Why we should say No to a 'city boss'

The idea of having a directly elected Mayor sounds to some to be seductive. It implies more accountability and transparency. The reality is far different.

Let us ignore the mockery of the example of Hartlepool where the electorate voted for a man dressed as a monkey. We are bemused by an election  based on a gimmick rather than a set of policies to achieve the best for the city. But we should not challenge the democratic legitimacy of someone who has been voted in by a majority.

Let us also ignore the fact that a directly elected Mayor would end a tradition in Salford of a ceremonial Mayor, impartially chairing the Council and, more importantly, acting as an ambassador for the city to the outside world and to the local community where the chains and robes of office command pride and respect. Radicals should not be afraid of change.

Instead, let us focus on the supposed benefits of those who prefer the American system of a directly elected Mayor. Under this system, the Mayor is transformed from being an impartial figurehead to party political leader.

Once elected, the Mayor can ignore the elected representatives of the people - except in the case of the budget and a set of prescribed policy documents. In the case of the budget and the policy documents, the elected councillors can have a say. But they can only amend or reject the proposals of the Mayor if they have a two-thirds majority. This does not seem to be very democratic.

The Mayor may delegate decisions to Cabinet members or a committee but few mayors have done this. The Cabinet becomes 'advisory' and all decisions are effectively made by one person. The directly-elected Mayor system is not more democratic. Democracy implies the diffusion of power. This system puts power exclusively into the hands of one person.

This is dangeous and divisive.

The current system allows for checks and balances. The Leader is elected by the Council and is accountable to the Council on a daily basis. A strong Cabinet with members who are more than advisory means that decisions are not taken in isolation but following robust debate. All that accountability would be swept away with a directly-elected Mayor. In the rush for strong leadership, we would sacrifice good leadership.

The current system requires the Leader to persuade the Cabinet and the Council. If a Leader is approached by outside interests - property developers, contractors and the like - he or she cannot do a deal with them. It must be subject to scrutiny and the test of whether it is in the interests of the citizens. A directly-elected Mayor can put the siren voices of outside interests above those of the citizens. It is well-known that in America and some continental cities, directly-elected Mayors have been involved in corruption.

The current system requires the Leader to have the confidence of the majority the Council. With a directly-elected Mayor, the confidence of the Council is irrelevant. In Doncaster, for example, the council has a directly-elected Mayor, an English Democrat. Yet the Council is overwhelmingly Labour. The Mayor rules without the support of the majority of the Council - who represent the majority of the people.

The term of an elected Mayor is fixed. If the people vote for different councillors because they don't like the way the city is being run, it makes no difference. The Mayor and all his powers reman intact. If the people of Salford elected a Labour Mayor and then subsequently elected a Tory majority on the Council, Labour would still be in control. So much for democracy!

The experiment of a directly-elected Mayor was carried out in Stoke. The citizens eventually backed a referendum to go back to the system of Leader and Cabinet with an impartial Mayor. We should learn from Stoke and not put on the council taxpayers the burden of a bureaucratic reorganisation - only to reverse it in a few years time.

The notion of directly-elected mayor is seductive. But it is deceitful. It is nothing more than an American-style party political city boss with an unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of one person. In the name of democracy and accountability, it should be rejected.