Mayor Q&A: The No campaign

The issue will be decided by a referendum on October 18.

WHAT will be different with a mayor?

The new kind of executive mayor being proposed represents a fundamental shift in the way the council operates, which the cross-party Allies for Democracy think will be bad news for the city.

Effectively the mayor will represent an extra tier of power. He or she will be able to set the agenda for the way the city is run, undermining the role of existing councillors. Not only will this be expensive, perhaps an extra £1 million per four-year term but, more importantly, the people of Brighton and Hove have no guarantee the mayor will put their interests first.

The scheme has to be workable for the whole city for generations to come. That's why councillors from all parties fought hard to win the chance for an improved committee system, which will happen if enough people vote 'No' in the referendum.

WHAT is the point of an elected mayor?

The directly-elected mayor idea is Blair's latest brainchild. It sounds great but really it is little more than the latest New Labour marketing scam. It claims greater democracy and accountability where the opposite is true.

The Allies for Democracy believe no one person or political party can have all the answers all the time, yet this is the argument behind the idea of having a "dynamic mayor who makes decisions quickly and can knock heads together".

The business of running a city needs to be in reliable and trust-worthy hands. We believe that if more decisions are reached by democratically-elected councillors from all parties those decisions will stand a better chance of representing the wishes and aspirations of ordinary people and be less susceptible to political corruption.

AREN'T mayors undemocratic?

The drive for the City Boss is part of Tony Blair's modernising agenda for local government, which is a recipe for privatisation, selling off public service provision to the private sector regardless of the social, economic and environmental consequences.

The Local Government Act 2000 sets out a requirement for councils to ask people if they want to change. Yet fewer than half of one per cent of local people supported the idea of having an executive mayor. What kind of democracy is that?

But the legislation requires the council to proceed with the referendum - regardless of the public consultation which showed a greater enthusiasm for an improved committee system. All referendum and election expenses having to be met out of council tax revenue - not central Government funds.

BUT won't the mayor be too powerful?

Everyone wants a strong council which can deliver the quality services people want - on time and on budget. The question is how this can best be achieved? We believe strength alone in a council is not enough - it needs to be tempered with justice and wisdom.

Although full council will still be responsible for passing the annual budget and development plans, an executive mayor, along with their Cabinet of as little as two others, would wield enormous influence as they ran the city while the remainder of the council would only have the role of scrutinising decisions. So much for local democracy.

We believe it be a step backwards to put too much power is in the hands of too few people.

WHAT about corruption in mayoral systems. Isn't it worse?

In America, widely quoted as an example of good practice, mayoral corruption is a matter of simple fact.

Currently some 50 former American mayors are behind bars for offences linked to corruption, involving drugs, bribery, misuse of public funds, and organised crime.

WON'T mayors mean the end of party political control locally?

When New Labour was elected in 1997 it set about the modernisation of local government with the introduction of the Cabinet-style councils, claiming they would improve accountability and inclusiveness and streamline decision making.

However, locally this has led to Cabinet members taking most important decisions in private meetings.

An executive mayor would further dismantle representational democracy as they wouldn't have to consider the views of other councillors on important issues before taking important decisions.

Conversely, a 'No' vote would mean the introduction of an improved committee system, where the rights of all political groups to share decision making would be enshrined.

WHAT about relationships with businesses and voluntary organisations?

Behind the 'Yes' campaign is the New Local Government Network, a group that Steve Bassam helped to form and which includes several MPs and Labour councillors.

Under the improved committee system, voluntary organisations, as well as the community as a whole, would be able to access their local councillor who would be able to make their case in cross party decision-making committees.

Under the executive mayor this would not be possible.

WILL mayors do anything to improve voter participation?

Evidence from other towns where referenda have been held shows very low turnouts. In Watford, the only place in the country so far to have said 'yes' to an executive mayor, only 24 per cent of people bothered to vote.

We believe this mirrors a feeling that voting is a waste of time because no notice is taken of what people are saying.

There needs to be a shift toward greater public involvement in local government, toward neighbourhood forums and greater decentralisation, both of which could be some of the results of opting for an improved committee system.

An executive mayor would have the opposite effect, WHAT will the Cabinet's role be?

Like so many other New Labour ideas, the Cabinet sounded good but in practice it simply doesn't work.

It has increased party political control locally, leading to a situation where the two arms of council power, the executive and scrutiny functions - which are supposed to act as a check on each other - both being controlled by the same party and failing to deliver any serious degree of challenge to the other, leaving other political groups undermined as they try to make scrutiny work.

The referendum gives Brighton and Hove its only chance to ditch the Cabinet system.

The committee system has been used in Brighton for 145 of the last 147 years. We propose it should be streamlined and updated to meet the needs of the 21st Century.

DOESN'T it mean the end of the historic civic mayoral office?

Any town or city needs a ceremonial figurehead. Under the improved committee system this would continue. Were the referendum to vote in favour of an executive mayor there would be inevitable conflict.

In summary, the referendum gives Brighton and Hove two choices for its future. One is very good and the other very bad. The Allies for Democracy have campaigned hard to ensure the public has that real choice. It's up to you to decide.

Please vote 'No' for a better Brighton and Hove.