Mayoral election is hardly democratic

DEAR Editor, The creation of a West Midlands Combined Authority chaired by an elected mayor represents a most undemocratic change to local government in the West Midlands. How did this come about?

The process itself was clearly undemocratic. Back in 2001, in Birmingham’s a Consultative Referendum, the option most favoured by residents was not to have an elected mayor.

Again in their 2012 Referendum, the residents of Birmingham and Coventry both said ‘no’ to an elected mayor. While the residents of Wolverhampton, Walsall, Sandwell, Dudley and Solihull have never even been asked if they wanted an elected mayor.

However, in 2014 the Tory Government proposed an unelected Combined Authority, to be chaired by an elected mayor, to the leaders of the seven councils. These council leaders accepted, without consulting their residents in a referendum.

The result is a big democratic deficit. Unlike the former West Midlands Council, the Combined Authority is not directly elected by the residents of the West Midlands nor is there, as in London, an elected assembly to hold the mayor to account.

Further, the Combined Authority includes Big Business organisations (three Local Enterprise partnerships) to influence the council leaders and their officers.

The new set-up is very confusing. What power does the elected mayor have? All that is clear is that the mayor has a responsibility to chair the Combined Authority (council leaders) and the mayor must have the council leaders’ agreement and support to do anything regarding homes, transport, economic growth, jobs, skills and to some extent, mental health services and the youth justice system.

Finally and regrettably, it seems to me there has been a clear bias in the reporting of the mayoral candidates by the Trinity Mirror