Wouldn't it be better to have someone elected to the position who is answerable to the electorate on his performance in the job, than someone who is maybe appointed to the position because it was his "turn" for the office?
Wouldn't it be better to have someone elected to the position who is answerable to the electorate on his performance in the job, than someone who is maybe appointed to the position because it was his "turn" for the office?
I don't really follow local politics but isn't the mayor just a figurehead for local events? Also isn't a democratic system or an elected mayor the same thing?
As I live in a village I really haven't got any particular views on the subject.
However, I notice in nearby Bristol, that if they decide to have an elected mayor, the city will have both a Mayor and a Lord Mayor, two completely separate posts.
I think the present system is fair. This way every party has the opportunity to have a Mayor elected by the Councillors. I think it's enough for the electorate to elect the Councillors on a four yearly rotation. This is another one for the pot. Here in Colchester we will be electing The Police Crime Commissioner in November (whatever ever he does). All these elections cost money from the local purse.