A Mayor for Plymouth? Be Careful What You Vote For

Plymouth will head to the polls to decide if they want a directly-elected mayor.

Plymouth is heading for a referendum. After weeks of speculation and signature counting, Plymouth City Council has confirmed that more than 10,000 residents (10,856, to be exact) have signed a petition demanding a vote on whether Plymouth should introduce a directly elected mayor. That figure crosses the legal threshold of 5% of registered electors, meaning the referendum will go ahead.

The vote is scheduled for Thursday 17 July, and will ask residents a simple question: should Plymouth continue with its current model of leadership, where councillors choose one of their own to run the city, or move to a system where a mayor is elected directly by the public?

This isn’t about the kind of regional “metro mayors” seen in places like Greater Manchester or the West Midlands. This is a local governance question, focused solely on how Plymouth City Council is run. It’s not part of the much-publicised shake-up of local councils introduced by the Labour Government earlier this year and does not affect talks for Plymouth to expand its borders. This is just Plymouth, deciding how Plymouth should be governed.

The campaign behind the petition is led by local businessman Richard Smith, who chairs the Plymouth Business Network. He’s argued consistently that the city suffers from weak leadership, poor visibility on the national stage, and a lack of strategic direction. His solution is a directly elected mayor with a city-wide mandate, clear accountability, and the ability to act as a single point of contact for residents and central government alike.

Plymouth has had five council leaders in the last seven years. It’s seen a rotating cast of party infighting, sudden resignations, and bureaucratic stalling. From delayed development projects to struggles over transport, housing and public services, the impression of drift has been hard to shake. A mayor, Smith argues, would end that, and would replace internal council politics with a public mandate.

But even as the referendum date is confirmed, the city is still grappling with what exactly it’s voting on. A directly elected mayor sounds like a big change. But in practice, the powers that the new mayor would yield are the same as the current council leader (that is unless Whitehall decides to hand over more). So far, there’s been no indication that the Government is lining up a bespoke devolution deal for Plymouth. And even if they were, it would require a separate negotiation process and legislation. In short: a new title doesn’t mean new tools.

Andy Burnham, Manchester's elected mayor, has introduced sweeping reforms of transport and housing through powers devolved to him from the government.

That matters, because the mayoral model only delivers real change when it comes with real power and authority. Andy Burnham’s power to shape transport and housing policy in Manchester comes from a combined authority with a large, devolved budget. Sadiq Khan’s ability to manage London’s infrastructure comes from legislation dating back to the Greater London Authority Act 1999. In contrast, a Plymouth mayor, under current plans, would have no new budget lines, no new responsibilities, and no formal regional voice.

If the promise is not of power, then it must be of visibility. A mayor would have a personal mandate from the electorate and could speak for the city without waiting for a committee to agree. They could go on national media, lobby ministers in Westminster, and push priorities with a profile that no council leader can easily replicate. Whether that translates into results, though, will remain to be seen.

Critics argue that this is a solution looking for a problem. Yes, Plymouth has seen political instability. But so has the country. A series of poor decisions by the previous Conservative council lead to their battering in last year’s local elections. Under the proposed model, the mayor would set the budget and policy direction, with councillors having reduced influence over day-to-day decisions. There’s a risk of centralising power without the resources to use it effectively, opponents say.

And then there’s the cost. Changing the model of local government involves more than just a vote. It means new elections, new staffing structures, and long-term administrative changes. Like many councils up and down the country, Plymouth is under immense financial strain, and there’s the question of whether that money is better spent on bin collections and local services, or governance consultants is not a trivial one.

But for the plan’s supporters, that is exactly the problem. Plymouth has been stuck in a cycle of penny-pinching and short-term fixes. A mayor could break that cycle by shifting the political culture. They could build partnerships, attract business investment, and give the city a clearer voice in regional and national debates. In other words, the role isn’t powerful yet, but someone could make it powerful.

The council formally approved the referendum plans on 28 April, but the timetable is already clear. Once the notice of poll is issued, the city will enter a campaign period where residents will be asked to weigh in on the future of their local democracy. They’ll be able to vote in person, by post, or via proxy, standard options for any civic vote, but crucial in a referendum where turnout will likely shape the outcome more than party politics.

What’s unclear is how high of a profile this vote will raise. Local governance doesn’t tend to grip the public imagination, and past mayoral votes in other cities have often suffered from low turnout and even lower enthusiasm. Turnout for all elections has been falling in recent years, and it’s hard to imagine this referendum would reverse that. Campaigners on both sides will need to make the abstract feel urgent: why this matters, why it affects people’s lives, and what kind of city Plymouth wants to be.

There’s no guarantee a mayor will fix what’s wrong with Plymouth politics. But there’s also no guarantee the current system ever will. The referendum won’t settle every argument, but it does at least offer a moment of clarity, a chance to pause the leadership carousel and ask whether doing things differently might be worth the risk.