Dear Editor, I do not usually agree with the politics of Phil Davis (Post October 27) but I fully agree with his comments about the directly elected Mayor and regional coordination.
The Boris and Ken show in London is completely different. They have strategic powers and responsibility for police, transport and fire. A Birmingham mayor would not have these duties but would have responsibility for the huge variety of local government – education, housing, social services and everything from birth to crematoria and cemeteries.
The mayor in Birmingham would have similar powers to the present leader of the council but with important disadvantages.
Initially there is the cost and time of an additional election for a mayor of whom the public may know little or who may have little experience. Then there is plenty of opportunity for confusion or dispute between the Mayor and the Council. Even if the Mayor made a complete mess he would be there for four years, whereas at present the leader must retain the confidence of the council or he or she will be voted out.
The proposal for an elected mayor is an unnecessary gimmick by London politicians who want to interfere and impose change, although the public has shown little enthusiasm. The drive came from Heseltine and Blair who wanted to impose the European model just as they wanted to impose the euro – not a good idea.
Let us build a strong cross party alliance to vote no at the referendum in May.
Councillor James Hutchings
Vote no to a powerfreak