The Mayor

davemac

davemac

Pillar o' t' Community
Tackler
this is a question I have asked many times in different locations so will give it a punt here.

Should the position of mayor be kept within the political arena, or should it be as was originaly intended, awarded to a leading citizen who had done most for the community.
It is only recently that the position of mayor was made a political appointment, despite politicians taking over the roll of mayor for many years. Now that councillors get paid for their services should it be a non political appointment.

For example why not the ex chairman of the local lions club or the rotary club, or some other organisation that operates a voluntary service to the community.
This would stop the appointment of a mayor for political gain as we have seen in the past.



I think I need a lie down now all the blood has rushed to my head.
 
Yes, before it became a political appointment, the role of mayor was open to everyone.

Everyone, as long as you were one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the borough.

Not something I'll lose sleep worrying about.

Antiquated, and purely a meaningless position now.

I'd happily support an annual compatition in the Observer, in which we decide on some nice old dear to be our symbolic first citizen, and who opens a few chuch fetes.
 
garinda said:
Yes, before it became a political appointment, the role of mayor was open to everyone.

Everyone, as long as you were one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the borough.

Not something I'll lose sleep worrying about.

Antiquated, and purely a meaningless position now.

I'd happily support an annual compatition in the Observer, in which we decide on some nice old dear to be our symbolic first citizen, and who opens a few chuch fetes.
Click to expand...

What about the role the Mayor has in the Council meetings?
Who should do that do you think?
 
garinda said:
Yes, before it became a political appointment, the role of mayor was open to everyone.

Everyone, as long as you were one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the borough.

Not something I'll lose sleep worrying about.

Antiquated, and purely a meaningless position now.

I'd happily support an annual compatition in the Observer, in which we decide on some nice old dear to be our symbolic first citizen, and who opens a few chuch fetes.
Click to expand...


I know its antiquated, but we still have it, and it is used for politcal manouvering. We used to have kids down the mines but we improved that position,so lets improve the position of mayor, lets have a leading citizen operating on a voluntary basis, campaigning for better facilities for people in the borough. Forget the opening of this and that and cutting ribbons and kissing babies, lets support better hospital facilities, better bus services, a cleaner and greener borough, council services have declined right accross the board, lets get those back up to a decent standard. A mayor with non political affiliations could do that as no party line had to be thought about. I know the position of mayor should be a non political role, but certain appointments in the past have proved it is used to support the balance of power.

right I'm of for a lie down again
 
Neil said:
What about the role the Mayor has in the Council meetings?
Who should do that do you think?
Click to expand...

Chair/speaker/whatever.

They can take it in turn, electing who they like, to ensure their meetings run successfully..

No need for that chair to do all the ribbon cutting, and associated pomp that goes with the mayoral role now. Which is basically just a prize, awarded to councillors who've kept their nose relatively clean for the longest time.

I'd much prefer a borough wide poll for someone to represent us as a symbolic first citizen, who'd done something worthwhile.

Councillors, of course, would be free to enter.
 
Neil said:
What about the role the Mayor has in the Council meetings?
Who should do that do you think?
Click to expand...

The mayor has casting votes and chairs the meetings, this could be done on a non politcal basis, as the mayor should be non political in his time as mayor. I'v attended a few coucil meetings in my time and the behaviour of some members can only be described as shamefull, so perhaps a different approach to council meetings would also be a good idea
 
Last edited:
davemac said:
I know its antiquated, but we still have it, and it is used for politcal manouvering. We used to have kids down the mines but we improved that position,so lets improve the position of mayor, lets have a leading citizen operating on a voluntary basis, campaigning for better facilities for people in the borough. Forget the opening of this and that and cutting ribbons and kissing babies, lets support better hospital facilities, better bus services, a cleaner and greener borough, council services have declined right accross the board, lets get those back up to a decent standard. A mayor with non political affiliations could do that as no party line had to be thought about. I know the position of mayor should be a non political role, but certain appointments in the past have proved it is used to support the balance of power.

right I'm of for a lie down again
Click to expand...

I don't remember hearing much of the role of mayors in improving workers' rights, and stopping the poor little kiddies from working down the pits.

Don't get too worked up.

I also believe having an unelected head of state is antiquated too.

I also do away with them, as well as mayors, and have another newspaper competition to replace them with some nice old biddy, who'd spent their life doing unsung good.

;)
 
Last edited:
davemac said:
I know its antiquated, but we still have it, and it is used for politcal manouvering. We used to have kids down the mines but we improved that position,so lets improve the position of mayor, lets have a leading citizen operating on a voluntary basis, campaigning for better facilities for people in the borough. Forget the opening of this and that and cutting ribbons and kissing babies, lets support better hospital facilities, better bus services, a cleaner and greener borough, council services have declined right accross the board, lets get those back up to a decent standard. A mayor with non political affiliations could do that as no party line had to be thought about. I know the position of mayor should be a non political role, but certain appointments in the past have proved it is used to support the balance of power.

right I'm of for a lie down again
Click to expand...

Turning the mayor into an active political, campaiging role, who is elected by the area as a whole is a horrible idea.

Another layer to add, to our already many layered system of government.

Besides, even worse, that's what they do in the country with the KKK and Micky Mouse.

smiley-waving-us-flag.gif
 
davemac said:
......council services have declined right accross the board, lets get those back up to a decent standard.......
Click to expand...


A Mayor can't do that, lack of funds is the biggest reason Council services have declined.

Year after year of cuts, they like to call them 0% rise in Council Tax while the cost of everything like wages and fuel goes up which means less money to spend on improving Council services.

I am going before I start ranting again :D
 
garinda said:
Chair/speaker/whatever.

They can take it in turn, electing who they like, to ensure their meetings run successfully..

No need for that chair to do all the ribbon cutting, and associated pomp that goes with the mayoral role now. Which is basically just a prize, awarded to councillors who've kept their nose relatively clean for the longest time.

I'd much prefer a borough wide poll for someone to represent us as a symbolic first citizen, who'd done something worthwhile.

Councillors, of course, would be free to enter.
Click to expand...

This is vaguely similar to what we have in Kingston. The Mayor is elected at large, and the councillors are elected in the individual wards. The Mayor acts as the chairman of the council, and votes only in the case of a tie. Any citizen of Kingston can run for Mayor ... but big bucks and organization are important ... well, kind of essential. We do not, however, have party politics complicating the business of running the city.
 
davemac said:
I know its antiquated, but we still have it, and it is used for politcal manouvering. We used to have kids down the mines but we improved that position,so lets improve the position of mayor, lets have a leading citizen operating on a voluntary basis, campaigning for better facilities for people in the borough. Forget the opening of this and that and cutting ribbons and kissing babies, lets support better hospital facilities, better bus services, a cleaner and greener borough, council services have declined right accross the board, lets get those back up to a decent standard. A mayor with non political affiliations could do that as no party line had to be thought about. I know the position of mayor should be a non political role, but certain appointments in the past have proved it is used to support the balance of power.

right I'm of for a lie down again
Click to expand...

The Mayor is our representative in other boroughs and in my view it is worthwhile having one. The ribbon cutting, plaque unveiling, etc is quite an event for the people who are actually in attendance and most people are thrilled that the Mayor has come to open their fete or whatever. This is certainly true of the various Rishton organisations and The People's Centre are delighted that Cllr McCormack has agreed to be President of the Board and open their special coffee mornings. The Mayor also does incessant work raising money for local charities and there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes which is to the good of the borough. It is a very hard job and not for the fainthearted or those with a lack of time.

On the other hand, the politicising of the role in recent years brought the matter to Overview and Scrutiny and we drew up a Mayoral Constitution as a result. Regardless of who gets the position, you always run the risk of someone trying to twist his or her arm in the right direction but it is a post worth having on the council.

Can you imagine returning to the days of Council Leaders unveiling plaques?
 
Ken Moss said:
The Mayor is our representative in other boroughs and in my view it is worthwhile having one. The ribbon cutting, plaque unveiling, etc is quite an event for the people who are actually in attendance and most people are thrilled that the Mayor has come to open their fete or whatever. This is certainly true of the various Rishton organisations and The People's Centre are delighted that Cllr McCormack has agreed to be President of the Board and open their special coffee mornings. The Mayor also does incessant work raising money for local charities and there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes which is to the good of the borough. It is a very hard job and not for the fainthearted or those with a lack of time.

On the other hand, the politicising of the role in recent years brought the matter to Overview and Scrutiny and we drew up a Mayoral Constitution as a result. Regardless of who gets the position, you always run the risk of someone trying to twist his or her arm in the right direction but it is a post worth having on the council.

Can you imagine returning to the days of Council Leaders unveiling plaques?
Click to expand...

Would the people who get 'thrilled' by the Mayor's attendance, not be equally thrilled if their event had been opened by old Doris?

The old woman who lived in a shoe, who had spent her life quietly fostering 901 children, and who had been awarded the prize of being the symbolic first citizen by the readership of the local paper.

Quite frankly I don't have a problem with the system as it is, a reward for long standing councillors, because it works.

As for being thrilled by the position, that really depends on which councillor has been awarded the mayoral chains of office that year.

Some past mayors would leave most folks totally unthrilled by their presence.

:rolleyes:
 
garinda said:
Would the people who get 'thrilled' by the Mayor's attendance, not be equally thrilled if their event had been opened by old Doris?

The old woman who lived in a shoe, who had spent her life quietly fostering 901 children, and who had been awarded the prize of being the symbolic first citizen by the readership of the local paper.

Quite frankly I don't have a problem with the system as it is, a reward for long standing councillors, because it works.

As for being thrilled by the position, that really depends on which councillor has been awarded the mayoral chains of office that year.

Some past mayors would leave most folks totally unthrilled by their presence.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Difficult to disagree with your last line but by and large it is generally considered quite a coup if the Mayor drops in to open a local event. Over the past few years I know that the Mayors have attended in excess of 500 events each in their respective tenures and it's not a post that I would like to be awarded without some warning.

Dear old Doris may deserve the post but I'm not sure she'd appreciate being killed off by the workload...
 
It is a very interesting point and one well worth discussing. The disgraceful goings on over the last 8 years have left the Mayoral office somewhat trashed by political leadership. At least 3 of the last 5 nominated may not have had the job but for political intervention, usually to 'get them out of the way/make them look important'.

I have raised with a few members the idea we should review sometime in the future the role and who could be offered the role.

1. Alderman incl. former Mayors
2. Civic Leaders (non political)
3. Former Mayors still standing - 5 year gap or 2 years running?

I know the Labour Party wants to democratise in the fairest sense proceedings. Video, important civic leaders as guests, transparent procedures.

What we must do is make sure the office is never abused again for political gain and that those serving the good office, deserve it.
 
garinda said:
Unless the prize of mayoral office is attached like a carrot to the end of a stick, and dangled infront of a donkey, to make it do what you want.

Former Labour loyalist props up the Tories | Accrington Observer - menmedia.co.uk

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I hope the days of The Carrot Dangler are over forever.

Some of the changes recommended by O&S and approved by Cabinet include becoming Deputy Mayor the year before you assume office to give you a run-in period to learn the ropes and also rotating the appointment each year between political parties. Such a rule has always been a 'gentlemen's agreement' up until now but certain people feel that this may be susceptible to abuse. No councillor can be Mayor unless he or she has been on the council at least four years which makes sense to me as you really need to have a grip on the job to be an effective Mayor.

Next year the position of Deputy Mayor (and therefore Mayor in 2013-14) will be offered to the Conservatives as it is their turn although whoever puts up for it will have to command a majority approval vote at the full council as is the same with everybody else.
 
Well when I first got involved in politics in Ossy there wasn't a Mayor (think there was a mayor in Accrington at the same time) there was a chairman of the council, which seemed to alternate between political parties on the basis of time served, more like a thank you for the unpaid (yes unpaid) work they had done for the town.

Then the reorganisation came in during the early 70s, when Hyndburn was born, at first the same principals were implied, If I remember rightly the first mayor was Wallace Haines (labour) there was also an unwritten rule, that if the Mayor elect was up for re-election prior to his/her year of office, he/she would be unopposed, that went through the window in 1987 I think when Labour stood a candidate against Mayor elect Bill Parkinson.

I still think that the position of Mayor must come from the political system, nothing else would really work, when you actually think about it.
 
Neil said:
A Mayor can't do that, lack of funds is the biggest reason Council services have declined.

Year after year of cuts, they like to call them 0% rise in Council Tax while the cost of everything like wages and fuel goes up which means less money to spend on improving Council services.

I am going before I start ranting again :D
Click to expand...

If councillors wanted to improve services they should give up the pay and allowances system, and be a voluntary servant to the people again. :dflam:
 
davemac said:
If councillors wanted to improve services they should give up the pay and allowances system, and be a voluntary servant to the people again. :dflam:
Click to expand...
You could say that about MPs too but there's the old saying you pay peanuts you get monkey's, in this day and age its a none starter, people have to get time of work to carry out council duties. Councils are now multi-million pound businesses that is why they now pay allowances, so as to attract people with enough nous to do the job in hand
 
Has the work of Hyndburn Council increased or decreased in the last 20 to 30 years ?

Just two examples ; the Council has no council housing to manage and no fleet of buses with their drivers and conductors to manage .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top