New connor cruise calculator: Stop telling people in Bristol what they need

THE people of Bristol have been bombarded with "advice" from top Tories who have suddenly become experts on what is best for us.

David Cameron and Michael Heseltine have both told us that we "need" an elected mayor.

But in whose interests are they acting – theirs or ours?

In the last few weeks the Conservatives have faced sustained criticism over actions which have shown their ministers to be careless and out of touch.

Now, they are desperate for a policy success. Hence, the pressure from the Prime Minister and Lord Heseltine for Bristolians to vote "Yes" to their idea of an elected mayor.

They would have us believe that, if we vote to keep our current council governance arrangement, all kinds of ills will afflict the city.

They say Bristol will "stagnate" and "fall behind other cities" and claim that the council's current leadership is failing to take the city forward with sufficient dynamism.

The first two of these claims are no more than predictions unsupported by evidence.

The third, "that the council's current leadership is not working for the people of Bristol", can be weighed against evidence.

Think for a minute of some of the significant initiatives that have recently come to fruition in Bristol or are in progress towards completion.

The new Hengrove Leisure Centre with an Olympic size pool, the new South Bristol Community hospital, the beginning of work to create an Enterprise Zone around Temple Meads, multi million pound funding allocated for regeneration of Knowle West and investment in new school buildings.

Even if these initiatives are not close to where you live, they undoubtedly show that the council is a dynamic force in improving Bristol for its residents.

Quite simply, our council's current governance arrangements aren't "broken" and therefore, don't need "fixing" by having an elected mayor.

Paul Wheeler

Stockwood

WHAT sort of recondite reasoning leads the editor of Bristol's local newspaper to assert that The Post can remain (as he puts it) apolitical while it gives its full support to a highly contentious Con-Lib political policy, the intention of which is to undermine local government and local democracy by seeking to arrange for the election of one individual who thinks he or she intuitively knows that is best for the city?

The editor of The Post expects us to believe that the individual elected as a mayor "with clout" will be more accountable to the people of Bristol than the elected councillors who are subject to continuing accountability pressures from Bristolians, and indeed the media.

In truth the elected mayor advocated by supporters of this Con-Lib policy will be accountable to no-one but his or herself.

The editor of The Post also claims (April 18) that elected mayors will have more "national clout" and Mr Ferguson in the same edition would have us believe (via his hot-line to the Prime Minister) that Bristol would be bribed by being given more resources if it goes along with the Tory Prime Minister's policy.

Both imply that Bristol is being denied resources which legislatively it is legitimately entitled to receive at the moment.

Perhaps local MPs have a responsibility to take this matter up in Parliament immediately?

Mr Ferguson (The Post April 18) further claims that central government wants to see stronger local governance.

That assertion clearly "flies in the face" of the actual relationship between central and local government in the last or four decades.

And the notion that an elected mayor in Bristol would have "the authority of being elected by the whole electorate" is a pipe dream. I can imagine all kinds of psephological outcomes.

In essence we are offered a scenario where 'x' number of the larger cities have elected mayors all exercising what The Post calls their "national clout" as they scramble for bits of non-legislatively determined funding.

What an obscene and inefficient way to allocate scarce economic resources.

And what about all the areas where this "national clout" won't be present to be exercised? Locally what hope for Kingswood, Portishead, Weston etc?

Allocation of scarce resources by a national clouting tournament – what an indictment of our economic system.

Mr Ferguson is old enough in "the political tooth" to know that there is no such a person as an independent candidate for political office.

We are all products of our background/ experiences/ accumulated knowledge/ class and interests etc, which makes us the person we are.

My long political life has taught me that "the only neutral people are the dead"!

Those who have an urge to contribute to the improvement of life in the city have every opportunity to do so via the democratic local government structure.

Giving extra powers and national clout to one individual will undermine the democratic governance of the city and its principles of service and accountability.

Elected mayors with "national clout" (and indeed elected police commissioners) are an American import which Britain's long historical march and struggle towards democracy can well do without.

Ron Thomas (Former City and Avon County Councillor and Local MP)

Bristol

PHILIP Morris has slightly misunderstood the numbers (The Post, April 24). In the mayoral system proposed, a mayor will be able to get his budget through with only one third of the council voting for it.

If the council wish to change his proposals, they will need two-thirds to vote for their alternative.

If Bristol goes mayoral, one person will wield all the power, and be almost impossible for the elected council to reign them in.

This could be disastrous, and is why almost everywhere offered them in England has said no.

Charles Grove

Winscombe