An academic has explained what council leadership was like in the city prior to the elected mayor model being introduced.
In recent weeks, we have been reporting on experts' opinions ahead of the Mayoral Referendum in May. An expert said that the referendum could be the start of the conversation, rather than the end, while another one said the mayoral model has likely led to a "real change" in the diversity of councillors in the city and another said the mayoral model has a "direct democratic accountability" as one of its benefits.
Bristol will be going to the polls this year to decide whether to scrap the mayoral system after opposition councillors had a victory in City Hall in December 2021. A majority of elected members of Bristol City Council backed a motion to hold a legally binding second referendum 10 years after the first which created the post of Mayor of Bristol in 2012.
Read more: Bristol's elected mayor system slammed as 'undemocratic' in survey
The referendum in May 2022 will offer Bristolians the choice of keeping an elected mayor or going back to the committee system of governance which was in place prior to 2000. The leader and cabinet system was in place between 2000 and 2012, when George Ferguson became the city’s first directly elected mayor in November 2012.
A top expert at one of the city's universities has now explained what leadership in the city was like prior to Bristol having an elected mayor. Dr Thom Oliver, an associate lecturer at the University of the West of England, said: "There is a strong and often repeated depiction of life before the introduction of a mayor in Bristol.
"That the city council was defined by instability, infighting and glacial progress on the issues that matter, whether that be with transport projects, delivering much needed homes, or simply making sure green spaces were protected. It’s a dramatic narrative, that party politicians were too interested in fighting tribal wars on the floor of the then council house or firing off emotive press releases to the local press slamming the actions of ‘the administration’.
"It’s a strong and pervasive message which is still prevalent in Bristol’s politics today, whether it’s a campaign asserting ‘Getting Stuff Done’ or depictions of opposition councillors looking inwards and downwards against mayoral authority with bigger issues to address. But as we move toward a referendum which could hugely change the way Bristol does its functional politics, does it ring true?
"I for one thinks it needs some picking apart before using it as the immediate basis to vote to reject the alternative of a committee system."
What do you think of the Mayoral Model in Bristol? Let us know here
The associate lecturer - who was a co-author of a new report from the Bristol Civic Leadership Research Project on the governance of Bristol - said there are a handful of facts which point towards the dynamics of politics at Bristol City Hall being different post referendum.
"Firstly, the regularly told story of constant leadership change in the city didn’t happen under the committee system," he said. "During the recent writing of the policy report "The Bristol Referendum 2022. Thinking through the options" I set about mapping the changes in the leadership of the city since 1995 and it was quite a task.
Read more: Mayoral model likely led to 'real change' in diversity of councillors
"The soap opera that made such regular reading on the front page of the Bristol Post delivered more twists and turns than a Bond film. However, the first consideration is that none of the chop and change happened under the committee system, where during the period 1995-2000 the city had a single leader in Labour’s George Micklewright.
"Yet it was when the council changed to a ‘Leader and Cabinet’ model (a central government imposed reform which was introduced to deliver stability and speed up governance) that the city saw huge and regular change in who was its leader with a stellar cast of leading figures including Diane Bunyan, Peter Hammond, Helen Holland, and Barbara Janke who led the council on three separate stints with seemingly the regeneration power of your average timelord.
READ MORE: George Ferguson believes city mayor role should be scrapped
"But why did we have such regular change? It could well be down to the electoral system at the time where the city elected by thirds, voting in a third of its councillors at a time over three years (no wonder Brenda and other Bristolians grew tired of ‘another one’ and thankful for the singular year off elections before the cycle began again).
"This election by thirds played into the hands of party politicians who were able to oust council leaders via horribly named ‘decapitation strategies’, where a council leader could simply be defeated in the local ward election, meaning a well targeted local election campaign could remove the head of the largest party forcing them to quickly choose another leader.
"During his term as elected mayor George Ferguson and the city council opted to move away from election by thirds and instead to all ups. So does that mean we can do away with depictions of the committee system delivering instability and constant change or does the threat of leaving the selection of our council leader to our elected councillors as opposed to directly electing them ourselves mean there is a risk of regular leadership change, or indeed no leadership at all.
Want to know more about the world of Bristol politics? Sign up for our newsletter here
"Well, under the committee system, full council (all the councillors together) would be called upon to elect a leader. If Bristolians were to vote for a change to government by committee, the councils constitution would be written to ensure that a leader was elected meaning post-election all councillors would come together at Full Council to elect a leader, based on consensus or sheer volume of councillor votes. If they couldn’t, they would be swiftly convened to try again.
"The main questions remain, do Bristolians want to directly choose their leader, or delegate that responsibility to their elected councillors to make that choice? Does the opportunity to deliver a coronation, or the boot to a mayoral leader once every four years, give a direct accountability solely deliverable by the electorate outweigh a committee system held together based on a leader regularly maintaining the confidence of the majority of the cities councillors.
"Either way as the campaign goes on, it’s vital that Bristolian’s question the well-worn arguments on both sides of the debate, all the figureheads, all the academics and all the politicians, for some very strong narratives exist about Bristol’s political history which when picked apart perhaps depict a previous time and don’t tell the full story."
