Britain says no to
elected mayors
10 Cities in England
were holding referendums on May 3rd, whether to move to an elected
mayor. 9 Out of 10 cities rejected the idea. Voters said no for several
reasons. They were afraid local “dictators”
would take office, they did not know what powers the new mayors would hold, and
they were afraid of the costs of new elections. Prime Minister Cameron, although not against
elected mayors, vetoed elected mayors
earlier this year, saying that in these days of crises and other national and
international problems, “We have to pick our battles”. Then there were the referendums to see what the
voters might say.
If you look at
examples of elected mayors in The United
States, like the mayor of New York, Bloomberg, and his predecessor
Giuliani, you could say an elected mayor could be good for the city. The boldest public sector
reforms of recent years were pushed through
by these dynamic city mayors. An elected mayor is more likely to do what he has
promised to his voters. This gives a
responsibility to the people who voted for you . For voters, to have a say in who
will run your community, it increases commitment. This commitment, from
citizens and mayor, is a good starting
point to achieve more reforms in your own city or town. And for the costs:
Bloomberg receives no salary for his work as a mayor, he refused this. That is
of course easy for him to say: being a millionaire.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten