Just Say No to an Elected Mayor for Birmingham

This is what I and many others strongly advise in the referendum on May 3rd! Birmingham being dominated by an individual would be unwelcome in principle and unhealthy in practice. The City Boss would have too much power that they may not use wisely - and be next to impossible to remove.

The Government continues to make up the rules as we go along. As well as the flux and uncertainty over hypothetical powers, there is the loaded wording of the referendum question and bland reassurances about consequences for the office of Lord Mayor and the council's Civic function which are not good - not good at all.

The crucial difference between the days of Chamberlain and now is power - not its concentration. The Government could give back the powers (and assets) taken from the people of Birmingham over the years whenever it chose to do so with or without an elected mayor. In fact an executive Mayor is a complete irrelevance.

The situation in Birmingham is entirely different from London which is always a law unto itself. I sometimes wonder if London is really a part of England - but that is a debate for another time! In London the Mayor doesn't deliver social care, housing or education and can raise revenue from transport. Whoever emerges from that grubby and unfair campaign in the capital won't be doing the hard work needed in all provincial cities.

The City Council -which you elect - would be marginalised. For example, rejection of the mayor's budget would require 81 members to vote against rather than a simple majority of 61. The Council would in due course be cut to 80, 40 or even fewer in number, so diminishing and emasculating Europe's largest unitary authority. So much for 'holding the Mayor to account.' Decisions could indeed be quicker - anyone can be impulsive or yield to pressure - but they would not be better - as they generally are not in authoritarian regimes.

Then there is the question of direct costs. The Council Leader is paid £66,000. An elected Mayor would want far more - at the taxpayer's expense. An elected Mayor could employ many deputies at large salaries with the public having no say. An elected Mayor could be a compulsive globetrotter - again at the taxpayer's expense. The May 3rd referendum is costing £250,000 for which the Government sends the bill to Birmingham. Voting yes would add to the waste.

An elected Mayor would be easy prey for both lobbyists and central government and the case for the claim that an executive Mayor would improve the quality of services in Birmingham has not been made out. Mayors elsewhere are a mixed bag and some have been notably ineffective.

The impression is sometimes given that the business world is in favour of an elected Mayor. Forgive me for wondering why. But the views of businesses large and small, quoted and family concerns are hard to weigh up. And it is not just the big bosses and fat cats that count - and certainly not those who have shipped jobs and machinery abroad.

An executive Mayor in Birmingham is undesirable and the prospect should ruled out on May 3rd. An elected Mayor will not undo the damage done by the banks, by a totally misconceived national economic policy, globalisation and the withdrawal of power and assets from this and other cities over many decades.