Voters would have little say in how their city was run under a directly-elected mayor, opponents say.

At a public meeting last night, organised by Allies For Democracy, politicians from across the spectrum spoke out against the idea of an elected city mayor.

Labour councillor Joyce Edmond-Smith criticised the actions of the Labour Government which originally came up with the idea.

She said: "As a member of the Labour Party I support a redistribution of wealth and a redistribution of power.

"The idea a Labour Government can come along and say local affairs can only work well if you put the power in the hands of one person is unbelievable.

"We want a system which will enable the opposition to have a role."

Green Party councillor Keith Taylor, a member of the alliance, criticised claims by pro-mayor campaigners that a mayor would be closer to the citizens of Brighton and Hove.

He said: "They confuse the difference between knowing who the mayor is and having his phone number and actually being able to talk to him, knowing it will make a difference."

Andy Richards, chairman of the Brighton and Hove branch of Unison, warned the public might be tempted to vote for an elected mayor simply because it was an alternative to the current Cabinet system. In fact a 'no' vote in the postal referendum on October 18, would be a vote for an improved version of the old committee system.

He said: "The people who gave us the Cabinet system are the same people who want to give us the mayor system."

Conservative councillor Garry Peltzer Dunn said instead of decisions being taken by Brighton and Hove's 78 elected councillors, a mayoral system would leave most major decisions up to the mayor and his or her Cabinet. This could consist of as few as two members, while the rest of the councillors had little input.

He said: "Would you feel marginalised if three people ran your city when you voted for 78? Is that democracy?"