Despite the Conservative’s hard-fought victory to abolish the GLC in 1986, few commentators believed that the new arrangements were a permanent solution to the needs of London.
The 1992 Conservative government recognised the need to address London’s competitiveness against that of other world cities. It introduced various initiatives such as a minister for London and a minister for transport, London and a government office for London, as one of its government offices of the regions. The Labour Party, however, wanted to go further. In “Governing London”[1] Pimlott and Rao deftly set out the timeline of the emergence of a new concept, a directly elected mayor for London and a strategic authority, the GLA, through the Labour Party’s inner workings and successive manifesto commitments of 1987, 1992 and eventually 1997.
A large number of the documents in Nicky’s archive relate to thinking about the need for a new strategic authority for London. This was an important issue for Nicky and something she worked on for a number of years with different colleagues and organisations. As usual, in her way of working, she would examine in detail the pros and cons of an argument, pull the evidence together and advance the strongest arguments in discussion with colleagues, opponents and those only mildly interested in the topic. In this way the circle of ‘believers’ would grow, and the influence of the idea become widespread.
Her close colleague and former adviser Tony Cumberbirch had these reflections on the issue:
A NEW STRATEGIC AUTHORITY
Nicky had some dealings with the Greater London Council (GLC) to secure funding for the Jackson’s Lane Community Centre and, like most London Labour members, she had strongly opposed the abolition of the GLC by the Thatcher government. In 1986 the Labour London boroughs had agreed to jointly fund the London Strategic Policy Unit (LSPU) as an embryonic new strategic authority in waiting. However, when Labour lost the 1987 general election, it was decided to wind up LSPU and distribute the staff amongst the member boroughs.
So it was that in April 1988, Tony Cumberbirch, who had previously worked in strategic policy in the GLC planning and Director General’s departments and had taken an active role in opposing abolition, joined the LB Haringey Planning Service as Head of Policy.
This began twenty years during which he and Nicky worked closely together.
The issue of a new strategic authority was alive but on the back burner. There were many urgent matters to be dealt with, both at borough and at LPAC/London-wide levels. Tony remembers how the need for a new London authority was brought into sharp focus by an article, written by Dame Shirley Porter, the Leader of Westminster Council and one of the chief architects of the abolition GLC. In this she argued there was no need for a new authority for Greater London. In her view all that was required was a “Minister for London”. The idea that a junior Conservative placeman was an adequate substitute for an elected and accountable strategic authority seemed to be adding insult to injury. He hastily wrote a draft response for Nicky to publish.
However, after a lengthy discussion, he and Nicky decided that it was too important just for an instant reply. It would be better to give more thought to the matter and start the process of defining the size, constitution and functions of a new authority for consultations well in advance of the next election
Nicky and Tony began to write what became a series of “Blue Sky” notes on various aspects of a new authority, which Nicky sent to a few confidants for comment. The key characteristics were that it had to be:
It’s primary role would be to co-ordinate and direct other agencies in the public sector (eg for Transport, Economic Development, Housing and possibly Education and Health) as well as in the private and the voluntary sectors, joining dots and getting ducks in line. It would also give a London point of contact and represent London regionally, nationally and internationally.
Also considered were the options of an American style “mayor” or a “mayoral team” and multi-borough constituencies for elected members to keep the authority small.
The project remained a low priority until the 1992 election approached. It was then that Nicky, now the LPAC Labour Leader, decided the LPAC Labour group should take a view. She convened a special meeting of all LPAC Labour members to discuss and agree the latest paper that she and Tony had prepared. A second meeting followed to agree amendments and to formally approve the document as the official view of the LPAC Labour Group.
Labour lost the General Election. There seemed little to be gained from doing any further work at that stage, so Nicky referred the agreed report to the London Region.
It was not until the next General Election approached that a serious debate about the future of London government began. Numerous players began to suggest forms of London governance.[2] A number of these closely mirrored the LPAC Labour group ideas of four years before and may well have drawn on the LPAC report in one degree or another.
So the situation remains that while several people can lay claim to inventing the Greater London Authority there is a case that much of the basic thinking can be attributed to Nicky Gavron and Tony Cumberbirch and to the LPAC Labour Group.
[1] Pimlott and Rao (2001), Governing London, Oxford University press, page 55 onwards.
[2] For example, in discussions with Nicky, Rober Gordon Clark and Stephen O’Brien highlighted the work of London First in the early 1990s in advocating for a Chief Executive or “Governor” for London. Largely to cut through the myriads of organisations that foreign investors had to engage with to get decisions made in London to support their investments.
As a joint Committee of the London boroughs, LPAC advised government and the boroughs and represented London in the Southeast. It filled the policy gap between the GLC and the GLA and kept the beacon of strategic planning alive for London. It found a way to re-imagine the city.
