Don't imagine for one minute think that Cllr Anderson would not have spoken to me about his plans if he did not think this would happen. But in politics nothing can ever be guaranteed.

For certain the Liverpool electorate has been denied a say on whether they wanted a mayor. But mayoral campaigner Liam Fogarty is not likely to complain about that.

The Liberal Democrats will complain, and I will return to them later.

But the debate will be framed around do you want £130m for Liverpool and extra powers or not? Cllr Anderson insists that if the package were on offer and there were no mechanism to move straight to a mayor and cabinet system at the council, he would have supported the referendum.

He argues that with the backing of Labour the referendum would be won. He is probably right, but it looks like we will never know.

But in many ways going straight for a mayor is a shrewd move.

A quick campaign will favour Cllr Anderson. He will be able to use the £130m package as a key plank of his campaign, as the man who negotiated it.

A vote for a mayor in May - instead of November (after a positive referendum) - denies any independents with deep pockets time for planning and setting up a campaign machine.

Given that he's done all the running on this, he will almost certainly be the Labour party candidate. I can't see the Labour party ditching Cllr Anderson in favour of someone else. The consensus in the party is that he is doing a decent job of running the council in difficult circumstances.

David Cameron, desperate to see his policy of the great British cities run by mayors gain some traction, will also be grateful. After previous spats over the Big Society, can a better line of communication to ministers be a bad thing? It may not improve Liverpool's lot with the coalition, but it might help.

And after all Cllr Anderson is right to point out that in reality it means very little change to the way the council is run.

A the mayor can be recalled with a petition of just 1.5%.

What's not to like right?

It is effectively a change in job title from council leader to mayor.

But, whoever wins will not have the  same level of powers as London mayor Boris Johnson who controls  transport and policing.

Some in the Labour party will be uncomfortable doing a deal with the Tories in this way. You need a long spoon if you are going to sup with them, is one view I've heard in the last couple of days.

There is ideological opposition to mayors on both the Labour and Liberal Democrat side of the town hall.

The idea of not giving the people a say on whether they want a mayor will also leave a bad taste for some.

All of this presents a problem for the Liberal Democrats locally. Just last week they were calling for a cross party campaign against an elected mayor.

Deputy leader Richard Kemp insists that new deals for cities do not have to be linked to the mayor model. Stronger governance than at present, yes, but not an elected mayor. Cllr Anderson insists 'stronger governance' means a mayor.

Either way the party is going to need to start thinking about who their candidate might be.

Liverpool leader Paula Keaveney and deputy Cllr Kemp are against the idea.

Former council leader Lord Mike Storey is talked of in political circles as a man who could yet galvanise disaffected Liberal Democrat voters.

The Peer has taken to life on the red benches in the Lords like a duck to water and would take some convincing to make a return bid to run Liverpool.

For political anoraks, politics in Liverpool is about to get exciting for the next couple of months. But will the race to be Liverpool's first elected mayor excite the voters?