Professor Tony Travers (LSE)

PSA Media Briefing Mayoral Contests Tuesday 12th April 2016

Professor Tony Travers (LSE) Phone: 07958-005078 / Email: [email protected] Professor Robin Hambleton (University of the West of England) Phone: 0117 924 9844 / Email: [email protected]

#PSAmedia

Tel: 020 7321 2545 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

PSA Media Briefing

Tuesday 12th April 2016

Professor Tony Travers London School of Economics

Phone: 07958-005078 Email: [email protected]

4/11/16

The London Mayor and Assembly elections Tony T r a v e r s LSE [email protected] 07958-005078

Four mayoral elections in 2016

• London • fifth such contest • Bristol • second such contest • Salford • Second such contest • Liverpool • first such contest

London-wide elections since 1965 - vote share

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 in GLC elections and GLA Assembly ‘list’ elections. NB different voting systems in use for GLC and GLA

1 4/11/16

London-wide elections since 1965 - seats won (GL C/L ondon Assembly)

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 in GLC elections and GLA Assembly ‘list’ elections. NB different voting systems in use for GLC and GLA

Difference between London vote share and GB vote share, General Elections,1955-2015

Con 0 Lab -5 Lib/LD Others -10

-15

GLA voting systems

• Mayor: ‘Supplementary Vote’ • 1st preference • May use 2nd preference • If no candidate receives 50% of 1st preferences, then top two candidates go forward, others knocked out and their 2nd preference votes (for top two) counted • Assembly: ‘Additional member’ • 14 first-past-the-post constituencies • 11 ‘top-up’ members from party list election • overall result to deliver broad ‘proportionality’

2 4/11/16

London mayoral election - 1stand 2nd preference

Ken Livingstone Steve Norris/Boris Johnson Margin (Ind/Lab) (Con) 2000 57.9 42.1 15.8 2004 55.4 44.6 10.8 2008 46.8 53.2 6.4 2012 48.5 51.5 3.0

Mayoral election 2000

2000 1stpref 1st+2nd Ken Livingstone (Ind) 39% 58% Steve Norris (Con) 27% 42% Frank Dobson (Lab) 13% Susan Kramer (LD) 12% Ram Gidoomal (CPA) 2.5% Darren Johnson (Green) 2.2% Michael Newland (BNP) 2.0% Damian Hockney (UKIP) 1.0%

Mayoral election 2004

2004 1st pref 1st+2nd Ken Livingstone (Lab) 37% 55% Steve Norris (Con) 29% 45% Simon Hughes (LD) 15% Francis Maloney (UKIP) 6.2% Lindsey German (Respect) 3.3% Julian Leppert(BNP) 3.1% Darren Johnson (Gre) 3.1%

3 4/11/16

Mayoral election 2008

2008 1stpref 1st+2nd Boris Johnson (Con) 43% 53% Ken Livingstone (Lab) 37% 47% Brian Paddick (LD) 10% Sian Berry (Gre) 3.2% Richard Barnbrook (BNP) 2.9% Alan Criag (CC) 1.6% Gerard Batten (UKIP) 0.9%

Mayoral election 2012

2012 1stpref 1st+2nd Boris Johnson (Con) 44.0% 51.5% Ken Livingstone (Lab) 40.3% 48.5% Jenny Jones (Gre) 4.5% Brian Paddick (LD) 4.2% Siobhan Benita 3.8% Lawrence James Webb (UKIP) 2.0% Carlos Cortiglia (BNP) 1.3%

Mayoral election 2016 [poll of polls*] 2016 1stpref 1st+2nd SadiqKhan (Lab) 46% 54 Zac Goldsmith (Con) 38% 46 Caroline Pidgeon (LD) 5% Peter Whittle (UKIP)) 5% Sian Berry (Gre) 4% George Galloway (Respect) 1% Others 1%

4 4/11/16

Rallings & Thrasher’s NEVS projection - PSA media briefing 5.4.16

Suggests a 3.5% Lab to Con swing

Assembly vote %, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 - London-wide party list

Con Lab LD Green UKIP BN P 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

Source (2000 to 2012 results) : David Cowling; Projections :Tony Travers

Assembly election 2016 Cons tituency 2012 result Swing to change Pos s ible 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 & Eas t Lab 24.5 No Croydon & Sutton Con 2.5 Lab gain 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 Ha v eri ng & Redbridge Con 1.0 Lab gain from Con? 10% Lewisham & Southwark Con 15.1 No Merton & Wandsworth Con 2.5 Lab gain from Con? 10% North East Lab 16.9 No South West Con 4.5 No West Central Con 9.2 No

5 4/11/16

Assembly composition

Con Lab LD Green UKIP BN P 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

Given voting system and current polls, significant change unlikely Changes to flow from changes in Assembly ‘list’ vote share

Minority ethnic voting – 2015 GE

So u rce: Su rvati o n for British Future, May 2015

Religion and voting – 2015 GE - within ‘minority’ vote

Source: Survation for British Future, May 2015

6 4/11/16

Conclusions

• London has, marginally, become more of a ‘Labour city’ • since 1997 • if Sad iq Khan were to win, less revealing about GB politics than English local elections • There is some evidence that the minority ethnic vote may be shifting towards the Conservatives • Outer London is now less easily won by the Conservatives than in the past, because the city’s population is more mixed (by income groups) in both inner and outer London • The Mayoral model is now embedded • 2016 is the first ‘non-celebrity’ contest • Expect the result late on Friday May 6 (at best)…..

The London Mayor and Assembly elections Tony T r a v e r s LSE [email protected] 07958-005078

PSA Media Briefing

Tuesday 12th April 2016

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

Phone: 0117 924 9844 Email: [email protected]

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.

1 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.

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

3 11/04/2016

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

1 11/04/2016

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

2 11/04/2016

Central government financial support to Bristol City Council 2010-2020

Note: Real term reduction in revenue support taking account of overall cuts and movement of grants in and out of the settlement.

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/

3 11/04/2016

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

4 11/04/2016

Leadership visibility: before and after

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

Different realms, different views

5 11/04/2016

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