The Big Brum Debate

[mikey23]

Originally Posted by morestoreysplease

It's still a missed opportunity though because I believe the mayor should cover all 6 councils within our conurbation. And to appease the Black Country suspicions that it would only help Brum, I suggested on another thread that taking the accurate centre of our conurbation to be near to West Bromwich town centre then the new mayor could base their office in the Town Hall there.
Why should residents In Croydon, Ilford, Barnet and Hounslow living in 4 totally differing boroughs of Greater London get to enjoy a mayor for their collective conurbation and residents here cannot? I really cannot see any difference at all.

The difference is cohesion - all of those areas I suspect would ascribe themselves to London, whereas the Black Country wouldn't consider themselves as part of a greater Birmingham. Neither could you impose something like that on a region where there is distinct lack of unity and hope that it works out in the end. If that type of change is to come about it needs to be organic and olive branches and incentives need to be offered from both sides.

I agree that it would be brilliant for the region, and there are signs that relations between the different councils are thawing - Solihull in the LEP, links with Wolves, Centro and Trams etc, but there's still a long way to go before we could bring the region's different councils on board to the regional mayor idea.

[morestoreysplease]

Originally Posted by mikey23

The difference is cohesion - all of those areas I suspect would ascribe themselves to London, whereas the Black Country wouldn't consider themselves as part of a greater Birmingham. Neither could you impose something like that on a region where there is distinct lack of unity and hope that it works out in the end. If that type of change is to come about it needs to be organic and olive branches and incentives need to be offered from both sides.

I agree that it would be brilliant for the region, and there are signs that relations between the different councils are thawing - Solihull in the LEP, links with Wolves, Centro and Trams etc, but there's still a long way to go before we could bring the region's different councils on board to the regional mayor idea.

I don't think Londoners are as happy with the collective as you think. Ilford would be staunchly old Essex, Croydon with Surrey, Hounslow with Middx and Barnet with Herts - that's why I chose those areas. But they come together for the good of their greater city region.
Our conurbation needs to act, think, and talk like a place that is filled with 2.3 million people connected by 1 train company, 1 main bus company, 1 metro.
You're putting forward boundaries when there really aren't any. And Sandwell should house the mayoral office because it's the central authority.

[Brum X]

Originally Posted by BABYCAKES

This morning I was starting to think I would vote yes, now Im starting to think I will stick to my inner voice & vote no. I have never been so undecided when voting, one thing I can guarantee is that I will vote one way or another lol...

You should vote YES

[mikey23]

http://www.thechamberlainfiles.com/s...he-status-quo/

The time for arguing among the chattering classes and political nerds is over. We’re at the business end of the directly elected mayor (DEM) debate.

By posting here, I run the high risk of talking to the same folk who are as passionate as I am about the potential for DEMs (or equally passionate against). I can only hope the message spreads to those who matter most – large numbers of Birmingham’s electorate who have not only not decided how to vote; but don’t even know they’ll face two ballot papers. That’s not to mention the vast majority who won’t bother to exercise their civic duty.

Let’s talk about the prize. Not about the Yes camp, hampered by a lack of clarity on powers and resources to run a campaign that cuts through. Nor the Naysayers, full of scare tactics and half truths.

Quite simply, if you want more control over the policies, people and budgets that would make your city a better place, then vote to change the way it is run. If you want Birmingham to have sharper identity on national and international stages – and the investment as well as prestige that goes with that – change the way Brum is governed. If you want to know more about what those acting in your name are doing and have better opportunities to influence and question them, go for a mayor.

Make no mistake; a strong Mayor of Birmingham will be a major national player. Within two years, he or she will possess more political capital than Andrew Mitchell, Philip Hammond or Eric Pickles and have better international access than any of our Council leaders have hitherto enjoyed.

At the recent Birmingham Forward debate, Sir Albert Bore said we need an act of faith here. He’s right. There’s not a definitive view of the endgame; the prize is far from crystal clear. The fact the Government is not exactly as one – civil servants as well as ministers – doesn’t help. It’s not even as simple as a Con-Lib Dem split; meanwhile the Labour approach has been muddled to say the least.

However, the direction of travel is only going one way, even if the road is bumpy. I’m convinced from all my work and conversations around mayors that the Government – notably the PM, DPM and Cities Minister – are determined about localism, especially when it comes to cities.

They are serious about localism and its political cousin: public service reform. As potential mayoral candidate Liam Byrne famously noted, there’s no money left. Ingenuity with budgets – and with financial mechanisms – is the only answer for years to come. They believe a DEM with a personal mandate and a clearly articulated vision is more likely to be innovative in pooling budgets and finding new ways of working.

Just imagine what Birmingham could do with more assets, greater freedom and real ambition in respect of housing. Surely, more control over skills funding could help make a start on our horrific worklessness levels. A mayor in the driving seat of transport policy across the city region could build on the slowly won successes of New Street and runway extension as well as HS2.

All these and more are within the grasp of a DEM. Some might be secured in a city deal, pitched by the GBSLEP in Westminster last week to be announced in mid summer. But only a mayor will be given a further bite at the apple.

The argument for mayors is now as much about expediency as principle. I believe in mayors. They are more visible; often show stronger leadership; are more accountable and can wield more power than simply the powers afforded to them.

If the principle doesn’t wash with you, I’m probably too late highlighting all the evidence and arguments, not least The Warwick Commission. If only on the grounds of expediency and on the basis that no one can seriously argue the current system works in Brum, a DEM is surely worth trying.

Imagine waking up on 17 November to hear Bristol and Leeds will join London and Leicester in having their champion regularly banging the Cabinet table in No 10; given direct control of more budgets and increased chances to make their city’s case to foreign dignitaries and investors. Think about how the good burghers of Southampton and Salford will feel as they negotiate city deals that go beyond the dreams of the so called Second City.

Believe me, it won’t feel good.

Mayors will not be an overnight success. As with all new mayoralties around the world, including London, the first mayor will do a lot of establishing work, preparing the ground for more powers for those who follow.

Status Quo have had more comebacks than the so called era of ’new politics.’ It might not feel like it, but be in no doubt Thursday presents an immense decision. This is not a constitutional nicety or a policy wonk’s fantasy. The choice is about leadership and vision; the freedom to exercise them and acquiring the means and tools to deliver on them.

If you can, vote. To your less politically inclined friends, family and colleagues – tell them what’s at stake and urge them to visit a polling booth. Now is not the time for the status quo.

[Brum X]

Exactly the reason why people should vote YES, if its a NO and other major cities vote yes, that will be a disaster for Birmingham and we will be left behind.



You should vote YES

[Victorian]

As an external but interested observer, I simply don’t understand why some people contributing to this forum are planning to vote ‘No’ for an elected mayor. In Canada an elected mayor is the norm. We vote for a council and separately for a mayor who will be a spokesman for the city on the provincial and national stage and who will lobby hard for infrastructure money, etc. It is a system that works well and is generally accepted as the obvious way a city should be governed. It is not “an American concept” --- Canada has a British-type parliamentary system, and many if not most European cities elect mayors. Nor is it “an extra layer of bureaucracy” --- a mayor’s office has the same support staff as a council leader’s office. The difference is that the whole population votes for their choice of a dynamic leader rather than the voters in one ward who may then find their prospective ‘council leader’ is not in the majority party elected to govern. Some elected mayors in the past, such as Jean Drapeau in Montreal and Willi Brandt in Berlin, have raised the international profile of their cities enormously. Mayors elected in New York are often internationally-known figures.

I very much hope Birmingham voters will seize this opportunity to join the rest of the world by voting ‘Yes’ in the referendum. It could be the beginning of a new era for the city. Birmingham has lost too many opportunities recently, European City of Culture, UK City of Culture, National Stadium, BBC’s relocation to the regions, and so on, to continue with the present system where it seems the city has no national presence or lobbying influence in Westminster and is easily overlooked.

[morestoreysplease]

Exactly! Mike Whitby is a national nonentity!

[hoody]

Is Anyone else fed up with the sheer amount of this shit bursting through their letter boxes?

Fucking local councillor.

Been in discussion Gary Sambrook over the past few weeks about the sheer volume of shit pushed through my door.

I've asked to be taken off his mailing list and I am still getting bombarded.

What are my options?

[Qoasis777]

get a dog?

[BABYCAKES]

Originally Posted by hoody

Is Anyone else fed up with the sheer amount of this shit bursting through their letter boxes?

Fucking local councillor.

Been in discussion Gary Sambrook over the past few weeks about the sheer volume of shit pushed through my door.

I've asked to be taken off his mailing list and I am still getting bombarded.

What are my options?

The tory party locally are terrible for this, I have emailed our local tory re a certain issue and got no response whatsoever, despit several attempts, then you get their crap through the doors saying how they listen!

[BABYCAKES]

Originally Posted by Victorian

As an external but interested observer, I simply don’t understand why some people contributing to this forum are planning to vote ‘No’ for an elected mayor. In Canada an elected mayor is the norm. We vote for a council and separately for a mayor who will be a spokesman for the city on the provincial and national stage and who will lobby hard for infrastructure money, etc. It is a system that works well and is generally accepted as the obvious way a city should be governed. It is not “an American concept” --- Canada has a British-type parliamentary system, and many if not most European cities elect mayors. Nor is it “an extra layer of bureaucracy” --- a mayor’s office has the same support staff as a council leader’s office. The difference is that the whole population votes for their choice of a dynamic leader rather than the voters in one ward who may then find their prospective ‘council leader’ is not in the majority party elected to govern. Some elected mayors in the past, such as Jean Drapeau in Montreal and Willi Brandt in Berlin, have raised the international profile of their cities enormously. Mayors elected in New York are often internationally-known figures.

I very much hope Birmingham voters will seize this opportunity to join the rest of the world by voting ‘Yes’ in the referendum. It could be the beginning of a new era for the city. Birmingham has lost too many opportunities recently, European City of Culture, UK City of Culture, National Stadium, BBC’s relocation to the regions, and so on, to continue with the present system where it seems the city has no national presence or lobbying influence in Westminster and is easily overlooked.

While I think it vaguely interesting to hear your comments on this issue, I resent
your belittleing of those who plan to vote no.
I have mixed thoughts on the idea, as anyone who reads this thread will know, but I am someone who considers the arguments and takes my vote seriously. I am engaged in that sense, and if someone votes no that is because they have come to the conclusion that on balance they are happy with our system the way it is. That is democracy. Has it actually occured to you that the reason people have heard of the mayors of London & New York is probably because they are major cities of the World?
Much as I love Birmingham, it is not in the same catagory.
Also if someone has ''heard' of a particular mayor, then so what? This doesnt mean they are doing a good job.

Anyway I have voted today & dragged my partner to the polling station too...We have both voted Yes. Lets see !

[hoody]

Well I thought I'd vote for someone else and try and send a signal that the main parties are shite.

I went Green. UKIP I dont trust and BNP/NF are wankers.

and a YES in the mayor referendum. I feel that Whitby is impotent, we need a stronger leader.

[sefton66]

I think the suggestive polls on the mayor debate were people thinking it was a simple yes/no vote to a mayor, I think when they read the options more will be likely to pick a mayor as the other option has the words "this is the way it is currently run" or something along those lines, might encourage more people to vote yes to a mayor

[Victorian]

Originally Posted by BABYCAKES

While I think it vaguely interesting to hear your comments on this issue, I resent
your belittleing of those who plan to vote no.
I have mixed thoughts on the idea, as anyone who reads this thread will know, but I am someone who considers the arguments and takes my vote seriously. I am engaged in that sense, and if someone votes no that is because they have come to the conclusion that on balance they are happy with our system the way it is. That is democracy. Has it actually occured to you that the reason people have heard of the mayors of London & New York is probably because they are major cities of the World?
Much as I love Birmingham, it is not in the same catagory.
Also if someone has ''heard' of a particular mayor, then so what? This doesnt mean they are doing a good job.

Anyway I have voted today & dragged my partner to the polling station too...We have both voted Yes. Lets see !

I'm very sorry if I appeared to be "belittling" those who planned to vote 'No' in the referendum. Not my intention at all. In fact I recognise two very sound arguments for voting against an elected mayor, one of which has been raised in this forum. My concern was that some contributors were fearful of change and were raising false issues which were irrelevant in my opinion in the light of experience in other countries.

One reason for voting 'No', which I respect, is that what is really needed is a mayor for all of 'Greater Birmingham' rather than for the city alone. I agree with this sentiment, but I still feel a directly elected mayor of Birmingham could, if successful, demonstrate to the region as a whole the advantages to be gained in having a powerful lobbying voice in Westminster. Perhaps then the neighbouring councils would be more enthusiastic about joining together as a single entity with its own mayor. It's not the perfect solution, but better than no change at all.

The main disadvantage is that although the position can attract several high quality candidates, all of whom have much to offer the city, only one of them can be elected unfortunately. The others are cast aside with no leading role to play in the governance of the city and have to seek opportunities elsewhere. This is a waste of talent that could otherwise be usefully employed for the betterment of the city. Under the present system they could all end up as councillors and contribute that way.

Anyway, I'm pleased to read that you and your partner have voted 'Yes'. I hope you have chosen the winning side!

[BABYCAKES]

It seems Birmingham will deliver a No vote anyway.