Today, Boris and London Councils signed a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ that will, the GLA claims, ‘enable them to work together more effectively in delivering first class services to all Londoners’.
The Memorandum itself is split into three sections, with aims, principles and methods for action.
Aims
The ‘needs and aspirations of everyone in London‘ will be met, public services will improve and be ‘delivered efficiently‘, while local and regional decisions will be made ‘as close to people as is possible‘. This section is predictable, although the latter aim gives us cause to wonder ‘which people exactly?’
Principles
This faintly platitudinous section is Boris’s campaign rhetoric, elegantly repackaged. Several ‘principles’ have been given retrospective alterations, as the ‘highest standards of transparency and openness‘ must now ‘develop‘ instead of being immediately implemented.
The final ‘principle’ could almost be read as an apology, as the ‘elected leaders‘ realise that although ‘the governance of London may be complex‘, citizens must be given ‘clear and simple accountability‘.
Actions
The ‘actions’ largely involve the fostering of communication between bodies of governance in London. A ‘Congress of London’s elected leaders‘ will meet twice yearly and a ‘delivery board” will bring together public servants, while Boris commits to ‘meeting with Borough Leaders and to visiting their local areas‘.
There is, however, very limited mention of interaction with the public. Elected leaders will ‘report regularly‘ on how much they have improved public service effectiveness, but even this is ambiguous in both audience and capacity.
With the limited scope of this pledge, as well as the cutting of press conferences and the State of London Debate, the restrictions of the Mayor’s accountability are becoming increasingly open and transparent.
Tags: 4 Comments
4 responses so far ↓
The real message of this ‘agreeing to agree’ statement is that Boris won’t do anything before asking permission from the boroughs first, and certainly won’t be using any of the strategic powers accorded to his office to over-rule them on anything, since that would be ‘dictatorial’. Happy days for the boroughs, since it means the Mayor no longer cares if they stop recycling, refuse to build social housing, etc …
Yes, it fits with the whole ‘Tory Borough Takeover’ theory of Boris, as hypothesised after his original appointments. I suspect, though, that Labour boroughs are excluded, as they were then.
The main thing is that this is a negation of the whole idea of pan-London government, which was that the centre could see and implement solutions across the whole of the city, which the boroughs couldn’t. That’s gone, it’s effectively scrapping the GLC all over again. That explains Tim Parker, of whom more in the post I’m about to write.
its seems they’ve decided to take over City Hall and then shut it down from the inside.
The more power Boris Johnson gives over to other people, boroughs etc there will be no point in the position of Mayor.
The aim for local and regional decisions to be made ‘as close to people as is possible‘ is indeed worrying. As Tom points out, this reads as a euphemism for ‘devolve as much as possible to the boroughs’. The only difference that I can see between this and the GLC-scrapping in 1986 is that the GLC was closed after an open, explicit and democratic process, albeit one with an anti-democratic outcome; this has the makings of a sly inside job led by Herr Quisling of City Hall.