It's sometimes claimed by advocates of an elected mayoral system that this will be better for democracy. I don't think this is so - certainly not in terms of quality, as the unseemly scrap between egotistical candidates in London clearly shows.
The campaign - if you can call it that - falls well short of the sort of campaigns we have seen in Birmingham for the City Council elections where issues, mainly, have been to the fore.
We do not want the election to be reduced to clashing egos, sniping about tax returns and lifestyles and foul language. Little has been heard about policy or what an elected Mayor can do to alleviate the consequences of self inflicted austerity so unevenly borne by these people's citizens.
And what has been heard about the other candidates? Some of them have interesting policy ideas that are denied a hearing by the media - particularly the broadcast media. This sort of visionless, negative campaigning, long on personalities and short on detail, does not serve democracy well - yet this is what we could get in Birmingham should there be a yes vote in the referendum on May 3rd.
A great city such as ours now suffering from massive youth unemployment, wide inequalities and an industry hollowed out by globalisation - to mention just three major issues - must be better served than this. We do not need posturing, grandstanding and globetrotting. We need a city run by a democratically elected council from amongst whom is elected a leader of the council combined with the return of powers taken away by successive governments. That is the key requirement and it is something the government could do at any time.
So spare us the Punch and Judy stuff or at least confine it to London! If you agree, vote 'NO' to an elected Mayor on May 3rd.
No comments:
Post a Comment