Few have commented on the local government White Paper's new option for political structures – the directly-elected executive.
This neglect is hardly surprising because the paper gives few details. There is no indication as to why it is being introduced, and no arguments are put forward in its favour.

These gaps suggest there was little preparation. It probably seemed to some in government a good idea, at least superficially, but no attempt appears to have been made to set out or explore the practical problems which could arise.
This option replaces, after only six years, a previous third option – the directly-elected mayor plus council manager. 
At first glance, this option looked as if it was based on the American city-manager form, but instead, a strange set of provisions was added on, including a joint executive of the mayor and council manager, but in which the main executive powers were given to the council manager, leaving the role of the joint executive uncertain. 
It was understandable that these arrangements caused confusion to the mayor, the council, the council manager, staff and the public and press in the only authority to adopt this form, Stoke-on-Trent. There were proposals emanating from Stoke to abandon this option, even before the Government proposed its elimination in the White Paper.
And the same lack of consideration of practical problems is likely to blight the new option. All we know about it is that the leader and the slate for the executive will be directly elected for four years, with the leader holding all the executive powers that can be delegated to the executive or its individual members.
The leader will have agreed the slate, but how it is selected will presumably be a matter for the political parties, unless the Government plans to legislate on party selection – which seems unlikely.
The nearest equivalent to the directly-elected executive is the commission form in the US, where the council consists of a small, elected commission, and each member has defined responsibilities. 
The Government proposes a combination of that American model with a European party-list electoral system to give a degree of unity to the executive, and the addition of a council. 
The commission form has generally been regarded as problematic and has lost ground in the States, largely remaining in small and medium-sized towns of fairly homogeneous communities, and in small counties. It should not be adopted here, even with the Government's modifications, without careful examination.
Certain difficulties can be anticipated, as well as the issue of selection. Problems arise from keeping the same executive for four years. It seems unlikely that a leader would want to maintain the same cabinet for a four-year period, yet that is the equivalent of what is proposed. 
Certainly, prime ministers have not done so, and annual changes have become the norm. What happens when a leader wants a change in the executive? The leader can switch around portfolios, although if candidates had been identified with specific portfolios at the election, such changes could cause public protests. 
The public would feel the leader was usurping their electoral choice. 
And what happens if the leader wants to remove a member from the executive because of differences on policy, or because of perceived failures? Can the leader do so? And if so, how? 
If not, the leader can hardly be the strong role model proclaimed in the White Paper. But, if he or she can, what has happened to the electorate whose election of the executive has been ignored? 
What happens if a member of the executive resigns? How is he or she replaced? Does a by-election occur? But what happens if a member of the opposition wins the by-election? There would then not be a united executive. 
There are certainly problems to be considered. We would like to be reassured they had been.
One assumes each party puts up its leading members for election as the executive. So, if that party loses the election, those members will no longer be on the council. 
At a stroke, the council and, in particular, the opposition parties, will be deprived of their leading members, weakening the opposition. 
The alternative would be for the party to put up its slate as candidates for council seats as well as for the executive, but that seems a recipe for confusion, in addition to leading to a series of by-elections if they were elected both as an executive and to council seats. 
Have these problems been thought through? We are entitled to know.
We urge the Government not to commit itself to this proposal, but prepare a consultation paper on how it would work in practice for consideration by local government.
Only when we know how it will work in practice can a proper judgment be made about it. Otherwise, we risk yet another confused option. 
George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the LSE, and John Stewart is emeritus professor of local government at the University of Birmingham