following November fifteen candidates, more than in any other mayoral contest in England, ran for the newly created office of mayor. To the surprise of commentators in the media, as well as the established political parties, Bristol citizens, quirky as always, elected an independent politician. George Ferguson, a respected architect with a good track record of carrying out imaginative urban regeneration projects in the city, was able to beat Marvin Rees, the Labour Party candidate, his main rival, into second place. The result attracted national news. Ferguson became the first independent politician to lead a major English city, and he is now campaigning to win a second term in May. Once again, Marvin Rees, who was born and bred in Bristol and offers a progressive agenda for the city, has been chosen by the Labour Party to run for mayor. While there are still a few weeks to go, and there are other strong candidates in the race, it is likely that that the final count on the night of 5 May 2016 will boil down to a run off between the two leading candidates who fought it out in 2012. Has having a directly mayor made a difference to the governance of the city? A new report, co-authored by myself and Dr David Sweeting of the University of Bristol, on the impact of the changes made to the governance of Bristol in 2012 – The Impact of Mayoral Governance in Bristol - shows that the mayoral model has provided a platform for high profile, visible city leadership. In this study we gathered views about the governance of the city from several hundred Bristol citizens in 2012 and 2014 – before and after the introduction of mayoral governance into the city in November 2012.

2

We also surveyed a sample of civic leaders drawn from the voluntary sector, the business community, local councillors, council officers and public servants in Bristol, and we organised various focus groups. Our findings show that the introduction of a directly elected mayor has resulted in a spectacular increase in the visibility of city leadership. In 2012, before the introduction of the mayor, 24 per cent of citizens thought the city had visible leadership. In 2014, after the introduction of the mayor, 69 per cent agreed. This increase was also evident in the responses from civic leaders from the community, voluntary and business sectors. Twenty-five per cent agreed that Bristol had visible leadership in 2012, compared with an astonishing 97 per cent in 2014. Why does visibility matter? A key argument in favour of having visible leadership relates to accountability. If you do not know who is making decisions how can you hold them to account? However, visibility is not the whole story. In carrying out research on civic leadership in the UK and other countries for my new book – Leading the Inclusive City (Policy Press 2015) – I discovered that that the process of direct election can give directly elected mayors the legitimacy to take tough decisions. Mayor Ferguson certainly subscribes to this view. In an interview for my book (p 135) he told me, shortly after he was elected, that: ‘Being elected by the whole electorate creates a huge difference to my authority to do things. It also gives me the courage to make changes that, otherwise, would be very difficult to make’. What impact has the mayoral model of governance had on the power system in Bristol? Councillors have, on the whole, taken the view that this new form of governance concentrates too much power in the hands of one individual. While 54 per cent of citizens and around 78 per cent of public managers and leaders from the business, community and voluntary sectors agreed that the introduction of the mayoral system had ensured the interests of Bristol are better represented, only 33 per of councillors agreed. Many councillors feel that they are being excluded from the decision-making process. Looking ahead we know that, following the passing of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, ministers are strongly committed to the directly elected ‘city region mayor’ model of governance.

3

In the Bristol city region this is, for some, controversial. The West of England comprises four unitary authorities – Bristol, South Gloucestershire, Bath and North East Somerset, and North Somerset. Conservative controlled North Somerset Council has already said it will not accept the idea of a directly elected mayor for the Bristol city region. However, the major issue facing all local authorities this May, whether they have directly elected mayors or not, is the industrial scale cuts ministers are making to local government funding. In the Bristol case central government financial support to the City Council is being cut from £201 million in 2010/11 to £45 million in 2019/20. Yes, that’s a 78% cut in ten years. If these cuts go ahead, local public services will be decimated. Cuts in central government financial support to cities across the country mirror the attack on local government in Bristol. The complete failure of central government to provide adequate financial support to elected local authorities – to the authorities providing many vital services for local families and citizens - is the unreported scandal of our time. Robin Hambleton is Professor of City Leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol and Director of Urban Answers The new report on ‘The Impacts of Mayoral Governance in Bristol’ is available free at: http://bristolcivicleadership.net For more on Robin Hambleton’s new book, Leading the Inclusive City visit: http://tinyurl.com/l489uak

11/04/2016

1

Presentation to the Political Studies Association Media Briefing, Institute for Government, London

12 April 2016

Directly elected mayors: Can they make a difference?

Robin Hambleton, Professor of City Leadership, Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments, University of the West of England, Bristol

Part 1:

City leadership: The international and national context

Leading the inclusive city

A nwebe14

11/04/2016

2

The national context

• Mayor of London/Greater London Authority created 2000

• Local Government Act 2000

• Sixteen authorities adopted Directly Elected Mayors (DEMs) up to 2011

• Localism Act 2011

• Bristol adopted DEM in referendum in May 2012; first mayor elected November 2012: George Ferguson

• Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016

• Opportunities for localities to bid to Whitehall for additional responsibilities

Arguments for directly elected mayors

• Visibility – citizens and others know who the leader of the city is

• Legitimacy and accountability – arising from the direct election process

• Strategic focus and authority to decide (Metro-mayors)

• Better able to wield ‘soft power’

• Stable leadership (if terms are for three or more years)

• Outward facing leadership

• Potential to attract new people into politics

• A mayor is leader of the place, rather than the leader of the council

Source: Leading the Inclusive City p 187

Arguments against directly elected mayors

• Concentration of too much power in the hands of one person

• Lack of representation of alternative views

• Overload/bottlenecks

• Power shifts to advisors and officers

• No power of recall – how to get rid of a bad mayor?

• Focus on personality – risk of celebrity posturing

• Cost of having a mayor

• Our over-centralised state remains – mayors are a distraction from this much more important debate

Source: Leading the Inclusive City p187

11/04/2016

3

Central government financial support to Bristol City Council 2010-2020

Note: Real term reduc tion in rev enue s upport tak ing ac c ount o f ov era l l c uts and mov ement o f grants in and out o f the s ettlement.

Part 2:

The impact of mayoral governance in Bristol

The Bristol Civic Leadership Project• Two main aims:

• What difference does a DEM make?;

• What steps can be taken to ensure that the introduction of a DEM brings about benefits and avoids potential disadvantages ?

• Surveys of residents ‘before’ and ‘after’

• September 2012 and January 2014

• Surveys of civic leaders ‘before’ and ‘after’

• September 2012 and December 2014

• Interviews with stakeholders

• Focus groups and workshops

• http://bristolcivicleaders hip.net/

11/04/2016

4

Six criteria for good urban governance

• Leadership in the community• Effective representation of the citizen• Legitimacy and accountability• Effectiveness in decision-making and

implementation• Effective scrutiny of policy and

performance• Responsiveness to local people

Realms of place based leadership

Socio-economic geography: the example of Bristol

11/04/2016

5

Leadership visibility: before and after

Leadership visibility: before and after by realms of place-based leadership

Different realms, different views

11/04/2016

6

Views by socio-economic category• Citizens’ Panel survey, 2012 and 2014. A directly elected mayor will

improve/has improved the leadership of the city, percent agree, by ward socio-economic category

Key findings

• Introducing a directly mayor model of governance can make a big difference – it alters power relationships

• Institutional design matters and reformers should pay attention

• Perceptions of the success or otherwise of the model varies by realm of place-based leadership

• Different socio-economic groups have different views