Mayoral mauling

Criticism of London Mayor Ken Livingston has once again raised questions about the case for directly elected mayors in UK local government.

The London Evening Standard has been running a long-standing campaign against Livingston. But the recent coverage has had an added piquancy because it was prompted by a television programme, for the Channel 4 Dispatches series, fronted by the political editor of the leftwing New Statesman Martin Bright.

The essence of the criticism was summed up by Livingston himself when he acknowledged in a BBC interview that the London mayoralty had in effect become a personal fiefdom.

In local government circles this contretemps has focussed attention on the mechanisms through which directly elected mayors are held to account. The Local Government Chronicle pointed to the way in which the New York City Council holds that city’s mayor to account as a potential model, compared with the supposedly toothless London Assembly.

Yet at the same time as the English media was indulging in a Ken-fest, The New York Times was running an expose of Rudi Giuliani’s record as mayor. Under the headline “In matters big and small, crossing Giuliani had price” the opening paragraph read: “Rudolph W Giuliani likens himself to a boxer who never takes a punch without swinging back. As mayor, he made the vengeful roundhouse an instrument of government, clipping anyone who crossed him.”

Does that sound familiar?

It may well be that these similarities say something about the personalities of the two mayors and about what it takes to successfully stand for election to high profile big city posts such as these.

But maybe the similarities should also prompt us to think more systemically about the culture of city government, the pressures that city leaders face, and the dynamics between them, the organisations they lead, the communities they serve and the political parties they are members of and oppose.

One thing is for sure: this is more than coincidence.

Phil Swann