You knock on as many doors as me and will know that the traditional
last-century 'political class' and its elite of Councllors (which
excludes us both sadly!) are no longer ruling with the consent of the
electorate. The sustainable political party of the future will not be
owned and controlled by a small group of paying members, it will be a
much more outward looking and inclusive network of supporters who align
with the movement's broad aims and values. Similarly any party that
aspires to govern will align its aims and values to a broad canvass of
public opinion.

The historic achievement of New Labour has been to change the party
from one owned by, and run for, its members, to an outward looking
political movement aligned to a much broader support base. All the new
changes in party structure (e.g. the Changing the Way We Work document)
are about us developing policy by interacting with voters and
supporters not just paying members. Choosing a Labour candidate to
stand as Democratically Elected Mayor would not be a Regional Office
stitch up, it will be done by outward looking engagement, for example
an open primary ballot amongst known supporters and the wider
membership.

For some bizarre reason you have confused the ethics of New Labour
(outward looking, inclusive, engaging) with the brutal thuggery of the
behind-the-scenes stitch-up beloved of Labour First - the very worst
Old Labour mafia gang of right wing fixers remaining in the party. From
the first days of Tony and Gordon to the latest alliance of progressive
modernisers, New Labour has been about being more outward looking,
opening up the party to the wider community and widening our appeal.
The real enemy is the band of old style party hacks who want to keep
the power to themselves.

Which brings me to your final basis for opposing a democratically
elected city leader - that someone from outside the elite political
class might get elected! Here we have come right to the point - a
political class deliberately and explicitly framing an elective process
to prevent people voting for their preferred candidates. If Labour
cannot beat Carl Chinn in a popular vote, is anyone seriously
suggesting the right answer is to run away from the ballot? This is the
argument of a band of politicians that have lost confidence in their
abilty to win an open popular contest, and can only perpetuate their
existence by devising a system that is rigged to suit only the
candidates of the political machine. Stalin's ghost stalks closely
behind this argument! And behind all the rhetoric of those opposing the
campaign for a democratically elected city leader, the honest truth
which unites old style politicos from all the party machines is the
fear that it will bring about the downfall of their class.

The problem is that the mass of public opinion say that, if this is so,
bring it on!

The calamitous drop in turn out at elections since 1997 is indicative of the failure of this approach to engage with the passions of the voters. New Labour represents a final victory for Margaret Thatcher in her crusade to destroy Socialism. It has made Labour 'safe' for the vested interests that continue to run Britain.

You contrast a corrupt and tired old political elite with new Labour and maintain that the latter is nothing to do with Labour First. I am afraid that I am less perceptive than you and can only see the wolf - and the wolf dressed up in sheep's clothing.

If we had a directly elected mayor in Birmingham we would have a concentration of power in the hands of one individual. There would not be any councillors worth the name any more - just servants of the big city boss. A much better route would be to continue the work you started all those years ago - devolving powers to neighbourhoods where decisions could be made at a level which is relevant to ordinary people's lives. A media mayor would be more interested in the next headline than in dealing with the real problems that Birmingham faces. Initiative would follow initiative - all with the intention of gaining media approval rather than any consistent policy of government.

Political parties are great engines for change in the political system. To denigrate the membership is to hold in contempt a group of people who want to make the world a better place. Most work hard year after year with no desire to hold political office themselves. A directly elected mayor would be in the political stratosphere and have little in common with grassroots opinion.

The answer to local government's difficulties is to give it more respect and greater powers. In that way it would generate greater interest amongst the electorate and attract individuals of the greatest ability to get involved.