“Elected mayor for Birmingham would cost more” say ‘No Campaign’ - Do we want another Boris here?
December 9, 2011 12:02 PM
The 'no' campaign is continuing its fight against an elected mayor for Birmingham with the release of further advice to voters why they should vote 'no' next May. Everyone knows these are hard economic times. Time, then, to take a hard economic look at the costs of an elected mayor and how these would fall on hard-pressed Birmingham residents.
Having an elected mayor won't mean fewer councillors. It will be an additional post and will add to the costs of the taxpayer in hard times. The referendum itself costs £250,000. The election of a mayor will cost a similar amount. Then there is the salary paid to the elected mayor. Leicester recently changed to a directly elected mayor. Within 6 months the newly elected mayor of Leicester has proposed an increase both to his salary and also to that of the councillors.
The supporters have called for the mayor to promote Birmingham on the world stage. That is likely to involve a lot more international travelling. The cost of this will presumably fall on the citizens of Birmingham.
Times are hard. Money is hard to come by. The additional cost of a directly elected mayor means either more tax or more cuts - and it won't give us a better governed city.
You can find out more at the 'No' campaign website: http://www.votenotoapowerfreak.org.uk/index.htm
What would you like to do next?
-
Subscribe for updates
Follow the party's activity on...
- Twitter:
- Liberal Democrats
- Facebook:
- Liberal Democrats
- YouTube:
- Liberal Democrats