ripple effect what’s in a name? Thursday, 30 October 2008 The <a href="http://www.lgcplus.com">LGC</a> is running a story that a future Conservative government might introduce directly elected ‘managers’ for city regions. That’s ‘manager’, not ‘mayor’, though the implication seems to be that this is mere semantics. Despite the recent referendum result in Stoke, I’ve felt for a long time that directly elected mayors are essential if we are to convince central government to genuinely devolve, as it provides a level of transparency and visible accountability to local people. That matters if you are a minister who currently feels personally accountable for the results of decisions that commonsense dictates should be made at a local level. It reduces the risk of devolution. But, of course, when it comes down to it, it doesn’t matter that the position is called a mayor. In fact, the office of mayor is so associated with tree planting and chains of office that there is a case for dropping the term. But ‘manager’? It sounds so technocratic, and doesn’t really scream accountability! Can you imagine trotting off to the polling booth to elect a manager? Still, credit to the Conservatives for looking to find ways to boost local (city region) accountability.