Abberley v Wolfe: Did we need an elected mayor? No

No... says Sentinel columnist John Abberley.

IT WAS the result I wanted and the margin of victory was decisive in favour of getting rid of a paid mayor, a job I feel was invented when there wasn't really a job at all.

Even so, it's hard to celebrate when the poll is a miserable 19 per cent.

Apathy or disillusionment? A mixture of both, I suspect. It demonstrates how little the post of mayor has registered.

However, Stoke-on-Trent has gained the distinction of becoming the first authority to ditch its elected mayor.

I regarded this result as a foregone conclusion. Many people can't see the difference between a highly-paid mayor and a council leader. I confess to being among them. The 'Yes' vote, I would say, expresses the common belief that council business is best handled by the 60 elected councillors.

It confirms my view that it's healthier to stick to a regime of collective responsibility.

This system may not be perfect – I am not a great fan of cabinets either – but it's more straightforward than the confusing set-up which leaves us unsure who's running the show. Worst of all is the way most councillors have been sidelined and asked merely to vet decisions already made.

That's not why people vote for their local councillors. Electors want someone who will give them a voice. That has hardly been the case in recent times. And I can't believe it's a coincidence that during the mayoral reign Stoke-on-Trent has seen control of education handed over to government consultants.

So I think the mayoral experiment has failed on many counts. In six years, neither occupant has made much impact, except to attract criticism and controversy. I'm thinking of Mike Wolfe's idea of prostitution tolerance zones and Mark Meredith's enthusiasm for the city anthem Moving Forward Together.

No doubt yesterday's referendum result has caused dismay among a lot of influential people. They will see it as a step backwards.

However, I take the view that this has little to do with the system of local government, and much more to do with the attitude of successive governments over several decades.

Stoke-on-Trent has always been the poor relation under Labour and Tory rule. The only real gift from Westminster was the National Garden Festival – and that was 22 years ago.

So where do we go from here? There is no obvious choice for council leader.

My own feeling is that the absence of a commanding figure – like the late Ted Smith – may not be such a disadvantage, but might even encourage collective responsibility.

I also think it's time to knock on the head the possibility that a BNP member could be appointed leader.

My biggest concern about the council's future is the proposal to reduce the number of councillors from 60 to 20. I fail to see how this would benefit electors.

Indeed, I regard the recommendations of the Stoke-on-Trent Governance Commission as a new kind of threat to local democracy.

It would create a new breed of full-time professional councillors like the mayor, except there'd be 20 of them.

This move has been provisionally agreed by the council, but before anything is signed and sealed this major change must surely be put to people to decide in another referendum.