ELECTED MAYORS

One of the features of the British political landscape which is in sharp contrast to the Danish is the fact that the U.K. is highly centralised. Local authorities have, in reality, very little power. Since the abolition of the rates (property taxes) under Margaret Thatcher, nearly all public revenues are collected by central Government; and although councils can spend money, a lot of it is subject to controls of one sort or another from Whitehall. Meanwhile councillors are not paid, but can only collect expenses, meaning that it is difficult to attract talent. In Denmark, on the other hand, kommuner can (and do) set income tax rates, which vary across the country, the mayorship is a full-time job (and is paid accordingly), and decisions about local schools, roads and old people's homes are taken locally and financed accordingly.

Nowhere is this difference more apparent than in London, which has roughly as many people as the whole of Denmark. At least London has a paid mayor (Boris Johnson, reelected this week, thereby bucking an anti-coalition trend in local election results). But his powers are limited to not much more than transport and the bully pulpit. He is more an ambassador for the city - although quite a good one - than a real mayor.

Egged on by the Liberal Democrats, historically the champions of localism, David Cameron has shown an admirable willingness to do something about this problem. The starting point, admittedly a modest one, was a series of referenda this week on whether major towns outside London should follow the capital's example and have elected mayors. Unfortunately for localism, nine of the ten cities voting said no, with only Bristol saying yes. The naysayers included big regional cities such as Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and Leeds.

Voter turnout was very low, so it is difficult to know exactly what conclusion to draw from this. Perhaps the most realistic one is that British voters are fed up with politicians in general; elected mayors would mean more professional politicians, which would be a bad thing, ergo we should say no. Given the dismal state of national politics, I can understand that feeling. Nevertheless, I also think it is a missed opportunity. London can't - and shouldn't - run everything; and as politics becomes less ideological and more managerial, it is important for local problems to be sorted out locally. After all, David Cameron may well be a clever chap, but he will never have enough knowledge to be able to make the buses run on time in Salford. 

Walter Blotscher