Here Gerry Stoker, chairman of the New Local Government Network which loaned the Yes campaign £2,000, says why he thinks a mayor is Brighton and Hove's best bet.

WHAT difference could electing a mayor with executive powers make?

The first thing to be clear about is that a mayor does not stand on his or her own.

The full council of elected councillors would have to give its approval to the budget and all major policy measures.

Moreover, development control and other sensitive decisions such as the allocation of contracts are not in the hands of the mayor alone.

So let's put aside the rather hysterical talk about corruption and contracts being awarded to friends in secret.

The culture and systems of British public administration (not to mention the legislative measures enacted under the 2000 Local Government Act) will ensure that, compared to some other countries, our system will remain relatively clean and open.

In truth, the mayoral model does not concentrate power in the hands of one person.

What it does is provide a focus for a new type of leadership in a town or city. That is the real issue confronting Brighton.

Does it want its leader chosen by fellow councillors from among fellow councillors, as under the current system, or a community leader that is directly elected?

Surely no one favours a leaderless political system? Given the events of the last few weeks, no one should doubt that leadership matters.

But it matters in local as well as national or international politics and, at local level, direct election has considerable advantages. Mayors with executive powers because they are elected can be removed if their performance is judged to be inadequate by the public.

Equally, a directly-elected mayor is in a particular position to exploit the legitimacy that comes from election and can speak for and act on community concerns and issues.

Increased accountability and a greater capacity to lead with legitimacy make the case for a mayor.

Mayors are a commonplace feature of the local politics of many other democracies not only in North America but also in Europe, Australia, Japan and New Zealand.

Mayors in these countries have made a difference in a range of ways from driving service improvements, promoting economic revival, tackling crime (indeed even corruption in the case of Italian mayors) or through launching campaigns to save the local environment.

Mayors offer a new style of facilitative leadership that is not about telling everyone what to do but about building coalitions and letting those on the front line get on with their job.

Mayors steer, not command. Mayor Giuliani in New York has shown how that form of leadership works.

Leaders are there to deliver a sense of direction or vision to communities, to support people as they struggle to find their own solutions and to bring institutions together to create the capacity for things to happen.

Mayors are also there to take responsibility for making positive change happen, for achieving improvements in our public services, and to be held to account for their performance and those that they have commissioned to undertake work.

In his early years in office, that was what Mayor Giuliani was famous for, especially in tackling the issue of street crime in New York.

Mayors provide a key mechanism for public engagement. The introduction of a mayor does not guarantee an immediate surge in turnout.

In London as we know some one in three used their vote in the Greater London Authority election.

If turnout was the only objective then universal postal voting would be a better option than mayoral campaigns.

What is clear from research into the London campaign is that mayoral elections do generate public interest on an unprecedented scale in terms of media attention and level of public awareness of candidates and issues.

Mayors will reintroduce the local into local elections.

Party candidates are not necessarily at a disadvantage but they will need to display the personal qualities seen by the public as relevant to leadership, local knowledge and a capacity to be seen as something more than a party hack.

In practice, mayors will be independent from party politics to some degree and in some instances will campaign as independents, as Livingstone did in London.

Livingstone will stand or fall on what he achieves for London, not on whether he stays friends with former party colleagues. That is making a difference to his motivation.

Mayors offer a viable mechanism for extending the politics of devolution.

Mayors are going to a force to be reckoned with.

If you believe in local politics being local and you want Brighton to enhance its capacity as a community, vote for the mayoral option.