In the second part of our look at how a directly-elected mayor might effect Brighton and Hove, council leader Lynette Gwyn Jones says why the people should have the final say.

Do the residents of Brighton and Hove want a directly-elected mayor?

That has to be the first question. Not what we the politicians want, but what the people want.

If the MORI poll conducted by Birmingham City Council were to be repeated here the answer would surely be a resounding 'yes'.

Only seven per cent wanted to retain the committee system. Some 75 per cent wanted a directly- elected mayor or mayor plus cabinet.

The Local Government Bill will provide three options for local councils; directly-elected mayor plus cabinet; directly- elected mayor plus council manager; or a cabinet which elects its own leader.

Once the Local Government Bill becomes law, Brighton and Hove Council will be consulting local people on which of these three options they prefer.

One of the big arguments in favour of the mayoral model is that a highly-visible leader with a big electoral mandate would have the authority both to knock heads together locally and to be a major player in regional and national politics.

This is important because, whether we like it or not, Government and European funding is increasingly a sort of beauty contest; a competition between different towns and cities for public funds. It matters enormously that our voice is heard.

Over the last decade or so, Brighton and Hove has been extremely successful in attracting funds from Government programmes. Would we start to lose out to, say, Hastings, if they had a directly-elected mayor and we did not?

Doesn't all this give so much power to the mayor? Maybe. But the question really is about the changing balance of power and responsibility.

Through community planning, councils will be working with the police, the health service, local businesses and residents to draw a vision for their town or city.

We are already beginning this process in Brighton and Hove.

In the new Bill, local councils will be given new powers to improve the social, economic and environmental well-being of their areas. This, too, will form part of a common vision. The programme that an elected mayor presents will be locked into this city vision.

His or her enhanced status as a community leader would strengthen local democracy by bringing other big players, say, the Chief Constable or the Chief Executive of the local NHS Trust, into that vision.

The mayor's cabinet will be part of delivering the programme. At the local level, ward councillors would be helping lead the debate about the needs of their communities and feeding this into the new approach.

I have no illusions that this will be a simple task. The attempts to reach consensus on a city vision could actually polarise major issues in the town. Just think of the level of debate around residents' parking or energy from waste and imagine this as part of a mayoral campaign. It would certainly focus and amplify the issues, and split the town down the middle.

I hope that would not be the result, but politics is a funny old game, and we are moving into new and interesting waters. I think the Government is right to force councils to modernise and I look forward to a strong public debate about the direction the next phase should take.

This should pick up on the tough issues facing our city and the best way to deal with them and not just become a row between councillors trying to defend their patch.