|
The deadline for our city's
poll on whether we should have a powerful, US-style Mayor instead of the old symbolic chain wearing
dignitary rapidly approaches. We air the views of Simon Fanshawe,
FOR and Green councillor Keith Taylor AGAINST as they go head to
head by letter.
It's the biggest political
question to be levelled at Brighton and Hove's electorate for
years: Mayor or No Mayor. As it stands at the moment the signs
are the Yes campaign could have it sewn up, but No campaigners
are closing the gap and as they say about fat ladies and
singing... The Insight has gone right to the heart of the matter
and what follows above is a debate between leading campaigners
Green Cllr Keith Taylor and broadcaster Simon Fanshawe.
To fill you in on the background,
last year the Government introduced a White Paper which stated
all councils over a certain size should consult citizens with a
view to streamlining their local government. Brighton and Hove
held a consultation exercise in January this year: 66 per cent
of people responding were for electing a mayor, while 34 per
cent favoured a leader and cabinet system. In the meantime
another consultation exercise was held to decide what should be
the fall back position if the referendum goes against having a
mayor. This was decided as a committee system. So now we're
fully up to date and on Oct 4 every household in the city will
receive a ballot form with the question: "Are you in favour
of the proposal for Brighton and Hove City Council to be run in
a new way, which includes a Mayor who will be elected by the
voters of the city, to be in charge of the council's services
and to lead the Brighton and Hove City Council and the community
which it serves?"
You have until Oct 18 to post it
back and the result will be announced on Oct 19. So far
nationally two councils have voted for and two against. This
is the decider.
Dear Keith,
Unlike the debate so far by the No campaign can we perhaps avoid
personal abuse and accusations that those of us for an elected
mayor are in it for our own personal gain, financial, personal
or political?
The Yes campaign is made up of
people from every walk of life who all just care about the
health and prosperity of this city. Brighton & Hove has big
problems and they need to be tackled. An elected mayor is
important for three reasons.
S/he would be elected by all the
voters of the city, not just by a handful of councillors, and
accountable to all of us. S/he would have to succeed to be
re-elected. The elected mayor would be decisive.
S/he can listen to the competing
views in the city and then make decisions. And thirdly we want
money to go into front line services not wasted in expensive
bureaucracy like a committee system.
Yours, Simon Fanshawe
Dear Simon,
If you're worried about increasing bureaucracy costs why support
an Executive Mayor at an extra £1m every four years? Some may
think your ideas sound OK, but in reality are little more than
Labour's latest marketing scam.
Yes supporters confuse the
difference between knowing who the Mayor is and people getting
taken any notice of once s/he's elected, and they brand
decisions made quickly as being automatically good. Real
democracy, like life, is sometimes painstaking but infinitely
preferable to the control-freakery which gives too much power to
one person which would be created.
By voting No, we'll get an
improved Committee System to run council services. City
councillors who are ALL directly elected will make up those
committees, building up specialist knowledge and developing
contacts with staff, clients and constituents, leading to a
genuine and meaningful dialogue between the people and their
council, something that one Mayor could never achieve, but
something every citizen has a right to expect.
Yours, Keith Taylor
Dear Keith,
Members of any sensible system of local government should be
able to listen to as many views as possible, not just those of
councillors in a committee, and then produce a clear decision.
Your proposals for the dual committee system entail a staggering
400 extra committee places for you and your colleagues to talk
to each other. With your bums so firmly attached to the town
hall velvet, when will you get out into your communities to find
out their views?
It will not only cost an
estimated extra £2.4m of our money, but committees are far more
likely to put things off than decide.
Whereas a Mayor elected by all of
us will not only cost less at a mere £200,000 extra after
savings, but be able make decisions conscious that s/he is
accountable to all 200,000 voters who elected them - not just
the party whip in committee. Committees are an expensive way of
taking no action. The city wants our problems solved not just
talked about.
Yours, Simon Fanshawe
Dear Simon,
Attempts to blind readers with unsubstantiated costs and savings
add nothing to what is supposed to be an informed debate. At
least you recognise a Council must listen to its citizens - but
are you really saying one pair of Mayoral ears will work better
than 54 sets belonging to councillors?
It's quite clear you understand
little about what councillors do, our community involvement,
surgeries or the casework involved in representing people. I've
only ever seen you at one council meeting, but suddenly you are
this guru with a cunning plan. Instead of developing a 21st
Century version of a committee system that's served us for 147
years, you know better - and say we need a totally new and
untried council system - with nothing more than your assurance
it'll work. But that's just what Steve Bassam said about the
Cabinet system he introduced three years ago that's proved such
a disaster - as evidenced by the rubbish rotting on our streets.
Yours, Keith Taylor
Dear Keith,
Many of us - I worked as a community worker here from 1979 -
learnt about our city without having to be councillors. But you
seem to think that only the privileged 78 of you know anything.
The elected mayor is there to
place a vision before the city and with a mandate from the
voters, take the kind of action with his/her cabinet that we
voted for.
The YES campaign is about
accountable leadership - elected by 200,000 rather than 78 -
putting money into services and not bureacracy and strengthening
the role of councillors to represent their communities to an
executive that will act and not just talk.
Since the No's have taken the
single biggest donation to any group in this campaign of £2,500
from the binmens' union, I am not suprised you want to try and
lay the blame for the rubbish fiasco elsewhere than the
workforce or their management. An elected mayor would sort it
out, which might not please your friends.
Yours, Simon Fanshawe
Dear Simon,
Do you really think people are stupid enough to fall for all
this? All we have seen so far is rhetoric and attempts to divert
attention away from your ideas' weakest points. I think that
come the referendum, people will see through the smokescreen.
They'll see that giving too much
power to one person is crazy, the idea that one person will
solve everything fatuous, that quick decisions are not always
good ones, that just because you say the system will work
doesn't mean it will, and that a Mayor could promote the sale of
even more public services into private control.
Yes, Unison and the GMB unions
have offered support, as have hundreds of ordinary people from
all walks of life - all keen to see a truly inclusive and
reactive Council that works in the interests of the whole city.
They see that - despite wielding enormous power with few
constraints - a Mayor could only be removed every four years.
Executive Mayor? Sounds more like 'nightmare' to me.
Yours, Keith Taylor.
copyright New Insight 2001
|
