You surprise me. It’s almost as if having a Mayor is a ****ing waste of everyone’s time and money isn’t it?
Not really. The Mayor has lots of powers over various things - economic development, training, transport are a few. It’s just that relatively minor planning decisions of this kind isn’t one of those various things.
I really don't want to get political as it contravenes the boards rules but, really? Economic development? What does that actually mean and how does it translate into impact on an area? How is it achieved? Training? Of whom? For what? Again, with what impact? Transport? How? What? You've said that Mayor's have power over transport. Empty words at their, um, emptiest.
Yes because what I said was all the information available. Dearie me, if you are unaware of the facts, fine. Don’t bark at me for that though.
I make no comment on the effectiveness of that or any other Mayor. I just know what power and influence they have available to them.
It appears to be a complete nonsense roll. I read previously that they are responsible for economic development and maybe housing and transport .
Is it because he’s in the Reform party , is that what you don’t like really ? Regardless of the job he may do ? Now if it was for lack of experience , don’t trust him etc then reasons like that could be acceptable or considered .
Nah, I think the concept of a Mayor in the modern political landscape is a dead duck, regardless of political affiliation. They overlap existing political systems with paltry budgets and limited powers, and try to interfere in things that don't concern them, resulting in confusion and division. Just my opinion, of course.
Thing is Burnham has done ok in Manchester but then it’s had massive investment like Liverpool to keep them sweet . The rest of the ex industrial cities can go to hell according to recent govts who are happy to let them die , because industry is a dirty word .
