Comments on: Why we should re-phase London Assembly Elections

By: Damian Hockney

Damian Hockney — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:31:30 +0000

Re-scheduling the invisible Assembly elections is tempting but a non-starter. The main parties want them to be very low key, as focus on the Assembly would do little except place a harsh spotlight on its complete lack of powers. It is widely accepted that public ridicule in those circumstances would deal a death blow to it. Such is the desire to make the Assembly invisible, that when I stood for Mayor in 2000, we were barred from mentioning our Assembly teams in the Mayoral entry in the election booklet. Scrutiny is not done by the Assembly but by Parliament, hence as a former Assembly Member I was repeatedly denied information relating to the Mayor and London government in all its forms, which in any event I had to request under Freedom of Information…where MPs could get (some) of that information with no difficulties. To perform Parliament’s role in holding the London Mayor to account. It is also not possible for the Assembly to hold more power (and therefore be more relevant to the voter) because the system was designed as a centralising system, taking powers away from the bottom (local government), vesting them in one individual, who is then beholden to the centre through financial controls and the law making process – which is controlled by either Westminster or (mostly) the European Union through Directive imposed by Westminster rubberstamp. This is why the miniscule powers that Parliament unintentionally gave to the Assembly/elected politicians 10 years ago – through balance on the statutory bodies and over staffing arrangements – were removed in the Act which put in place the review of GLA powers. And also where Mayoral powers were increased in that review, these were mostly at the expense of local authorities and not central government.

By: Simon K

Simon K — Mon, 11 May 2009 10:49:22 +0000

I’m not convinced that having separate elections for a body with no executive power would increase engagement – it might even reduce it. How much do people engage with the (also essentially powerless) European Parliament, and how inspired are they by the prospect of voting to elect its membership?

If your putative expanded powers include some genuine executive power, surely this would also raise the question of ‘who governs’ – with an Assembly elected later than the Mayor claiming a stronger mandate.

If you just mean expanded powers of scrutiny (and perhaps stronger powers to vote down the Mayor’s hare-brained schemes) then I just don’t think it will be an important enough body to merit separate elections. This raises the question of whether the widespread public ignorance of the Assembly is actually justified based on its current influence – I’m inclined to think that it is (which is not to say that the Assembly doesn’t do some good and valuable work)

By: Nihonjin

Nihonjin — Mon, 11 May 2009 09:45:29 +0000

Elections to the metropolitan assembly in Tokyo are held two years after/before the mayoral elections (ie. mid-point.)

It’s probably the only comparable mayoralty as Paris and Berlin indirectly elect their mayors from the city council.

By: Helen

Helen — Sun, 10 May 2009 23:32:08 +0000

I agree, for the reason that the voting forms were far too complicated and resulted in too many spoilt papers. Also, the profile of the London Assembly needs to be raised as many Londoners have no idea of what the Assembly actually does.