Let's forget all the rubbish in the twittersphere that is being regurgitated about an obscure actress who thinks that Manchester is grim and instead debate more important matters.
Like for example the case for having a Manchester Mayor.There are many pros and cons as the city prepares to vote in May but interestingly this morning's Times comes out in favour of the proposal.
A decade and a half after Manchester’s revival after a bomb attack by the IRA says the piece, the question is whether the city’s great tradition of commerce can spread out beyond the city borders and trigger an economic recovery in the surrounding region.
"For all the many shiny new buildings and expensive restaurants that have greatly improved central Manchester, there are large parts of the city that have yet to feel any great benefit. Manchester is home to 86,000 people without work, and parts of the city do not look and feel as if they are neighbours to prosperity."
And the paper argues
that a big figure governing Manchester, tackling the problems of skills and transport, could yet find him or herself immortalised in stone alongside the heroes of a previous era.
I have to agree with the sentiment,I know that Manchester's political leaders don't and have their own agenda's but I think it will be a great way of engaging the people of Manchester in the political process