We’ve all known for a long time that the Conservative Party wants to introduce mayors in Britain’s big cities.

David Cameron has personally championed the idea.

And creating visible, accountable leadership is an essential part of the coalition Government’s plans to devolve more power to local government.

So perhaps it should come as no shock that Ministers want to introduce mayors to cities including Birmingham and Coventry without holding referenda.

There has been speculation that the Government was planning something like this for a while, as The Birmingham Post reported previously.

But it seemed hard to believe. Tories had previously promised referenda, and a change of policy could hardly be blamed on the Lib Dems when they are lukewarm on city mayors.

There was a referendum in London before a mayor was created there. Surely, imposing a radical reform on local government without asking people whether they actually want it could be considered undemocratic?

Well, the cat’s out of the bag now, thanks to Local Government Minister Bob Neill.

It’s unclear what his boss, Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles, makes of his candour. Mr Pickles is keeping quiet.

Perhaps the Government is worried how opponents of a directly-elected mayor will react. They are likely to be angry, and a lot of them are Tory councillors.

But now that the idea is on the table, it deserves serious consideration.

We know the city council, which would be responsible for holding a referendum, is strapped for cash.

Why make it pay to hold a referendum when the city could simply press ahead with creating a mayor?

The Government’s proposal is that a “confirmatory referendum” could be held at a later date to ask voters whether they want to keep the new system or return to the old one.

In this way, voters would still have the final say, presumably at a time when the authority wasn’t struggling quite so desperately to balance the books.

MP John Hemming raises the prospect of a candidate standing for the position of mayor on a ticket of abolishing the post.

That’s fine. It would be an example of democracy in action. There’s no reason discussion about the best way to run Birmingham couldn’t be part of the mayoral election campaign.

Having said that, Mr Neill also suggested that existing council leaders could simply be appointed mayors.

That would be a mistake, as direct elections will help ensure mayors have a high profile and authority.

Tories have always made it clear that they back mayors, and while not the outright winners of the last election, they do have a mandate to enact (most of) their policies.

There’s the small matter of their earlier promise to hold a referendum, and once Mr Pickles gets round to making an official announcement, he’s going to have to take this one on the chin.

He’s carried out a u-turn and that’s always embarrassing.

But the contradiction in Tory policy has always been that they wanted to give local people a choice about how they were governed, as part of their commitment to localism - and they also wanted to devolve powers to strong local leaders, as part of that same commitment.

The second part of the deal could only work if voters chose to have mayors.

Perhaps it makes more sense simply to hand over the real authority to big city mayors and give the system a go, asking residents whether they fancy a return to the old ways later on.

In any case, it’s now clear that Birmingham is to get a mayor one way or another. We’re looking forward to seeing a range of candidates worthy of this great city step forward.