Tony Blair's big idea for local government four years ago was to have directly-elected mayors adding dynamism and excitement to the way cities were run.

It would be a bonus for New Labour as almost all cities were controlled by the party.

But when Ken Livingstone, the antithesis of New Labour, easily became London mayor, Mr Blair's enthusiasm cooled. He left his pals, such as Lord Bassam of Brighton, stranded on the political shore.

Brighton and Hove City Council, which decided to have a referendum after finding half the people it consulted were in favour of the idea, was left with legislation which meant the question on the ballot paper was wordy and almost meaningless.

The Local Government Act also contained a loophole, allowing Brighton and Hove to be unique among authorities in having a committee alternative, rather than a system of leader and cabinet.

Worse was to follow for the Yes campaign.

Because of Lord Bassam's involvement, the issue rapidly became whether he should be mayor rather than whether there should be a mayor at all.

Both he and broadcaster Simon Fanshawe received a great deal of unwarranted abuse for their involvement, as did Brighton and Hove bus company managing director Roger French.

Meanwhile, most other towns and cities which have staged ballots have given a decisive No to the idea, including Sunderland, the last city to be created before Brighton and Hove.

The issue is now in the balance and the No campaign is confident that when the result is announced tomorrow, it will have won.

Apart from the abuse, which was confined to a handful of No supporters and not the main protagonists, it has been a good battle between two evenly-matched sides.

Great friendships have been formed, both between the array of disparate parties on the No side, to the business leaders and politicians on the Yes side.

The argument, which has filled a good few pages of the Argus over the last six weeks, boils down to this: An elected mayor would undoubtedly be dynamic but would he or she be democratic? A committee system would certainly produce debate but could it deliver good local government?

Either form of government would be infinitely better than the present hybrid system of leader and cabinet, which is neither fish nor fowl.

It does not seem democratic, with many decisions taken in secret, and it still has enough bureaucracy to avoid being dynamic either. There will be few civic tears shed at its demise.

What I hope is, after tomorrow, whichever side has won, all parties can work together to make the chosen system the best possible for such a thriving city.

It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of any mayor to involve the public - after all, it happens elsewhere.

As for committees, I note the No campaign is opting for an "improved system".

It must be better than the one operated by the old Hove Council, with half the councillors on each committee ensuring they had their say on every issue.

It ought to be an improvement on the old Brighton Council committee which regularly refused Brighton Technical College new typewriters until a clerk called them word processors.

In the meantime, the pro-mayor lobby should try to win over last-minute voters by emulating the No campaign and hiring a mobile billboard.

The message should read simply: Tony Blair Doesn't Want You to Vote Yes.