The recent GLLP “conference” to discuss the proposed Greater London Authority (GLA) and mayor was not allowed to take any votes, only “soundings”. This was the first conference held by the GLLP for two years. The chair Jim Fitzpatrick MP manipulated the meeting shamelessly to avoid even indicative votes. But it was clear that the London labour movement is still opposed to a directly elected mayor and wants a bigger and more powerful authority than the one proposed.
For the London executive, the discussion has been going on for a couple of years, for others less. But we keep coming up with the wrong answer: No to a directly elected mayor. It appears that Londoners are a little dim. Ask them two separate questions (“Do you want an elected assembly?” and “Do you want a directly elected mayor?”) and they come all over faint. According to our leaders if we ask two questions we are likely to end up with a mayor but no assembly.
The workshop which considered a mayor gave an indicative vote of ten to one against direct election. This is not because we don’t believe in democracy — quite the opposite. The proposals would give the GLA very few powers while the mayor would have huge powers of patronage in what will be quangos under another name. He (no female contenders so far) would be full time and paid — unlike the Assembly members.
The workshops on functions and on financing also wanted taxation power for the GLA — only they called it everything but: precepts, special business rates, tourist taxes, road pricing. Many in the meeting wanted a third question on the referendum, on tax. There was also a clear wish to deal with the City of London and incorporation of the City’s separate police force.
A fourth workshop considered electoral methods. The proposed size of the Assembly — 24 or 32, with multi-member constituencies to ensure gender balance and ethnic minority representation — means that each constituency will cover several boroughs, which in turn cover two or three Parliamentary constituencies. This raises questions of accountability. The leadership is pushing for PR and favours the list system to give it control. Most speakers from the floor wanted a larger GLA, with the committee chairs at least part time and paid, with direct lines of accountability.
The original discussion document, A Voice for London, was part of the Road to the Manifesto exercise in 1996. The Greater London Labour Party (GLLP) executive debated the matter in detail in June 1996 and voted that the mayor of the new Authority should be the leader of the majority party, not a separately elected person with executive powers.
In July 1997 the Government issued the green paper, New Leadership for London. The GLLP convened a consultation conference on 12th October to discuss the options. It was a delegate conference but on arriving we learnt that it was not planned to take any votes. At the opening session, GLLP chair Jim Fitzpatrick MP bowed to pressure from delegates and agreed that workshops could submit resolutions to the closing plenary if they had strong views.
There were four workshops: the mayor and assembly, electoral issues, functions of the authority, and financial arrangements.
I attended the workshop on the mayor and assembly, which was chaired by GLLP vice-chair Val Stansfield. The prepared list of issues for the workshop did not include the question of whether we actually want an executive mayor. Speaker after speaker explained the democratic and practical objections to an executive mayor. Ken Livingstone pressed for the referendum which will ask voters if they want a new Greater London authority to also include the questions whether voters want such a mayor and whether the assembly should have tax-varying powers. Not everyone felt cross about being denied a vote: a member of the GMB delegation protested that they could not vote as they had not been mandated. But the closing date for submissions is 24th October, so if the GMB has not decided its attitude yet, it makes you wonder when they intend to do it. And when the workshop chair allowed an indicative vote on the question of a separately elected mayor, the GMB representatives were among the eight (out of the 80 plus present) to vote in favour!
Some delegates passed resolutions to the chair but she declined to put them to the voteand when we got to the final plenary, Jim Fitzpatrick refused to put the views of the workshops to the vote on the grounds that they were not in the form of resolutions.