Here the Labour councillor and campaigner against a directly-elected city mayor responds to yesterday's article by Lord Bassam.

LORD Bassam wants to bang heads together but it's time to knock on the head a few myths.

Yesterday, he talked of cutting red tape and bureaucracy. This is little more than a slogan and a cloak to cover more secret meetings.

Lord Bassam has called the No campaigners dinosaurs and Victorians.

Dinosaurs were loveable creatures that flourished for millions of years until wiped out by an asteroid that caused climate change.

Victorians created local government and provided services such as pure water, street cleaning, schools and hospitals that are not to be sneered at. Lord Bassam does not know much about geology or history.

In rejecting a mayor, we say no to a system that puts power into the hands of one person who picks a Cabinet of two to nine councillors, probably from the same political party.

You cannot get rid of that person for four years, however bad, mad or incompetent. You are likely to get a career politician on a very high salary.

How can this one person look after a population of a quarter of a million? Does anyone really believe he or she would be at the end of a telephone for every individual in our city?

The No campaign has the support of the Labour, Conservative, Green and Liberal Democrat parties as well as small businesses and trade unions.

There is no question of going back to some mythical town hall culture of boring meetings.

The improved committee system would have six committees only.

What we want is a democracy that is alive and active every day, not just once in four years, when a new mayor is elected.

We want people involved in decision-making through neighbourhood councils with their own budgets, referendums and consultations that get results; where people are listened to and have influence.

We want to get out in the communities where people live.

Meetings can be held in Portslade, Moulsecoomb, Whitehawk or Hove. Local people know what services they need and how to change for the better.

Whatever the outcome of the ballot, there will still be a civic or traditional mayor who is non-political during their year of office.

The number of councillors will also go down from 78 to 54 in 2003, when elections are held, and the size of wards will change so each will be half as large again.

As all councillors get paid an allowance, there may be some savings for the council tax payer and we believe the mayoral system will prove costly.

The postal ballot alone costs some £230,000, money that could be better spent on front-line services.

A mayor is expected to cost at least another £200,000 a year and we do not know yet what salary would be offered.

Also, do not be fooled by references to Ken Livingstone. A mayor for London is quite different from a mayor for Brighton and Hove.

There, you have a population of eight million and a series of boroughs, such as Camden or Newham, each with its own budget and administration. Here, we are a quarter of a million people in a tightly-packed area.

Stories of dynamic mayors in cities from Taipei to Chicago are also misleading. We want what is best for Brighton and Hove.

A city boss may be all right for the United States but it goes against our own traditions of openness and democracy. It is a scheme untried and untested in this country.

Sadly, corruption in local government does occur from time to time and putting even more power into the hands of one person creates the potential for nepotism and corruption.

Mayors in the US and on the Continent have ended up in jail for a variety of crimes. We do not want that here.

The vote for or against a directly-elected mayor is important. It affects everyone.

Do you really want to give one person the power to run our city?

If the answer is No, then be sure to vote No in the referendum.