Letter: What Would Be the Difference If We Did Have an Elected Mayor?

Published on: 28 Sep, 2016
Updated on: 29 Sep, 2016

From John Robson

To play devil’s advocate, what would be the difference between an all conquering elected mayor and the current system, which has allowed domination by one party since time began?

From my experiences within the council chamber, the current Executive appears to dismiss any real scrutiny on key council policy, neutralises any form of logical debate within the council chamber and has spent millions on a Local Plan consultation whilst repeatedly ignoring the wishes of the electorate, who merely wish to deliver a Local Plan fit for Guildford, not just developer friendly Westminster.

Instead of power being discharged by one individual the “trajectory” of this borough is being dictated by two or three councillors. The majority of Conservative councillors seem happy to tow the party line. There is just the odd dissenting councillor whipped to within an inch of their lives during certain key debates.

Notwithstanding what has gone before, the reality is that this Conservative council intends to deliver a Local Plan constructed by the previous council leader, a possible mayoral candidate, and his former lead planning councillor anyway.

So really, what would be the difference?

Responses to Letter: What Would Be the Difference If We Did Have an Elected Mayor?

Jules Cranwell Reply

September 28, 2016 at 7:32 pm

In reply to John Robson,

You’re right, the difference is not that great, but the key one is that we can change the makeup of this council in three years, with our votes. We could not revert from the mayoral system for 12 years.

Of course, it does not help this debate that the performance of this council has been so risible over the Local Plan, but also over our heritage, urban planning, and the arts.

Their entire agenda has been one of growth and development at any cost, without any provision for fixing the ailing infrastructure, let alone addressing the infrastructure needs to support their planned growth.

However, particularly given the characters behind the mayoral referendum, it would likely be even worse to have an elected mayor.

You can be sure that Mansbridge, Juneja and Harper are not behind this out of community spirit.
Bernard Parke Reply

September 28, 2016 at 9:30 pm

The difference would be that we would have little more than an elected dictator.
Sally Walker Reply

September 28, 2016 at 10:54 pm

I have to agree with John Robson. From following the council meetings it does seem as if all the major decisions are taken behind closed doors by the Executive and the rest of the councillors seem to toe the party line.

By way of example the decision to include the Garlick Arch copse site seems to have been made at the last minute by the Executive and came as a complete shock to all the other councillors.

I am going to vote for a democratically elected mayor, someone who is accountable to the people not party politics. As for the cost of running a mayoral system I would have thought with fewer councillor expenses there should actually be a cost saving.

I realise that most councillors don’t want this and are campaigning hard to keep their jobs, but I have had enough of the current ineffective system.

I’m also a bit fed up with the way several councillors seem to act at meetings. Some of them obviously love the power and others seem to have formed cliques rather than make their own genuine observations and represent their constituents.
Lisa Wright Reply

September 28, 2016 at 11:13 pm

I hope, if we have to have an elected mayor, we take note of Hartlepool who elected their football mascot ‘H Angus the Monkey’ for mayor in 2002.

Hartlepool residents re-elected ‘Mr Monkey’ for two further terms before reverting back to the previous elected leader model.

Vote ‘no’ for an elected mayor.

While Guildford may have plenty of sheep in the current council, it’s a whole lot better than a dictatorial monkey!
Susan Parker Reply

September 29, 2016 at 9:04 am

It’s important to note that this move to bring in an elected mayor, promoted by Monika Juneja, comes at a time when popular comments in the form of consultation have significantly delayed her Local Plan. We have made a difference, if only in slowing down that plan, and, slowly, some changes are being made. Our enormous popular response to the consultation must be recognised in its next version.

An elected Mayor is not going to be answerable to anyone, least of all the people that elect him/her. There will be scope for corruption, in the wrong hands.

If you want to protect Guildford’s countryside, don’t opt for an elected Mayor!

Susan Parker is the leader of the Guildford Greenbelt Group and borough councillor for Send.
George Potter Reply

September 29, 2016 at 1:52 pm

In days gone by, namely when the Liberal Democrats held the majority on the council, the council executive was composed of councillors from all parties in proportion to the number of council seats they had won. This ended when the Conservatives took control.

So there is nothing in the current system which prevents the council from having more open decision making. How transparent things are and how many councillors are involved in decision making depends entirely upon whom the majority of councillors elect as leader.

That the current Conservative majority keeps electing unaccountable leaders who like to make decisions behind closed doors has nothing to do with the current system and everything to do with the individuals that the voters of Guildford elect as their representatives.

Hoping that this will miraculously be fixed by centralising power in the hands of just one individual seems the height of foolishness.
David Roberts Reply

September 29, 2016 at 4:43 pm

There is a world of difference between the two systems and I hope that Sally Walker (and John Robson?) will seriously reconsider supporting a directly elected mayor – something that is being promoted by a disgraced politician who is still serving a multiple criminal sentence.

The proposed system would mean more expense, not less, since there will still be the same number of councillors to fund, while a directly elected mayor would also need to pay for a deputy, a spokesman and personal staff (just as our directly elected Police and Crime Commissioner does).

It is easy to be cynical about the present system and to assume change – any change – will be better. But it is deeply wrong-headed.

Arguably, huge cities like London and Manchester need directly elected mayors with the popular mandate and charisma to market them abroad and to resolve clashes between big agencies, such as the Met and TfL, as well as huge, conflicting social groups.

Small local authorities like Guildford (a mere 64,000 households) do not. They need to be run on inclusive, consensual lines, as Canterbury, Fylde and Torbay have found to their cost: all have abandoned the directly elected mayoral system. In Tower Hamlets, that system led to such serious corruption that the government had to intervene to remove the mayor.

Be sure that, if there are direct elections to choose a mayor, vested interests will win.

Property developers and financial speculators will put up a candidate they can control – one who wins votes by spouting the usual populist guff about taking tough decisions, creating jobs, cracking down on crime etc.

But don’t be fooled: the best public policies are almost always arrived at slowly, frustratingly and messily – through collective engagement, democratic argument and compromise.

The last thing Guildford needs is a mini-Putin.
Diane Maxfield Reply

October 1, 2016 at 5:29 pm

Jules, Bernard and Sally have all made sensible points.

I am a born and bred ‘vintage’ Guildfordian and my great grandfather was a councillor.

I would guess he is having a little spin in his grave at the thought that one can buy being a mayor by paying a whole lot of students to sign a petition.

I personally hate committees (I am currently having a sabbatical from committee work), and the current system is not a particularly good one, but I feel it is less open to corruption than having a directly elected mayor.

Of course, if anyone other than Michel Harper, Monika Juneja and Mr Mansbridge, had suggested the idea, I might have taken a different view; but I know self interest, sleaze and corruption when I smell it (and yes, I have actually met all three people named above!).
Mary Bedforth Reply

October 3, 2016 at 5:04 pm

The BBC do not appear to have been informed of the complete story.

Elected mayor ‘could turn Guildford around’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-37520247

A little while back there was an item on BBC South Today about the referendum. The High Street was shown and ex Cllr Mansbridge and Cllr Furniss spoke briefly.

PS There will be a resounding NO vote.
Adam Aaronson Reply

October 3, 2016 at 10:38 pm

Usually issues like this polarize debate. Opposing views between the various political parties are normal. Politicians from different parties actually agreeing on something is quite unusual. How often are Labour and Conservatives, for example, on the same side?

In this case, however, it seems that all four political parties represented on Guildford Borough Council are convinced that an elected mayor is a bad idea and campaigning against this proposal.

In other words, whatever your political views are, the party you are most likely to be aligned to thinks that an elected mayor is a bad idea.

Funnily enough, it turns out that the person behind the proposal appears to have “pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to three counts of forgery, one of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception and one of pretending to be a barrister.”

Wake up and smell the coffee!