In May 2012 citizens of Birmingham get to decide whether or not the city should be led by a directly elected mayor instead of its current system of government. One case for the elected mayor is that a dynamic figuredhead will provide clear leadership for the city, whilst a case against is the worry of concentrating too much power in the hands of an individual.

↧

Yes

The CEO and Mayoral roles are completely different and are both needed in some form

The CEO and Mayoral roles are completely different and are both needed in some form:

The CEO of a council runs the day-to-day business of keeping the city going. Everything from bins to keeping the streets clean to parking and care for those who need it. The role of a mayor is to optimise the system, represent the city, unite the city, intervene where common sense has failed to prevail (and yes, all the other stuff mentioned in this very well articulated argument!). Even if the CEO role were to be “retired”, a “deputy mayor” role would probably be required to handle the day-to-day stuff so that the elected mayor can be used in the most effective manner.

There are cities in the world, and the UK, who have opted for a non-CEO role, but if you look closely you’ll see that the responsibilities have not disappeared and are actually being carried by someone in a very senior role.

http://www.bristolmayor.org/

Argue against this point

Show all

No

Birmingham is not London

Many of the arguments for a mayor in Birmingham point out the success of the London mayor, but comparisons between Birmingham and London are flawed, as the London mayor is the strategic head of a regional authority which contains a number of independent borough councils, whilst a Birmingham mayor would be the head of a local authority without a strategic role.

Argue against this point

Prove it

That’s an assertion, a desire, which has no basis in objective fact. There’s nothing stopping that relationship changing with quality leadership under the current system.

Argue against this point

It emasculates the councillors

What purpose will the 120 councillors, three each directly representing you in your own ward have once the bulk of the power is concentrated in a single individual? The current system of leader and cabinet plus scrutiny committees leaves too many councillors with no real responsibility as it is - true local democracy would return to the previous system with local councillors themselves having more responsibility.

Argue against this point

The prime motivation for a mayor stems from a dislike of the current council leader

Although it’s true there are some Conservative party members also in favour of a mayor, most of the impetus for the pro-mayor campaign - both now and the last time the issue was discussed five years ago - stems more from a dislike of the current administration, and particularly the current council leader, than it does from any genuine desire for true democracy. If there was the remotest chance, five years ago and now, of Mike Whitby being elected the mayor, 90% of the pro-mayor campaigners would have no interest in the issue. Trying to change the voting system in order to achieve the result you’d prefer to have is what you would expect to see in a city which would put a banana republic to shame…

Argue against this point

Demography is irrelevant

The fact that the electoral cycle makes it unlikely that a party will lose the council leadership in fewer than four years is irrelevant - it is still technically possible, unlike with a mayor voted for a guaranteed minimum term of four years.

Argue against this point

That was 10 years ago

When the Evening Mail tried to drum up a petition to force the issue again about five years ago, it didn’t get anywhere near the required number of signatures after a year of concerted campaigning. The people of Birmingham just weren’t interested.

Argue against this point

That will be no different with the Mayor - the parties choose the candidates, not the people

Assuming that the referendum produces a yes vote, and the resulting mayor who is elected in November is Labour - it won’t be the people of Birmingham who have chosen the individual who becomes the mayor, it will be the Birmingham Labour party. There are currently three declared Labour prospective candidates, and the people of Birmingham will be forced to choose whichever of those candidates has the most cronies in the party rather being able to choose at the ballot box between all three of them together with other candidates from other parties and independents. This is no better than the current system of how the council leader is chosen.

Argue against this point

We don't know what we're voting for.

How can anyone vote yes for an elected mayor, when we have no idea what powers or responsibilities they would have,or how much it would cost us? We don’t know if we would still have a Chief Exec, and if we did, which powers from that position might become politicised by a mayor that represents a political party rather than promoting the interests of everyone in Birmingham. It makes no sense to vote yes.

Argue against this point

It gives too much power to one person.

Decisions for the city will affect many people. Each decision must be a compromise to meet many different needs. With a leader / cabinet each decision is tested and and moulded by a group of councillors. Wiuth a mayor there would sooner or later be temptation to disregard the cabinet and take a convenient, simplistic view and decision.

Argue against this point

Make an argument for
"Yes"
Make an argument for
"No"

Embed this debate

Is an argument missing?

Please contribute - sign in and add the argument yourself.

Is an argument inaccurate, incorrect or has it been debunked?

Please contribute a counter-argument that gives a reasonable response to the argument with a web address to a reference for further reading.

Does the text of an argument misrepresent it in a biased or inaccurate way?

Please tweet @stef on Twitter to start a conversation about how to fix it.

Mash this debate

Get this debate as JSON(P)