POLITICS will never be the new football, but it's good to see local people taking such a healthy interest in the way they are governed.

In Redcar and Cleveland and in Darlington, a national trend is being reflected with calls for a referendum on whether the council leader should be replaced by an elected mayor.

In Middlesbrough, there are some campaigning to scrap the mayoral system - but more of that another time.

All towns and cities have their own strengths and weaknesses and I cannot say whether an elected mayoral system would work everywhere. I'm also wary of entering into debates involving other areas - it's up to the people to decide for themselves.

But I'm happy to outline what I regard as the major differences between a council run by a mayor elected directly by the people and one run by a leader elected by councillors.

Firstly, legislation has ensured that the mayor is not subject to the party whip. They can therefore make decisions purely on what they regard as the best way forward for the town.

A council leader has to follow party policy sanctioned by the whole group. I think this leads to the polarisation of parties where debate is along political lines rather than the strength of an argument. In councils where there is one dominant party, this can lead to cliques within parties and also - with no real opposition - complacency and a lack of accountability.

An elected mayor does not have to secure council approval for most decisions. This means that, on a day-to-day basis, decisions can be made by the mayor and his executive and put into action more swiftly.

But I also understand why some may feel the elected mayoral system gives one person too much power.

Ken Livingstone has demonstrated the danger of that. In his foolish refusal to apologise over his comments to a Jewish reporter, he seems to be digging a deeper hole for himself.

In the heat of the moment everyone can say stupid things. What the Mayor of London should have done is to apologise and move on. I am sure the majority of the public would have accepted the apology and no further fuss would have ensued.

Instead, he has refused and the Standards Board has become involved, the Court of Appeal is now looming and possibly the Law Lords. This sideshow is not why Londoners elected him as mayor. There are far more pressing matters on which he should be spending time and taxpayers' money.

The second major difference between the two systems is accountability. An elected mayor can seek opinion and advice from anyone they wish but, in the end, the buck stops with the mayor. When you act you do so for all people of the town and, through the ballot box, the public decides whether you are doing a good job or not.

Also, developers and government can speak directly to the person in charge, knowing they will be there at least until the end of the mayoral term. That security is good for encouraging investment in the town.

I'd be wary of advising anyone to vote a particular way as far as a mayor is concerned. But I would encourage people to listen carefully to all sides and then make sure they vote for whatever they think is best for the future of their town.