MRS Eileen Eastham (Letters, February 4) couldn't be more wrong in her conclusion that a leader plus a cabinet system in a local council would mean the end of mayors as we know them.

In fact, the opposite is true. An elected mayor would lead to the end of mayors as we know them.

But her mistake is understandable. The problem is that the word 'mayor' is being used to describe two quite different things.

At the moment, the mayor holds a purely ceremonial post. He or she represents the council at civic functions and community events. By tradition, mayors hold no other political position in their mayoral year and are expected to steer clear of political controversy.

Their only role is to act as first citizen of the borough. As Mrs Eastham rightly suggests, this role is one that is highly regarded by most local people.

Elected mayors would be quite different. The position would be better called President of the Borough, because that is what elected mayors would be. They would be active politicians, pursuing their own political programmes.

If they had the time for civic functions or community events there would, to say the least, be a temptation to use these for self-promotion in order to get re-elected.

Britain has little tradition of presidential systems of government. For about 200 years we have been governed by the system of a prime minister.

If you think this sounds a bit like the proposals to have the council run by the leader of the largest party of councillors with a cabinet drawn from the largest party and a ceremonial mayor, well you would be right.

COUN DAVE HOLLINGS, Sudell Road, Darwen.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.