So a few weeks ago I did a survey to find out a little about why people were or weren’t involved in groups that campaign against the Government’s austerity measures. Here are some of your answers:

22% were involved in local campaigning groups.  The reasons given involved feelings of solidarity and community that come with collective protest, reducing feelings of hopelessness. The main motivation for being involved was to change policies that were increasing inequality and harming individuals and communities.

Of those who were not involved, there was quite a range of reasons, the most common being that people did not think it would achieve anything and that there are better was to oppose Government policy. One person did not know if there were local groups or what they were campaigning for. A few broadly agreed with the Government’s policies. One person also said that they did not have time and needed to focus on problems closer to home. One person said that they would rather not associate themselves with a group that had diverse and conflicting political agenda. Another person was tired of fighting in this way; they felt that opinions expressed through peaceful protest were ignored.

When asked if anything would change your mind to encourage you to get involved, one person said – if they knew there were groups that existed, and these were unbiased and expressed all their facts, they may do so. Another said, a clear set of goals and a complete ban on political campaigning outside of those collectively determined goals. Another interesting response was that it would be better to aim for specific campaigns (e.g. to distinguish between bad things like cutting support for disabled people, and better things like cutting public sector pensions for well-paid staff.)

It is interesting (though not surprising) to see the range of responses, from those who are involved in groups to those who agree with Government policies, those who think peaceful campaigning is ineffective, ‘blanket’ campaigning is not the right approach and those who were not comfortable being involved in groups that encompassed differing political agendas.

One comment I liked (and will try and take on board..) was: Life is not all about politics, it’s important to just enjoy life too! :-)

Ten cities (mostly in the North) are having elections on 3 May to decide on whether or not to have elected mayors. It has been covered in the media a bit but not in anywhere near enough detail. There has certainly not been much analysis I have seen about what powers elected mayors may receive, now or further down the line, nor how mayors will interact with the elected councils.

Whilst there cannot be a one-size fits all approach to local politics I am not sure that the way of elected mayors is the way to go.

The prominent opinion of the ‘yes campaign’ on Newsnight was that most of the public do not know who the leader of their council is: elected mayors would solve this. An elected mayor is likely to be more dynamic; a more prominent figure in public life that will be widely recognised by the public. But surely if this was the only problem, publicising who the leader of the council is, could also solve this problem? I think the actual problem is engagement with local politics and the democratic processes. I do not think a mayor with or without a corresponding ‘cult of personality’ will solve this, not on any meaningful level. It could also further muddle public thinking of knowing what exactly the elected mayor is responsible and accountable for and what is in the council’s remit.

On the other hand perhaps if there was an elected mayor who could challenge the elected council, that might encourage the council to listen to its residents more. However it might also create problems such as in Doncaster which saw the elected mayor overturn Doncaster council’s decision to reopen two libraries. It depends on the person and the extent of their powers.

There is an idea that the government are using this to further distance themselves from accountability. Does anyone know what the level of interaction and power would be between local/national government and the elected mayor? Furthermore *Liverpool used its powers to skip the referendum stage altogether and opt for an elected mayor.

There are confused reasons as to why mayors would be good but one vocal opinion is that it seeks to address lack of awareness or engagement in local politics. A much simpler and straightforward way would be to increase political involvement through the education system. It is only in the last couple of years that I have found out what a Scrutiny Committee is, that you can attend Council meetings, that you can speak for 3 minutes at the beginning, that you can present petitions to the council, how to respond to consultations and so on. (There are similar issues at national level that the Parliamentary Outreach Service does well to address to organisations that request a workshop). At school there is nothing that explains the very basics in these systems, how can you expect people to engage with and have a say in local politics and in the issue of an elected mayor when you give them little or no information as they are growing up. And then again little or no information about what an elected mayor would actually mean?

Turnout has been low – in January 18.1% voted in Salford to opt for an elected mayor. There have been complaints in Bristol over the Council’s failure to deliver leaflets explaining the referendum.

The resulting mayoral elections will be held on 15 November which is the same date as polling for 40 police commissioners, something else that has received little media coverage.

A recent Guardian/ICM poll says that 61% would prefer not to have a mayor and it will be interesting to see if this is reflected in Thursday’s vote and if cities opt for an elected mayor, how this will work in practice now and in the future.

Anyone got any views? Yay or nay?