Could Soulsby become the first mayor of both the city and county?

[davieG]

Tories fear Labour's Peter Soulsby may win race to be Leicester and Leicestershire's first mayor

By danjmartin  |  Posted: May 20, 2016

 

Could Sir Peter Soulsby become first mayor of both city & county?

 

 Comments (7)

The Tories fear Labour's Sir Peter Soulsby could become the elected mayor of both the city and the county if a plan to change the way Leicestershire is governed goes ahead.

Whitehall officials are considering a bid from the Labour-run city council, the Conservative county council and the various Leicestershire district authorities to set up a combined authority.

If the plan went ahead, the existing councils would continue to operate.

The combined authority would, in theory, be given devolved powers from the Government for the major issues of transport and planning.

 

However, some ministers have indicated the combined authority would need to have an elected mayor if it wanted the Government to give it the extra powers.

The county's Conservatives had previously assumed that if a mayoral election went ahead, their support outside Leicester's boundaries would outweigh Labour's robust backing in the city.

But the Tories' shock defeat in the recent police and crime commissioner election earlier this month, won by Labour's WIlly Bach, has shaken that belief.

County council leader Nick Rushton said he had recently discussed the matter of elected mayors with Conservative minister for small business, industry and enterprise and skills Anna Soubry.

 

 

He said: "She said to me, 'If you don't have an elected mayor, you wont get the full fat option of devolution'.

"I told her we don't want it.

"We'll take the semi-skimmed option."

The Conservative politician added: "She wants to be careful what she wishes for.

"We have just lost the PCC election to Labour, and if Labour ran, Sir Peter it would be a difficult act to beat."

However, Coun Rushton said he did not think the idea of an elected mayor for the city and county would get past his Conservative colleagues.

He said: "We are all in agreement that the semi-skimmed option is the one we want.

"Sir Peter would not be drawn on whether he would stand should there be an election.

However, sources say the politician would likely stand, and would be confident of a win.

Sir Peter told the Mercury : "It's an entirely hypothetical question. Generally I favour having elected mayors, but I cannot see the county or the districts wanting to have another tier of governance.

"The Government has been very inconsistent on elected mayors."Some ministers say they will be essential, others have said not."

County Hall's Liberal Democrat opposition group leader Simon Galton said: "Will we have to have an elected mayor? That continues to be the elephant in the room."

He said he was concerned the role could be a figurehead position with no real powers.

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Tories-fear-Labour-s-Peter-Soulsby-win-race/story-29295003-detail/story.html#ixzz49BNeDyHY 

Follow us: @@leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook

[Guest MattP]

No chance.

You can see by the voting the politics of the City and County are completely different, wouldn't work.

[Guest Sharpe's Fox]

No chance.

You can see by the voting the politics of the City and County are completely different, wouldn't work.

 

Which is why it mentions the election of the Labour PCC? Don't know what the difference in the turnouts would be, though.

 

EDIT: just realised that PCC election includes the city. brainfart.

[Guest MattP]

The turnout was about 20% for the PCC and Labour won because of the big city centre vote.

People will tolerate that as no one cares but they won't tolerate a Mayor across the county that we wouldn't vote for, let alone one as despised as Soulsby.

[Guest MattP]

Although having said that, with a General Election percentage turnout the Tories would probably overhaul the huge City centre Labour majority across the whole County.

[MONreborn]

I've warmed to soulsby. The idea of a county and city mayor combined is also a good one. Will give us an opportunity to plan travel systems, enterprise zones etc better. However, I certainly wouldn't trust amy tory with it. A good compromise may be liz kendal?

[Guest MattP]

The County and the City are vastly different places with vastly different people and needs, it's not going to work.

A Labour mayor would be no more welcome in the county than a Tory in the City.

[Rincewind]

I've warmed to soulsby. The idea of a county and city mayor combined is also a good one. Will give us an opportunity to plan travel systems, enterprise zones etc better. However, I certainly wouldn't trust amy tory with it. A good compromise may be liz kendal?

independant? 

[midland_red]

The turnout was about 20% for the PCC and Labour won because of the big city centre vote.

People will tolerate that as no one cares but they won't tolerate a Mayor across the county that we wouldn't vote for, let alone one as despised as Soulsby.

 

'despised as soulsby...are you confusing him with someone else? There was a Peter Soulsby who when re-elected, that is after the citizens had had time to evaluate him and his policies, won more votes that all the other parties combined!!!!!  Must be some other bloke I'm thinking of.

[midland_red]

I've warmed to soulsby. The idea of a county and city mayor combined is also a good one. Will give us an opportunity to plan travel systems, enterprise zones etc better. However, I certainly wouldn't trust amy tory with it. A good compromise may be liz kendal?

Some sort of compromise is needed here - if we have to have an elected mayor across both City and County to get control of transport back from Whitehall then that's the way it has to be. The forced deregulation of transport under Thatcher was one of the worst of her errors - old -timers here might remember City Corporation buses, cheap, frequent, reliable, and all destroyed by Thatcher and Ridley.

So any chance to reverse this and get transport back under local control has to be grabbed with both hands. Nick Rushton, who I always thought was a traditional moderate Tory, has diminished himself bu his remark that they won't agree to an elected mayor in case Labour won it.

[Thracian]

'despised as soulsby...are you confusing him with someone else? There was a Peter Soulsby who when re-elected, that is after the citizens had had time to evaluate him and his policies, won more votes that all the other parties combined!!!!!  Must be some other bloke I'm thinking of.

 

 

 

It's a strange thing about Soulsby. Stand in the market and there's barely a good word to be said for him and a whole heap of criticism from passers-by...but often non-specific such as how the place is like a building site and forever full of dust, noise, dangerous cyclists who seem free to ride as quickly and recklessly as they like and in total ignorance of the traffic rules.

 

There's grumbling about sites being worked twice within months at a massive waste of money, the eternal war on the motorist, the complications of even negotiating central Leicester roads and their suspension shattering humps and the creating of traffic jams where none used to exist.

 

That said, for all my loathing of the Labour party and what it has meant for our country, I'm not by any means entirely negative about Soulsby because he does seem to have a vision (of his own but a vision nonetheless), he does have a seemingly contrary but sincere view about the promotion of tourism and his efforts have genuinely improved the visionary aspects of countless inner-city eyesores especially where there's further chance to enhance the near-university environment - which is important, but there are other people too.

 

Some of that enhancement is ongoing and means yet more disruption to the businesses he seems to treat with predictable contempt but if the excuse is "the greater good" then I do see his point if he didn't create so many new problems along the way.  

[Parafox]

I agree with Thracian. I live in the county and dread the thought of Soulsby interfering in our area.

 

The thought of countless projects to narrow roads, stifle traffic flow and create unnecessary disruption would definitely not get my vote

 

Reading what Soulsby says it seems he isn't that keen on the idea of county/city mayor, though.

[Rincewind]

Soulsby has his own agenda and will not listen to anyone else and I say that someone who leans nearer to the left than the right. He has been responsible for the closure or cutbacks of many services such as hostels and women refuges. I know people that run community newspapers and he now refuses to be interviewed by them because they ask the 'wrong' questions.Sure the Curve is fantastic if you can afford to go there but it not much use to young families struggling on low to middle income who have seen day centres and nurseries shut down to pay for it.

We asked Soulsby a few times to come and talk on our radio show but he turned us down even though he said we were doing a great job. Perhaps he saw us as the Jeremy Paxman of the airwaves.

 

Apart from the couple of little things I mention above he is OK. 

[Stadt]

I don't like him but tbf he's improved the appearance of the city

[Rincewind]

I thought I recognised the bloke driving the digger I passed the other day.

[Alf Bentley]

I don't know enough to say whether Soulsby has done a good job as Leicester mayor. 

 

Some of the renovations/developments seem good, but whether they've been good value for money or will improve the city long-term, I've little idea.

 

In response to Ken, though: a lot of local government spending cuts, leading to facility closures, are due to cuts in central government funding - by the current Tory government, but also by its Coalition and Labour predecessors.

 

Unfortunately, local government loses out to the centralised nature of politics. The national parties know that what voters want to hear is "we'll give you low taxes and high-quality public services". That's completely unrealistic, but they know that they won't get the keys to Downing Street unless they effectively offer that. One way of half-fulfilling that promise is to cut central government funding of local government: Hey Presto! More money for tax cuts or schools/hospitals, depending on your preference! Local government options for finding funds elsewhere are limited by the capping of Council Tax - though most councils probably wouldn't increase Council Tax anyway as they know it would be electorally unpopular. One way of finding the funds is through a variety of public-private partnerships: shopping centres with council facilities attached, cultural quarters like around The Curve etc.

 

Subject to safeguards, I'd favour the devolution of more power and more funds to local government. Getting different councils to work together, as with the Northern Powerhouse concept (if implemented) could be a good idea. Whether Labour Leicester and Tory Leicestershire can work together successfully is debatable, but you'd hope that they'd try to find ways to compromise if they both might end up benefiting as a result.

 

I mean these as comments about the state of politics generally, not as party political. We're stuck in an unworkable spiral of limited funds (sometimes exacerbated by poor political decisions) and unrealistic voter expectations, to which our political parties are pandering. Central government shafting local government is just one part of that. It's very unhealthy for democracy, as it turns everyone cynical against politics and politicians generally. 

 

I don't know why Soulsby won't speak to community newspapers, if that's true, Ken. He should do, provided the commitment isn't too onerous - and provided he's given a fair hearing. Or will he just get slagged off for facilities closing due to underfunding?