It's not every day I agree with you Bob, but today is one of those days. You beat me to it!

Bob, aren't you being a little harsh on Ms Brady.
I am sure that there is much she could do for my old home town, such as...erm...like...
No, no wait. I'll think of something in a minute...err..

I've got it!! Pictures of Tory leader, councillor Mike Whitby, on every page of Birmingham council's paper Forward...Topless!!!

Just because you don't like elected Mayors, doesn't mean you won't get one.

You may get a Labour Mayor, even if the whole of Birmingham Labour doesn't want one.

Don't play games with this issue, Bob,a Mayor is a posession of the people of Birmingham and not of the politicians or political parties.

The alternatives can be just as bad (or good depending on your outlook).

A leader can be elected by Birmingham without your opinion being considered, which is the same as elected Mayor.

"a Mayor is a posession of the people of Birmingham"

What a touching and naive faith you have Gary. A mayoral campaign is, by it's very nature, a political beauty contest based on the cult of personality. The election would not be about policies but about choosing 'a strong leader' or someone who can talk smooth. The media love this sort of nonsense which is why the Mail Group are promoting it.... so don't play games with this Gary... it's hardly tearing up trees in Stoke, eh?

Finally, you're right. A leader or Mayor for Birmingham, as you say, can be elected without my say so, because I don't live there. I'm still entitled to an opinion though... New Labour haven't taken that off me... yet.

You still don't get it do you Bob?

It is the duty of the Labour Party to field a candidate in a contest even if you don't want the contest or the candidate.

PR can determine that 3rd or 4th choice wins and even if no one in Labour campaigns for a win, the Labour Mayor can win it.

The BNP love Mayors because they want to be Mayor and Nick Griffin has his eyes on a win for you in Sandwell too.

The choices are: Directly elected Mayor, Directly elected leader and enhanced commitees for a population of 85,000 or less.

A question mark is raised about the criteria of 85,000 or less and this is where you should give it a look.

I haven't heard Gordon Brown inform us of the doom of Mayors for here, Birmingham or Sandwell.

A Mayor has a key to the door of No.10 and your MP hasn't. Now there's a problem and conflict. Your MP becomes a bit of a nonentity.

Just because 10,000 people have signed a petition to drop the Mayor here in Stoke doesn't mean that the other 240,000 agree.

A ballot will give them a voice soon enough.

Sandwell will have a Mayor soon, Bob so take this advice from an insider: Put your name up now and go for a win, regardless of whether you like the posiotion or not.

Gary

Actually, Gary, it is you that 'doesn't get it'.

The Local Government Bill options include: a leader elected by the council with a cabinet style executive consisting of other councillors. That doesn't mean a directly elected leader, but one, as now, elected by the Council. That is what we are almost certainly likely to do in Sandwell... so I'm afraid you are wrong on virtually every assumption.

Er..Bob, I think I do get it, I just don't get how you will pursuade Sandwell that they don't get it.

I want to see this case being presented to the good people of sandwell that their opinion isn't necessary.

You will have to face that question come the day you decide on their behalf that you got it right all along.

The notion of a Mayor being despatched in stoke is still wishful thinking and the thought of reducing the electorate to the subs bench is dangerous territory.

You may have the best wishes and intentions for the people of sandwell but fear it could be the only area in the Country where the people have no say whatsoever.

Unless voting for a councillor is having a say, of course.

Gary

'Unless voting for a councillor is having a say, of course'.

Yes, what a quaint and old fashioned idea that people would want to be able to elect their own local Ward councillors who they can hold accountable for what happens in their neighbourhood, as opposed to some 'celeb' candidate who will run the whole borough as if it were their own personal fiefdom.

We will not be the only borough in the country... how many Mayors have the blairites been able to introduce? Remind me.

I think you may be under the impression that your elected leader and executive is somehow similar to the elected leader you have now.

Your new elected leader will be a Mayor without the title.

progress will come to sandwell and you won't like it.

Single councillor wards in your sandwell/Abbey ward is well and truly on the cards.

You are going to be very disappointed with our Democracy and power to the people, I fear.

Put your name up for everything.

Gary

1. You are wrong. The Bill says:

In the case of any local authority in England, the executive may consist of:-

a) a councillor of the authority (referred to in this Part as the Executive Leader) elected as leader of the executive by the authority

b) two or more councillors of the authority appointed to the executive by the executive leader.

Such an executive is referred to in this Part as a leader and cabinet"

That is quite clear. The council will elect the Leader, the Leader will appoint his/her cabinet. In the case of Sandwell, our Labour Group will make recommendations to the Labour Leader, and if the Leader is wise, they will accept the wisdom of those recommendations.

Perhaps you will point me to the progress on single member wards as I haven't been able to find it.

Forgive me for not knowing the ins and outs of Sandwel, but I assume you elect a leader and can sack one every year? under the new idea, you get one for four years, dierectly elected by the people or councillors.
This means they have the same power as a Mayor but with a different title.

The executive (emap in our case) runs to eight.

Single member wards doesn't mean a reduction in councillors, it means the ward is sectioned into smaller parts.

Rumour has it that when our 10,000 petition was received by Mr. Woolas, it was filed into the bin. True or not, make of it what you will.

The latest challenge doing the rounds is the denial of the 'enhanced committee'. There appears no grounds to deny this method to those that want it.
The professional Mayor haters here are pushing for an explanation and reason why the majority can't have this preferred and popular (cross party) form of local Government.

The BNP are the only party unanimous for an elected Mayor or directly elected leader, of course.

The bottom line is that an elected leader and cabinet is not a soft or a sop option.Councillors will learn to cry.

Gary

Gary, the reality will be the same. What will the Secretary of State do if a Leader elected by the Council for four years doesn't want to do it any more (which would be the affect of a vote of no confidence from the controlling group in a group meeting)? I'll tell you what they would have to do.... ask the council to elect a new Leader, that's what!

I see no evidence that the Government is pushing dfor single member wards, and as most councillors know, it is completely impactical.

If your scenario is correct, then why does Stoke still have a Mayor that apparantely nobody wants?

It doesn't happen, Bob and it won't happen in Sandwell.

An elected leader on a four year term in Sandwell will have more power than our elected Mayor has now.

You will elect God to lead you and then the fun will begin.

You still don't get it Gary. The legislation allows for the council to replace the elected leader with a vote of no confidence. If in Sandwell the Labour Group wants to change its leader... it will. There IS NO LEGISLATION which affects political groups. The elected leader would then either resign or face a vote of no confidence.

Don't ask me why things happen in Stoke for God's sake. Presumably some sort of referendum decided to have one in the first place? If so, another referendum should be able to delete the position... but frankly, I neither know nor care.

Bob, I'm baffled why you suggest that the Labour group in Sandwell will elect the leader of the Council? I take it you have the majority and it will remain so for all time.

The council will elect the leader for four years and he will run riot for the duration.

And yes, he/she will have more power than our elected Mayor has now and your Labour group will possibly be powerless for four years (bar the shouting).

You see, Bob, there is no difference between a Mayor and leader in the white paper.

Gary

Gary, you certainly have a strange Labour Group in Stoke. No Labour Leader in Sandwell could expect to have a political career worth having if they ignored the Labour Group. If the Labour Group appoint a Leader, which is the reality in Sandwell, it is inconceivable that they would ignore the Labour Group once elected. You certainly have a funny way of doing things up there.

Anyway, best of luck with your mayor. We're going round in circles on this one. We are staying with more or less the existing arrangements. It was why the white paper was amended... because Labour MPs knew they were dead in the water if they took power away from Labour Groups.