'Clutching at straws' – claim

“Ask londoners what Boris has done...

The answer would be a lot. Boris is popular in London (as will be shown today) not just because of his personality, but behind that "buffoon hair" he has sorted a lot of london out. There is more work to be done, but lots has improved which never happened under "mad" Ken. As a former londoner, and a long with a lot of people I used to work/live with, I would say nearly if not all agree with that sentiment.”

“Lots of speculation as to what could be done better under an elected mayor - but not a shred of evidence that any of this would happen.

A simple question. If things that were promised didn't happen (ask Londoners how much of what Boris promised has actually happened), what could you do about it? Nothing.

Four years is a long time to wait until a change is possible. The current system allows adjustments in three of the four years. This does keep councillors on their toes....

Simple answer today. Vote NO.”

“Two days before the referendum - NOW the horrid Kent does something about Worse Bus (WB). Pitifully pathetic an d years too late.
How much better if an elected Mayor told Kent and WB that it was going to be sorted by lots of competition and rigorously imposed performance contracts.
So! Bristol is congested ..... that's your problem Bus Cos. Sort it!

(Having said that, the biggest congestion around the Centre is B buses)

WB must make themselves ill with laughing at the millions of taxpayers' money spent in trying to improve their wretched over-priced non-service. None of which is working.”

“PJ1979

"How long have Local Government had to debate and lobby for changes to Local government Structure, change election timings etc? Has it even been put on the agenda?"

I fully agree that they could have done much more - and would add that behavioural changes are every bit as important as structural ones!

Even so, there have been some tentative moves. Peter Abrahams himself brought a motion to the last council meeting proposing a switch to all-out elections every four years. The Neighbourhood Partnerships have the potential to empower more local decision making; and the principle of 'recall' has been adopted (though so far only by the Greens). Small changes... but more and better are possible, and some, like a fairer voting system, could only come from government. A mayor and his/her appointed Cabinet seem to take things in the opposite direction”

“SextonsNose

Yes yours are good points — in my opinion.

Thinking about it I would support general council elections every four years where party candidates stand behind their local leaders, the most popular of which would becomes council leader — sound familiar?

But we don't have that, nor are we being offered it. I still prefer the mayor option, though. The city needs a technocrat, someone with plans not policy.”

“Ettubrute says

1: Yes I think it is sture. A single person who can say they have been elected personally by the people of bristol would get further up the ladder and taken more seriously

2: What he or she says would stay the same; council leaders might be changing frequently and each new one would want something new.

re 1
I'd say - well, thats just your opinion, and mine is that it simply isn't the case. I would observe the irony of a PM, selected by MPs elected to parliament (ie the same system as we have for councillors), decreeing something like that to councils

re 2

actually that is an argument for an election once every 4 years, regardless of the system. In practice, electing by thirds means that we have a more slowly changing make up of a council compared with a once in 4 year potential large change”

“@stockwoodpete

How long have Local Government had to debate and lobby for changes to Local government Structure, change election timings etc? Has it even been put on the agenda?

That should tell you how inclined our current Cllrs are to change the system. Whilst not perfect a Mayor for Bristol is a positive change, what will voting No achieve? I think people are dreaming if they expect the Tories in Westminster to come back with an alternative proposal for Greater bristol or expect the Local Council's to change themselves internally.”

“SextonsNose

Is that true? Why would a Barbara janke or Peter Hammond be any less likely to get to see Minister X than a Bristol-Ken-or-Boris?

1: Yes I think it is sture. A single person who can say they have been elected personally by the people of bristol would get further up the ladder and taken more seriously

2: What he or she says would stay the same; council leaders might be changing frequently and each new one would want something new.

No one is suggesting that without a mayor the city will be actively cut off from funds -- that is extrapolating the argument. But Bristol is competing with other cities for finite sums, and our particular brand of dithering and bickering with the Trumptons means we have lost out in the past for development cash and will continue to do so if we go up against cities who have a mayor sitting around a top table, while we rely on a wonk holding a sponsored walk and having a photo shoot at the M shed.”

“And the 'Yes' campaign keep making claims about Bristol getting vast amounts of cash if they have a mayor. Does that mean if Bristol votes 'No', the government will cut us off? Their economic strategy is based on economic growth outstripping the rate at which they cut. They regard cities as the drivers of growth. Therefore Bristol has to be key to this, regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

Leaving aside the fact that their economic strategy is probably nonsense, it would be absurd to have such a strategy and then not implement it in Bristol. Their re-election will depend on it.”

“Is that true?

Why would a Barbara janke or Peter Hammond be any less likely to get to see Minister X than a Bristol-Ken-or-Boris?

Both would need peple to fill in forms for them?”