Writer and broadcaster Simon Fanshawe has done the campaign to have a directly-elected mayor a big service.

Fresh from chairing the successful movement to make Brighton and Hove a city, he applied the same energy and enthusiasm to backing the Yes option in next month's postal referendum.

The argument should simply be about whether it is better to have an elected mayor running the city or an improved version of the old committee system.

But many opponents of the mayoral option have argued about personalities rather than issues, suggesting some of those in favour want to feather their own nests.

Mr Fanshawe was one of the biggest targets because he has been so forthright recently. But he has now put paid to the snipers.

Having never said officially at any time that he wanted the job, he has now told The Argus firmly and plainly he does not.

This leaves him free to fight for the Yes campaign unhampered by any allegations of personal gain and he will do just that.

Mr Fanshawe's eloquence can be infectious. In the six weeks of debate left before the mayoral issue is decided, he and other members of the Yes campaign could be equally effective in winning over those who are doubtful or apathetic.

Lord Bassam, another enthusiastic Yes campaigner who is likely to seek the Labour nomination along with council leader Ken Bodfish, is attacking the alternative system of committees.

He makes some fair points about the bureaucracy that would be involved in running a city of 250,000 by committee. There would be scores, if not hundreds, of committee places to be filled. Decisions would take a long time in coming.

Lord Bassam knows the system well, for he was in charge of a committee-run council when he was leader. But that was because in those days there was no alternative.

The Yes campaign has looked at Brighton and Hove. It has concluded a vibrant city needs a spare and efficient leadership.

There will be a policy framework produced by the Cabinet and council. There will be a system of scrutiny to make sure things are running properly. But within those constraints, the mayor will be able to act quickly in the best interest of the city.

What there won't be is a ponderous and inefficient system, taking months to decide simple issues such as whether or not to buy a new civic lawnmower.

While the Yes campaign has confidently asserted it has the framework needed to deal with issues such as improving the economy or tacking refuse problems (curiously parking has not been mentioned), the No campaign has not said how reverting to committees will improve the way the city deals with big issues.

But he makes a fair point by asking whether parties opposed to the directly-elected mayor will put up nominations should the Yes campaigners win?

After all, if they stuck to their principles, the Labour candidate (who won't be Simon Fanshawe but might be Steve Bassam or Ken Bodfish) could be elected unopposed.