Sheffield is getting an elected Mayor like Manchester

[Vegas1]

Yes and shagger Boris is fab

 

Think you know full well the point I was making

 

The people of Rotherham continued to vote for Labour last week, despite a Labour administration being implicit in covering up a bunch of "nut administrators". And if a Tory administration somewhere did the same, the people of that area would probably carry on voting for them too. Wonders never cease, really.

[Jim Hardie]

I always thought we did have a Mayor for some reason.

 

And some great guys we've had too.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/lord-mayor-of-sheffield-barred-by-festival-organisers-1-4823422

[andyofborg]

Osborne announced yesterday that the Manchester model of more local powers under an elected mayor is going to happen all over the country.

 

The message is that cities that don't take on the responsibility of looking after themselves won't get the benefits on offer.

 

I'm not sure why they are linking the two things.

 

I've not seen anything to convince me that an elected mayor would be any better than the current situation.

 

More local powers - yes! at the price of having and elected mayor - probably not!

[kidley]

An elected mayor will have NO powers to raise money ie taxes etc, so he/she will only have to spend what the government give's him/her, the consensus of opinion of the brains on this matter on tv reckon, that it is to shift the blame for austerity to the mayors of the city's like Sheffield, and put the government in good light in other words its a con by the conservatives.

[Tommo68]

Questions this raises for me immediately are;

 

Do we actually need a mayor at all? elected or not.

Do we want a mayor? especially as the money could be better spent

Do we need another level of local government, one that could also be open to corruption.

And don't forget that mayors do not come without a (superfluous and expensive) entourage.

Do we need more politicians that are supposed to be serving us that are potentially first and foremost making decisions motivated by a desire to get themselves re-elected?

How much a year would a mayor waste on wining and dining themselves, colleagues, lackys and visitors that frankly we don't all gain from entertaining.

 

I don't stay in town for long when I do go so whilst its not really an issue that affects me; I'd rather see clean public toilets with proper areas for nappy changing and the not normally abled than I would see us have a mayor.

.

.

 

I'm sure others could add a lot more well thought out reasons for not having one.

 

To be honest I can't think of a good one for having one other that it could be a scapegoat that council employees and councilors could blame for their failings.

.

[alchresearch]

Maybe have a look at another town before making judgement. Liverpool seems to be doing quite well with a mayor under the evil Tories:

 

http://liverpool.gov.uk/mayor/

 

I can't see Sheffield prospering much if any of the locals stand. You need someone out of the area with big vision and power to lead and get things done.

[Fogey]

Having a mayor in London hasn't done anything to alleviate Londons housing problem and he just seems to continue to ride roughshod over everybody while spending huge chunks of money on what his mates think he should do.

 

Oh, and doesn't he also get an £8billion budget over and above what the actual local authorities in London get, will we get an extra multibillion pound budget on top of what local councils get? Oh yeah can we also have some of the massive infrastrucure funding that London has always got!

 

NO? Didn't think so.

[Anna B]

Will be a Labour one then, given the people of Sheffield would vote a pile of horse manure with a red rosette on it anyway.....

 

Does it have to be tied into party politics?

 

I don't see why we can't have a Mayor without any political allegiance; someone who's dedicated to what's best for Sheffield, rather than what's best for the local party. They will have to promote Sheffield to the wider world, something that our Labour Council doesn't seem to do well at all.

 

It's going to be a very important role that really could make a difference. we need to chose carefully from the widest possible pool of talent for particular skills. Give them a 'party' label, and you're right, it will probably be whichever lame duck the Labour Council decides to put forward and we'll just get more of the same.

[E-Man Groovin]

Does it have to be tied into party politics?

 

I don't see why we can't have a Mayor without any political allegiance; someone who's dedicated to what's best for Sheffield, rather than what's best for the local party. They will have to promote Sheffield to the wider world, something that our Labour Council doesn't seem to do well at all.

 

It's going to be a very important role that really could make a difference. we need to chose carefully from the widest possible pool of talent for particular skills. Give them a 'party' label, and you're right, it will probably be whichever lame duck the Labour Council decides to put forward and we'll just get more of the same.

 

Well said Anna B!

 

I'd love someone like Ken Livingstone to come up here. He's got bags of experience, is ostensibly Labour (only of relevance because people would vote for him), but really understands the power of enterprise in regenerating a city. But he wouldn't. He's too firmly a Londoner.

Edited May 15, 2015 by E-Man Groovin

[cuttsie]

Will be a Labour one then, given the people of Sheffield would vote a pile of horse manure with a red rosette on it anyway.....

Gary Verity would be my choice, his first job would be to get rid of the chief executive and the rest of the free loaders.