THIS paper's recent opinion on the future of the Worcester mayoralty certainly stirred up a hornet's nest.

The telephone lines have been buzzing with opinions but, unfortunately, it has mostly been misinformed. This is despite a massive effort by councils to keep the public informed of the options for change available.

As this paper has stated before, it is the Government that is forcing this through. The way local politics operates is changing, for better or for worse. What is worrying is that the whole matter seems to have passed a large part of the electorate by.

Whether this is just disinterest or apathy is open to question, but it seems to be a trend that is growing. The turnout figures of the June poll should give a better guide to this.

The thinking behind the changes being imposed is to provide, in the Government's own words: "Strong leadership for communities with a clearly-defined executive to clarify local decision-making". The main options are: A directly-elected Mayor, supported by a Cabinet; A Leader and Cabinet chosen by the elected councillors; A directly-elected Mayor and appointed council manager, supported by councillors.

However, there is a further option hidden deep in the latest Act that may prove interesting and the recent comings and goings in the Guildhall make this one that some may prefer.

That is for a directly-elected Cabinet. In other words, the electorate would choose who was in charge of what for a given period.

An example would be that any member of the public could stand as "Planning Chairman" and an election would be held. Whoever won the post would get the job for the four-year spell, despite their political persuasion. The same would apply for all the other main posts. "Normal" councillors would have a supporting and scrutiny role.

Now, there's a thought. We will let readers imagine who they would like to see in the key roles!