NO directly elected Mayor needed....

There’s a campaign trying to convince you that Plymouth is broken - and that only a directly elected mayor can fix it.

It’s a well-worn political tactic: talk the city down, stir up division, and offer one individual as the answer to everything. But after 45 years of living, working and representing Plymouth, I know this city - and its people - deserve better than that.

The well-funded campaign for a Mayor of Plymouth claims to want “leadership”, “unity” and “vision”. But you wouldn’t know it from their behaviour. There’s little recognition of the progress Plymouth has made, just relentless attacks - and a readiness to go after anyone who dares to offer a different view.

They talk about a “betrayal of democracy” if they don’t get their way. They warn that rejecting their plan would go against “the will of the people”. But students of history will recognise the danger in this kind of rhetoric - where disagreement is treated as disloyalty and honest debate is treated as obstruction. That’s not democracy. 

In truth, Plymouth already has a strong record of leadership and civic progress. Yes, we have our challenges - but that hasn’t stopped this city from achieving a huge amount over recent years, often through hard work, cross-party cooperation, and a deep commitment to public service.

Recently, PwC ranked Plymouth as the best city in Britain for economic performance and quality of life. We’ve won awards for planning excellence, affordable housing, and bringing empty homes back into use. Services for vulnerable children and adults continue to earn national praise.

None of that comes from a directly elected mayor. It comes from collective effort - from councillors and officers, charities, volunteers, and residents pulling together to make the city better.

Meanwhile, the mayoral model being proposed is already on its way out. I was in Parliament when the legislation to introduce elected mayors first passed over 20 years ago. Since then, we’ve seen that combined authority mayors - covering wider regions, with real powers - are far more effective. That’s where government investment and attention is going. So why champion a model that’s already yesterday’s news?

If this vote passes, it won’t be because the case was stronger. It’ll be because a well-funded campaign used division, misinformation and forceful messaging to drown out more honest discussion, and because many people in Plymouth will not have been motivated to vote against a system they already know is being scrapped.

The hallmarks of the Pro-Mayor campaign are not reflective of the Plymouth I know. And that’s not how we should be shaping our future.

In these final days, let’s bring out the best of Plymouth - the version of our city that listens to one another, respects different views, and looks forward, not backwards. Whatever your political background, you deserve the chance to be heard without being shouted down.

I’ll be voting No on Thursday. Not because everything is fine - but because this proposal isn’t the right answer. We deserve a model that is proven, that builds on what we’ve achieved together - not a model that hands power to one person based on vague promises and a campaign of division.

I urge anyone who is swithering about whether to vote on Thursday to go out and do so as a means of showing that this terrible waste of Plymouth’s money and energy is most definitely not in their name.