In a couple of days time, the people of Leeds will be able to vote on whether they want a directly elected mayor. To be honest, until quite recently I was not even aware that a referendum was happening. It has not been widely publicised and is not even mentioned on the polling cards. These just refer to changes in the way that Leeds City Council is run.
I was asked a couple of weeks ago if I was in favour of a direcly elected mayor and I thought that for a city like Leeds this would be a good thing. I posted a couple of tweets about this and as a result the Yes Campaign in Leeds got in touch.
Next thing I was on the BBC1 Sunday Politics Show debating the issue and speaking passionately in favour of a mayor for Leeds.
Whilst I cannot speak for any other city where a referendum is taking place, I do believe that a directly elected mayor for Leeds will be a great move forward. Leeds is in the top 100 on the world stage by GDP, is is the 24th most populous city in the European Union and it is classed as a gamma city, in other words a key node in the global economic system. As a result, Leeds needs to hold its own on the world stage, it needs a strategy for growth and investment and it needs to punch above its weight. A directly elected mayor could achieve all of this and more.
Whilst all of the three major national political parties are in favour of elected mayors, all of the local parties are against this. Is this because their cosy coterie of power might be under threat? Is this why they are all keeping so quiet about the issue?
Councillor Jack Scott from Sheffield, with whom I appeared on the Sunday Politics Show, says that a directly elected mayor would be an "elected dictator" and would cost a lot of money. This is the level of the no campaign. Oxymoron and scare mongoring. They have nothing positive to say, they are concerned with maintaining the power base of the elected few who then choose their own leader. They seek to deny the people of a great city like Leeds the say on who runs their affairs.
Other "no" arguments are that one person would have too much power. But the mayor would have to have 40% of the council vote with him and don't we now have a prime minister for as set term? This brings stability and rises above party lines.
Other scare tactics being used are the suggestion that the mayor could appoint "cronies". Again, not true. All members of the mayoral cabinet would have to be elected councillors.
Were anyone in any doubt as to why the old guard should be voted out and a new era of leadership ushered in, then they should look at the behaviour of the leader of Leeds City Council, Keith Wakefield (pictured).
Mr Wakefield (who thinks he is Mr Leeds) is against a directly elected mayor. He is calling for a no vote. He has stated that a mayor would be "undemocratic" and "utter madness". Yet he has also said that is there is a yes vote in Leeds, then he would stand himself.
The people of Leeds should treat this outrageous and duplicitous statement with the contempt it deserves and fight back by coming out of their homes this week in droves to vote yes for a mayor for Leeds.
