All the arguments over who would make the best elected mayor of Brighton and Hove ignore one basic obstacle.

A referendum has still to take place on whether the people want one and looking at them right now, I don't think they do.

Two years ago, you wouldn't have had much trouble in getting the idea approved.

But the more people think about it, the less they like it.

They have been aided by a well-organised campaign by the antis while those in favour have hardly got their boots on.

No wonder most of Brighton and Hove's 78 councillors (far too many) do not like the idea.

They can see the little bit of power they have disappearing down the municipal plughole while the mayor gets all the glory.

On the whole, councillors do not like change and they'd rather sit about chatting to each other in the sort of committees which ran the show for more than a century.

What the group in favour of the idea has to do is to counter the propaganda from the other side.

It's one thing to point out that 50 elected mayors in various parts of the world have been jailed for corruption scandals without mentioning that hundreds of others have also been put in clink because they are generally far more mendacious than we are.

Claims that the system will not be accountable should be resisted by pointing out the new mayor will still be abiding by policy chosen by all those councillors and that there will be a full system of checks, counter checks and scrutiny.

But the mayor will be able to act quickly and decisively when necessary, unlike someone bound hand and foot to committees.

The mayor does not have to be a politician.

The successful candidate could be a charismatic outsider.

Local elections have for years been dominated by party politics but Ken Livingstone demonstrated in London that an independent can beat the machine.

There's a certain breed of councillor which believes the more a decision is debated, the better that decision is.

But the waste of time and effort is colossal.

Few people attend council meetings and fewer still ever go to any of the few remaining committees because they are deeply dull.

Vast swathes of public services once run from the town hall, such as much of health and the police, have switched to control by other authorities which are not directly elected.

Some of them like water and electricity, are now privately run.

I don't detect much decline in them because there is little public debate and some of them might even be better for it.

There's been a steep lessening of interest in council meeting, mirroring that in Parliament, because they are talking shops.

Public opinion, as presented through the media, is usually far more effective.

A good case could be made for abolishing council meetings altogether.

You would never get councillors to agree it because it would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.

But if you instead had city-wide referenda at the same time as elections, possibly carried out on the Internet, it might be much more effective, involving many more people.

It's the sort of notion a directly-elected mayor, especially one from no party, might espouse.

I can't see any committee anywhere coming to such a conclusion.

We are living in the 21st and not the 19th century now and should be adjusting our thinking accordingly.

There should be a debate some time on who should run all out public services locally. Social care and health are slowly coming together. Why not all the utilities? Should they be under private or public control?

Should a directly-elected mayor have some responsibility for the lot of them?

Having a city mayor would be fun and would inject a fizz into the council not seen for a century or more.

I hope the people of Brighton and Hove will vote for such a change but I fear the few bothered will decide instead the city should take a giant leap backwards.