The point of a metro mayor is to 'take the blame' if something goes wrong, says chairman of the Local Government Association.
Lord Porter, speaking at a Conservative conference fringe meeting, described himself as 'schizophrenic' on the issue of metro mayors and said a part of their job would be to take the blame when things went wrong.
Organised by the think tank Centre for Cities, the meeting's panellists discussed the future of metro mayors - an essential part of the Government's devolution agenda.
Lord Porter pointed out a directly elected mayor could potentially have a number of benefits.
An independent figure, he said, might be able to settle arguments when councillors are 'fighting like cats and dogs'. Plus, he added, a charismatic mayor may be a draw for investment.
However, referring to the fact accepting metro mayors is a prerequisite for devolution deals, Lord Porter said local authorities should not have to have them if they didn't want them.
He also added the name "mayor" might be confusing for people because there are already a number of different models of mayor, all with different roles.
Another panellist, a spokesperson for the think tank Respublica, acknowledged that some areas simply accept the concept of a metro mayor because devolution offers from the Government are presented as a 'take it or leave it' deal. It is 'the only offer on the table', he said.
This argument was backed up by Marvin Rees, the mayor of Bristol who was in the audience. He described metro mayors as 'the pill' you have to take to get further devolution deals.
Francesca Gains, professor of public policy at the University of Manchester, outlined some of the advantages of the Government's metro mayor plans.
She said they would make local government more accountable and improve transparency. Mayors are also, she said, a useful focal point so business knows who to lobby.
