Does Ken Livingstone run London? He has made clever use of his slender powers but the governance of the capital is chaotic and unfit for this great world city. The mayor is barely more than an influential figurehead. The job was designed to keep him caged. Beneath his feet the jumble of good and bad councils go their own ways. Above him, stifling tiers of authority usurp his powers. The congestion charge and the renaissance of London buses attest to his skill, while his political talent gives the illusion that he runs the city. In truth, London still has no guiding strategic power at the helm, heading rudderless towards the Olympics when there is so much that needs to be done.
Apologies to non-Londoners but, for better or worse, the capital is the engine of the national economy. What's more, the powers given to London's mayor will blaze a trail for all the other great cities wanting to strengthen control over their own destiny. David Miliband, the communities and local development minister, has been roaming the cities recently holding summits to spur on their local ambitions and listen to their complaints. In Newcastle, Leeds, Birmingham, Bristol and elsewhere he has heard the same wail of frustration about their lack of control over everything from transport to planning decisions, as city leaders protest against the handcuffs holding back local initiative and enterprise. Next month, Miliband publishes a State of the Cities paper. We shall see how much power he will cede to them.
The consultation has opened on new powers for London's mayor. Livingstone has put in his bid to get a better grip on the city's acute problems. There are purely practical matters that need citywide control: London is worst on waste and needs just one authority - not the current 37, few of which hit their recycling targets as nimbys reject waste plants on their patch. On public housing the mayor, not the secretary of state, should decide where London's investment goes. With the nation's highest unemployment in London, Livingstone wants a single skills agency that uses budgets from the many skills councils and job centres. Above all, it is time to wind up the Government Office for London, a redundant tier of bureaucracy costing £18m a year to second-guess everyone else. The mayor needs more say over the Metropolitan police and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. When there's a disaster, he should be accountable for their reaction.
But his power over planning will be the most contentious. Livingstone feels that ultimate authority for designing the city should rest with him. At the moment, a local council or the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister can veto any plan. Miliband will probably give Livingstone power over final planning decisions - and here is one good reason why.
Take Clapham Park, a New Deal for Communities (NDC) estate. It was chosen as the worst in Lambeth, most in need of the £56m given to residents to shape their future. I have been following its progress from the start. For five years unpaid local heroes have devoted up to four evenings a week to running elections for a board and start-up community schemes. Programmes are up and running to cut crime, create activities for young people, and improve health, education and employment. Crack houses have been shut down, wardens are on patrol and the results are good.
The residents hired an award-winning architect to draw up a master plan to redesign the worst side of the estate. It would add extra social housing, build playgrounds, schools, community centres and parks, selling private homes to pay for it. There were endless consultations with residents: plans were redrawn over and over until everyone was pleased - including the Government Office for London, the Greater London Authority, the mayor, the deputy prime minister and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. The final plans were put to a vote of residents, who were assured they would not be decanted elsewhere, and would stay in new homes on the estate. After five years of hard work, it was tough to get people enthused by the vote. There was opposition from some who didn't want the council to transfer the property to a housing association. (It was a hard argument for the residents since the government offers no choice: transfer the stock or moulder and rot.)
On the day, 70% voted - participation unknown in local elections - and the plan passed, after a long and painful struggle for the residents. They thought the master plan would finally start to materialise from the dilapidations of the past and had hope of a new beginning. But no. Lambeth council, which is run by Liberal Democrats with a few Tories, is suddenly threatening to turn down the plan at the last hurdle. The planning department, despite working with the NDC for the past three years, has issued planning guidelines for the area. Apparently, the Clapham Park scheme no longer fits this new template. To the horror of residents, the council has arbitrarily demanded two main roads, north/south and east/west, cut through the estate in the name of a new planning fad called "permeability". The south circular and another road already bisect the estate, and young people refuse to visit community centres on the opposite side, a split created by physical boundaries.
Redrawing the plans would take four months and cost £400,000, and the roads would steal some of the private housing, leaving a £30m hole in the budget. If work doesn't start by February or if major changes are made, the plan must go to another vote on the estate, but the board fears it could not get people out to vote again. The £56m programme may be sunk on the whim of a handful of Lib Dem local councillors, all voting the party line against what they see as a Labour-initiated scheme, after a few minutes' discussion. (The last council meeting examining the scheme was dominated by how it had let £3m be stolen by a fraudster it had hired.) It is rare for citizens to get a chance to vote on planning matters that affect their lives. It is one of the strengths of NDCs that they are led by residents. Rejecting their wishes is an odd advertisement for the Lib Dems' "new localism".
This is the kind of arbitrary nonsense that happens right across London as tin-pot dictators in the 32 boroughs run economies the size of small African countries with virtually no accountability. In this empty democracy, few people vote and no one knows the name of their council leader, council member or even which party has control. But the one person voters do know is the mayor of London. Give him the power and make him accountable if he gets it wrong. Let them blame him for London's woes - and praise him for improvements. Leave councils to basic delivery, while the mayor stitches together this patchwork into coherent Londonwide strategic planning. Planning for grand projects or social housing should not be subject to councils' whims. Nimbyism is rife and London's severe housing shortage needs a bigger, bolder vision.
As for Clapham Park, ignoring residents' wishes makes it hard to take seriously Charles Kennedy's keynote speech yesterday claiming "the concept of localism is inextricably linked to liberalism". Can Kennedy tell that to his Lambeth councillors before they destroy a regeneration scheme for 7,300 people voted for by the locals themselves?