Sadly, "the framework local authorities [currently] operate can be a barrier to the kind of leadership that prosperous communities require " as council leaders "have short mandates - normally only one year - limiting their ability to take tough decisions." Yes, accountability to the electorate does stop strong leaders doing what they like! And in a nice Orwellian twist, these proposals are packaged in terms of producing "more accountable local leadership."
Being New Labour, the White Paper does provide local authorities with "choice." There "will be three choices of leadership model : a directly elected mayor, a directly elected executive of councillors, or a leader elected by his/her fellow-councillors with a clear four year mandate." Even better, the council "will be able to move to the model of a directly elected mayor by resolution of the council and in consultation with local people." But do not fear, that does not mean rdinary people actually having a say as authorities can "adopt the mayoral model, following consultation with their communities, but without the need for a referendum."
The White Paper complains that only 12 local authorities "have introduced the strongest leadership model, an elected mayor." Even worse, "only a relatively small number give the leader authority to act alone." So having failed to get the people to voluntarily pick a "strong" leader rather than collective organisation, New Labour gives local councils the choice of which kind of leadership model to impose on the general public (in their own interests, of course). In other words, local councils have a choice in which way to abolish themselves.
Rest assured, though, as the non-executive councillors (i.e. those without any power) will be "democratic champions." At least the many local councillors who currently "feel that they have no defined role in the council process" can feel better knowing that they will have no role in the future as the "stronger, clearer executive leadership" will be making the "tough decisions." And these "tough decisions" apply quite widely, as "each model" will have "all executive powers . . . vested in the mayor or leader who will have responsibility for deciding how these powers should be dischar ged -- either by him or herself or delegated to members of cabinet individually or collectively." Like their directly elected counterparts, the indirectly elected "leader" will have a four year term in wh ich to wield that power as they see fit.
After all, "engagement with the electoral process is hampered by the confusion caused by the sheer number of local elections." Thus reducing the number of elections to one simply picking a "strong" leadership every four years will increase democracy. Obvious, really, t hat the best way to "empower citizens and communities" is to exclude them from decision making by fostering "stronger and more visi ble leadership" onto them for four years at a time.
While it may be easy to see this paean to the Führerprinzip (leader principle) as another example of New Labour's creeping fascism another source is more likely. Suffice to say, it is nice to know that al l that reading of Lenin when they were student radicals has proved so use ful to the New Labourites now they are in office.