Sir, - The latest NY Times, the organ of North Yorkshire County Council, asks for comments about what form of local government we want after 2009.

Apparently, the choice is between a system similar to that used now, with a Leader and Cabinet elected by council members, and one where people elect their mayor directly.

The council favours the former method but I say, why shouldn't we have a mayor?

He or she would represent the local people, not a particular group, and might bring a bit more discussion to local politics.

They would have the great advantage of being able to say that local people elected them to represent the people and if what they want did not fit any party line, so be it.

Both Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson seem to have realised as they got into the job that they were their own man and not the servant of any special interest group.

Anyway, it would be a lot more fun to have a mayor. We would have the excitement of an election and then he or she would represent us at important events.

Much more dignified to say "Pray silence for the Mayor of North Yorkshire" than "Here's the leader of the Council" - a phrase which has echoes of Orwell's 1984.

I would be interested to hear other people's views on this issue.

CHRISTOPHER IRWIN Meadow Close, Northallerton.