Apathy is not the only reason why city mayor plans failed

0
Have your say

From: Ian Smith, Colston Close, Bradford.

there was a time when those in authority could act with little reference to those who mandated them, but times have changed – no longer do we accept reform without consultation or explanation.

This Government is no different to any other organisation whether commercial, public or representative.

There is an arrogance manifested in the clear derision of demands for information, clarification and fairness.

We heard that elected mayors would be good for us, but no one bothered to explain why, or what the impact would be.

They omitted to explain the relative values of the two management systems, or to clarify what powers a mayor would have, so there’s no wonder that the electorate said “no thanks”.

What else has been ineffectively communicated? Well, there are the NHS changes, prior to that students’ fees, and more recently that apparently unfair budget. There was also the issue of the Alternative Vote.

And, would last year’s summer riots have taken place if the police had acted and communicated more effectively?

Of course, politics and personal interest has played a large part in information, lack of information or misinformation indeed.

Take some union leaders for example – those who provide limited information that appear to show they have a mandate for striking, but have us ignore the details that identify the real (low) numbers supporting that action. There is now no room for any selfishness.

In this new and different world, the need for full and complete communications is paramount to success. Fail in communicating then fail in implementing.

To act, without consultation or complete communication, is not now the way forward for any governing or representing body because for them mayhem ensues. A mandate to lead is permission only to go forward respectfully.

From: John Bradbrook, Queenswood Drive, Leeds.

REGARDING city mayors, realistically, people power can only be effective at a very local level. That is why our current emphasis on locally elected councillors is a good one.

As a politically active person in Kirkstall, I have been able to get to know our three excellent councillors personally, at least to some extent.

The elected mayor for the whole city of Leeds, if that were to happen at some point, would no doubt turn out to be a remote figure, who would surround himself with a clique of cronies, in the style of both Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson in London and would be a law unto himself.

George Galloway is exactly the sort of volatile extremist demagogue, who could get his hands on real power under this system.

From: Peter Thompson, Crow Tree Lane, Bradford.

i THINK you are wrong in citing apathy as the cause of the rejection of city mayors (Yorkshire Post, May 5). In my case it was due to hostility to the concept.

My gut feeling is that our present system of local government is basically democratic and the alternative was not.

This feeling was reinforced when I read of David Cameron’s proposed meetings of mayors, with all that it implied. I was disappointed to learn that the Yorkshire Post had backed the proposal because of Cameron’s “threats” and not out of conviction.

From: Tim Mickleburgh, Boulevard Avenue, Grimsby.

it is not only worrying that a right wing Tory was re-elected London Mayor, but that the London-based media devoted so much attention to this single battle. For there are just eight million living in the capital, and 53 million that do not. So Cameron can’t take that much comfort from the vote, especially as Labour won most seats in the London Assembly.

From: Hilary Andrews, Wentworth Court, Leeds.

what a real shame that elected mayors were rejected in our region. Goodbye to a tram system for Leeds and Bradford, may as well make a reservoir for their hole in the ground. Council leaders don’t have their positions long enough to get under the Government’s skin and achieve anything for our Yorkshire towns!