Mayor selection sparked yet more rank hypocrisy

8:18am Monday 19th May 2008

SIR - The annual council meeting, when nominations for the new mayor were made, offered yet another opportunity for some members of the Labour group to display their rank hypocrisy backed up by misleading and spurious information.

In putting forward one of their own number for the position, they appealed to fairness in that it has always been the tradition for the mayoralty to pass from one side to the other on a regular basis. They also made the point that it doesn't matter to the council who is mayor as the position is a non-political one.

As for the first point, the records fail to support their argument. If there ever has been such a tradition it was most certainly done away with by the Labour group themselves when, having taken power in 1980, they held on to the mayoralty for 17 out of the following 18 years.

Their second argument shows that they are either politically naive or inept. Yes - of course the mayor has to act in a completely non-political way. However, the mayor also has another function as chairman of the council. Again, that demands a non-political position in the interests of fairness in debate and general control of the meeting. Should, however, the council arrive at a tied vote then the mayor has the power of the casting vote.

This means that the controlling party cannot afford to allow the casting vote to go to the opposition as its programme might well be at risk.

If the controlling party has an absolute majority, then it can clearly be magnanimous in offering the mayoralty to whoever it wishes.

This was the case during the 18 years of Labour control when it kept the honour away from all but its own members.

COUN David Clark, Worcester.

Editor's choice