Obviously, issues of governance and democratic accountability are extremely important, and many prominent Lib Dems have echoed your concerns, such as John Shipley, Leader of Newcastle, whose views we’ve highlighted on the Cities Manifesto website [www.citiesmanifesto.org]. Our idea isn’t to concentrate all power in the hands of one person, though. Metro Mayors would be held in check by the local councils they serve, as well as being directly answerable to voters. This means they’d add a useful democratic and strategic layer to city governance, which would be much better than the unelected layers of quangocracy which have emerged in recent years.

@Mouse, there is clear evidence that Mayors would energise voters, and the London example is absolutely relevant. London’s Mayor is the closest model to our idea of a Metro Mayor – a job with real powers (eg over transport and housing) on the table for the winner, unlike for existing single-authority Mayors. 45% of Londoners voted in last year’s mayoral election, compared to just 25% turnout in Knowsley and Moss Side council elections. The 2008 London mayoral race also commanded a great deal of public interest, with more public debates and media coverage than elsewhere.

@Andrew Waller, you raise a very important point about city regions. We support Metro Mayors because we think they are the best way for our biggest city-regions to get hold of the financial powers they need over transport, skills and housing budgets. Without Metro Mayors, there is a risk that Whitehall will continue to centralise. Greater Manchester and other city-regions are just starting to mature now. Over the next Parliament, we believe that Metro Mayors will ensure that city-regions are consolidated and given more powers.

Glad to have all these reactions – please feel free to comment also at http://www.citiesmanifesto.org, as we’ll take all ideas into account as our ideas evolve between now and the Election period.

We won the Watford Mayoralty at least partly on a pledge to campaign for its abolition. A view that seems to have changed once elected to the position.

Because it’s basically a fascist idea in the true sense of the word, and we are not fascists.

The original idea of fascism was that democracy was tiresome, all that debate and compromise, so let’s have instead one all-powerful leader who can do what he likes without anyone stopping him, that would be dynamic and modern and get the trains running on time and all that.

I just cannot think of anything which is more against what Liberals stand for than this idea. So of course we are against it. Can I ask you, Claire Maugham, why you are so keen on fascism? Having abolished voting for councillors in town halls, is the abolition of the right of MPs to vote and that to be where power over government lies your next step? The frightening thing is that this “politics and political parties are bad things, so let’s get rid of all that and instead have one highly visible charismatic leader who can make tough decisions on a personal mandate” stuff probably WOULD go down well if pushed here today. Just like it did in Italy in 1922 and Germany in 1933.

Cllr Andrew Waller – Leader of City of York

Why doesn’t Nick Clegg do more to talk about Lib Dem strength at city level?

He does, constantly, if you were at the conference surely you at least listened to his speech?

But why don’t Lib Dems go for the idea of elected mayors?

Because those of us that have lived in an area governed by one not of our party know exactly how bad it can be–Council leaders are accountable directly and immediately, mayors aren’t, and can ride roughshod over any other local concerns.

Directly elected executives, at any level, are both illiberal and against the principles of representative democracy that this party and its predecessors have always argued for. We’re against them because they’re just plain wrong, even when we’re in charge.

The main thing residents care about where I am a councillor are ultra local issues about their community. A Newcastle city region mayor wouldn’t help that – even if they were a Lib Dem.

What is Centre for Cities’ view on this problem?

Metro Mayors would “energise millions of voters” based on turnout in the London Mayoral election in one year.
Nothing about the rubbish turnout in other years or other mayoral elections.

What about the thousands of activists who are now just Mayor fodder?

Accountability – there is precious little accountabilty with Metor Mayors. Accountability means checks and balances. It means people knowing what’s going on and being able to influence it.

Far from “power being concentrated in the hands of one person” (itself a bad idea) – the reality is that most of the power isn’t in the hands of anyone.

Localism – and the best you can do is greater Birmingham ? How local is that ?
Why do we need Mayors to give more power to local government ? Local Government used to have lots of powers without a Mayor in sight, and was a lot better for it.