The mayor necessities? Plymouth’s mayoral referendum

Amidst the flurry of announcements and proposals about local government reorganisation, you’ll be forgiven for having missed Plymouth’s forthcoming referendum on creating a city mayor to lead the council. This referendum, to be held on 17th July, has come about because a petition obtained the 5% of local electors required to trigger a ballot. 

The ’Yes’ to a Plymouth city mayor campaign is being led by Australian-born businessman Angus Forbes, who is married to former Strictly judge Darcey Bussell. This campaign argues that such a move will increase both visibility and accountability, as a mayor will be accountable to all voters and be a figurehead for the city. It also argues that this move will save £250,000 per year (which they claim is a conservative estimate) due to a move to four-yearly elections, a decrease in cabinet members and a reduction in democratic and member support. 

On the other side of the argument, the ‘Plymouth Knows Better’ campaign claims that the referendum itself will cost over £400,000, and that the ongoing cost of a mayoral office would be around £1.5m (which the ‘Yes’ campaign disputes).  The ‘Plymouth Knows Better’ campaign also argues that such a move would come with no new powers nor any new funding for Plymouth. 

This campaign has polarised opinion among the politically active locally, and even turned nasty – with Plymouth City Council leader Tudor Evans reporting to police a ‘serious threat of violence’ made by a member of the public against him. 

As a nearby observer from just up the A38 in Exeter, it does appear strange that a mayor with no new powers or funding is being suggested, especially at a time when the present government is viewing strategic regional mayors as preferable to city ones. There is also recent regional precedent in Bristol – where people voted to abolish the position of City Mayor, and in Cornwall, which rejected a deal worth £360m over 10 years but with the creation of a mayor. 

Enter the Minister. In an announcement to the Commons this week, Minister of State Jim McMahon seemingly drove a coach and horses through the entire plan by announcing that the government would not facilitate the creation of any new city mayors. In the event that people voted in favour of a city mayor, the first election for the new mayor would be moved from 2026 to 2027 – however this is to allow for legislation to pass through Parliament which would mean the election would then not take place. 

When they work well, it is undoubtedly true that city mayors can be effective spokespeople and figureheads for their areas – which help when speaking to government or attracting investment. In this case, however, it has almost rendered the July referendum in Plymouth pointless; why vote for something that won’t come about? The timing is also strange, given recent examples of authorities moving away from the mayoral model. Mr. Forbes, however, has pledged to bring a legal challenge to the government’s plans. 

This case is an interesting debate, but feels like one that has missed the bus given the Labour government’s longstanding and repeated desire to see strategic regional mayors rather than city ones. It is, after all, a key plank of the government’s devolution policy. In Plymouth, however, this debate will run for another three weeks. It will be fascinating to see whether voters are energised one way or another, and if the mayor necessities will indeed end up coming to them.