Elected Mayors: Leading Locally?

Fenwick, John; Elcock, Howard

doi:10.1080/03003930.2013.836492

Cited by 28 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Johnson, however, was always a Conservative. Institutionally, the London mayoralty was built from scratch by Livingstone, who 'lost' two years doing so (2011) In applying a comparative analytical framework, this article is framed by the continuing public and academic debate over the expansion of directly-elected mayors in England (see Fenwick and Elcock 2014;Copus 2009). It draws on publicly available assessments of both mayoralties (see Sweeting 2002;Travers 2008) academic analysis of particular policies (see Leape 2006) and opinion polling (YouGov 2016).…”

Section: Measuring the London Mayoraltymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rebels Leading London: the mayoralties of Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson compared

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article compares the mayoralties of the first two directly elected Mayors of London, KenLivingstone and Boris Johnson. The position offers a commanding electoral platform, but weak powers to lead a city regarded as 'ungovernable' (Travers 2004).The two mayors had some obvious points of comparison: both were party rebels, mavericks and skilled media operators. Both also used publicity to make up for weak powers, but courted controversy and faced charges of corruption and cronyism.Utilising Hambleton and Sweeting (2004), this article compares their mayoralties in terms of vision, leadership style and policies. Livingstone had a powerful vision that translated into clear policy aims while Johnson was more cautious, shaped by a desire for higher office. In terms of style, Livingstone built coalitions but proved divisive whereas Johnson retained remarkable levels of popularity. Where Livingstone bought experience and skill, Johnson delegated. In policy terms, the two mayors found themselves pushed by their institutional powers towards transport and planning while struggling with deeper issues such as housing. Livingstone introduced the radical congestion charge and a series of symbolic policies. Johnson was far more modest -championing cycling, the 2012 Olympics and avoiding difficult decisions. The two used their office to negotiate, but also challenge, central government. Livingstone's rebel mayoralty was a platform for personalised change, Johnson's one for personal ambition.

show abstract

Section: Measuring the London Mayoraltymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rebels Leading London: the mayoralties of Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson compared

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…New models of decision-making in local government, that were purported to be more efficient, transparent, and accountable, included options for directly elected mayors. Yet many in local government, especially local councillors, resisted their introduction, and their spread was slow (Fenwick and Elcock, 2014). Nevertheless, directly elected mayors have remained on the agenda for successive central UK governments since then.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dynamics of depoliticisation in urban governance: Introducing a directly elected mayor

Sweeting

Hambleton

2019

Urban Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the context of debates regarding depoliticisation, this article considers how the introduction of a directly elected mayor system of governance impacts on urban politics. Directly elected mayors are now a fundamental feature of many political systems. They have been widely introduced as a reform to improve processes of local democracy, enhance the effectiveness of governing practices and to offer a more potent form of city leadership. This article focuses on developments in England, by presenting the case of Bristol, a city epitomising many aspects of modern neo-liberalised urban development. Bristol adopted a mayoral system in 2012 and the article presents empirical data from before and after this reform pertaining to two frameworks to understand city leadership. We conclude that the move to mayoral governance, in Bristol in the 2012–2016 period, eroded the influence of party politics and led to the adoption of elements of a leadership style associated with a depoliticisation of urban politics in the city. Nevertheless, the analysis suggests that the mayoral model also provides significant space for the expansion of political agency on the part of the city leader, not least because power becomes concentrated in the mayoral position.

show abstract

“…Debate continues about the future of elected mayors in England, pursued with a vigour that is surprising given the lack of any obvious public interest (Fenwick and Elcock 2014). The question of 'metro mayors' for areas larger than current local government units, linked to city-regions or other formulations of urban conurbation, has been suggested for governance of the "functioning economic area" (Warwick Commission 2012, p 9).…”

Section: Political Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%