Council watcher, and commentator on this blog, Lone Ranger, asks whether the mayoral system that the people of Lewisham chose as the system of local government they wanted could work if the Mayor was of a different party to that of the Council.

fficeffice" /> 

The short answer is yes it would.  Indeed that’s been the day to day reality in most of the areas that have taken up this model outside ffice:smarttags" />London.  As a recent report on the mayoral model points out:

The mayoral elections saw a substantial number of independent mayoral figures elected in areas that had previously had seen party control as the dominant form of politics. In total five independents were elected. Four Labour candidates were elected. A Liberal Democratic candidate won in a previously Labour-stronghold in Watford and a Conservative candidate won in traditionally Labour North Tyneside and a replacement Conservative candidate was elected when a by-election was called following the resignation of the first mayor. Mayoral politics appears to allow greater scope for independents and provide an opportunity for the electorate to choose a different direction for local politics.

As to how Labour Councillors might react in the hypothetical situation of the Mayor in Lewisham being of a different party, or none, well who knows.  However, what I can say for sure is there hasn’t been any reluctance to discuss any of the issues of controversy as far as I can tell.  They’ve been discussed in private in meetings of Labour Group, they’ve been discussed in public in scrutiny meetings, cabinet meetings, and at full council.  What Labour Councillors have been reluctant to do is to follow the opposition parties, who have the luxury of trying to have things all ways. 

Lone Ranger then goes on to suggest that we throw out the party system at local level and operate in some other, undefined, manner.  There are of course independent councillors already, and in some areas single issue groups have taken over the running of councils.  They have though as far as I can see not done away with the normal operating procedures of political parties; in other words they try to have an agreed position on major issues, and act as a single body.  If you don’t do that then making decisions becomes quite difficult.

Personally I’m wedded to the party political system as I’ve explained before I think it has advantages that you can’t get from less structured systems.

Stuart Bruce has an interesting discussion about the value of case work and I tend to agree with his analysis – certainly you’d be a fool to think that just because you do a piece of case work that the people affected will vote for you.  I also recognise the description of a number of regular attendees at my surgery all of whom have legitimate concerns and have recognised that talking to a councillor can help to move things on.

fficeffice" /> 

I wonder whether Dave Bodimeade would have the same view?

Jack tells me that Will Davis the author of the report on ICT and the Local Public Realm has a blog here on 20six.  It turns out he’ll be blogging the Labour Party Conference along with Stuart, Tom and James – and perhaps a few others who I’ve not caught up with yet.fficeffice" />

who it seems has been given a paid payroll job!  Joining Lewisham East's Bridget Prentice in the Whips Office.

Now we'll see whether the blog survives.

Update: It appears that I was wrong and Tom's job doesn't mean he'll get an increase in his sallery.  Responsibility without recompence!

I've spent a couple of hours today with the people who provide the registry service for the borough.  I'd been to see them before as a punter - registering the biths of my sons - but this time it was to get a better understanding of their service from an administrative and political position.

First the numbers.  Last year the borough completed over 16,000 requests for certificates - birth, death or marriage certificates that people wanted a duplicate of.  This is not simply pressing the print button on your computer as all the certificates have to be hand written, so do copies.  Not being married myself I learnt something about the process of getting married - that you have to announce your intention to marry so that people can object to it before the ceremony takes place.  I guess I should have known this from the "just impediment" stuff in the ceremonies I've been to but I supose I always thought this was just tradition rather than a live issue.  Apparently I was wrong and there are still quite a few people who'se announcements of marriage aren't as happily received as you might suppose.  Largely I'm told the complicating factors are either citizenship issues (marriages of convenience) or bigamy problems.  Anyway, we provided notice for the intention to marry for over 4,000 couples last year.  The number who married in Lewisham was much fewer (around 1,000, or about 4 a day).

The issues facing the service are around changes to the law - which will see a change from registered places where people can get married to registrars being able to carry out ceremonies where ever people want to get hitched - and a change of location for the service - as the site they are on is no longer fit for purpose and the Hospital want to turn it into a car park for their staff (I think).

Potentially this is very good news for the service; it gives them the chance to make a case for improved facilities to take account of their new responsibilities - like citizenship ceremonies, and from next year the celebration of same sex relationships.  But no promises at this stage as to what the future holds.