Sir Jeremy Beecham speaks for many in local government when he makes the case against the introduction of more directly elected mayors. But the conservative case that he outlines is too complacent about the current fortunes of local politics and government.

Beecham also offers a number of political observations about why mayors are probably not good for Labour, with Boris’s victory fresh in the memory. But the barest consideration of his reading of recent political events suggests that his argument is unduly defeatist. Sir Jeremy is an outstanding representative of the impact that Labour has had on the politics of many cities and towns in England. And as such, we hope that he will reconsider the very real advantages that this office could provide in terms of stronger local leadership, greater democratic accountability and for the prospects of the fightback that Labour needs in the wake of its disastrous showing in May’s local elections.

He suggests that the turnout figure in the London election is underwhelming. This surely is a case of the glass being half-empty. Given how difficult it is to mobilise voters for local elections, the figure of 45 per cent, as opposed to the average figure of 35 per cent in the local council elections, is at the very least noteworthy.

Personality was undoubtedly an important factor in this contest. But to suggest that this was all that was at stake is a mistake. Boris won following a campaign that saw large crowds gather for hustings — the kind of participation in local politics that is so hard to generate. And to win, he had to present himself as utterly serious about some of the key policy issues which fall within the mayor’s brief – crime, transport and policing. In fact, personality plays no more of a role in mayoral elections than is the case in national and local elections generally.

Beecham asks sceptically about what is the ‘dividend’ for Labour from mayors. Given its performance in May, we should perhaps ask the same of the current system. More importantly, we should consider some tangible benefits that would result for the party from the wider introduction of mayors. For a start, they place the onus on local parties to come up with attractive and plausible candidates and to prepare effective campaigns. If they do both, they have the chance to compete and succeed in places where their own political fortunes may have ebbed. Given Labour’s current predicament in local political terms in much of England, this is surely a consideration to take a bit more seriously.

In terms of the office itself, Beecham challenges the suggestion that mayors are necessarily more visible than council leaders, citing his own case in support of the merits of the traditional leadership model. A more systematic consideration of the evidence associated with the thirteen mayors who have been in post since 2001 suggests that mayors are on average far better known than unelected council leaders. A poll conducted during the first term of the original cohort of mayors in 2003 found that, on average, 57 per cent of voters in mayoral areas recognised the name of their local leader, compared with 25 per cent average recognition for leaders in others. And one reason for this is that having secured election, most have worked very hard to remain responsible and available to their electorates, and have often been innovative in the policies they have developed.

On the issue of scrutiny, we agree with Sir Jeremy. In the case of London, the role of the assembly and the absence of restraints upon the mayor’s powers are issues that ought to have been addressed some time ago. But more generally, questions about scrutiny and accountability are just as relevant for unelected leaders as mayors, given the increase in powers they have recently received from government and the four-year terms they now serve. The elected mayors currently in post will at least be held accountable to their local electorate for their performance, and cannot be maintained in power by a small group of councillors based in one party.

These are among the reasons why we applaud those in government who are looking seriously at the merits of directly elected mayors. Their existence in countries like Germany and Italy is connected with the central state’s recognition of a democratic right that is absent from English political life. This is the right to have a direct say in electing one’s civic leader. Both for the sake of reviving democracy in one of the most over-centralised countries in Europe, and because of the galvanising impact this change could have on local Labour politics, it is time that we had more elected mayors.