Thom Oliver, Senior lecturer, UWE Bristol
This piece was first published by Bristol 24/7 on 30/6/25: https://www.bristol247.com/opinion/your-say/westminster-continues-to-undermine-local-autonomy/
Bristol’s governance story has never followed a linear path. Since becoming a unitary authority in 1995, the city has tried every major model: committee governance (1995–2000), leader and cabinet (2000–2012), and mayoral governance (2012–2024). After a 2022 referendum, in which 59% of votes chose to scrap the mayoral model, the committee system was reinstated in May 2024. Yet, just months in, central government is already proposing to abolish it before it has even had time to embed or evolve.
There are two stories unfolding here. One reflects a familiar pattern: the steady erosion of local autonomy by central government. The other is more open-ended, a question of whether Bristol’s new system can deliver on the promise of more inclusive, representative leadership.
The Centre and the City: A Strained Relationship
The relationship between central and local government in England has long been marked by imbalance. At best, it is paternalistic. At worst, it is defined by tokenism, micromanagement, and conditional funding.
The government’s proposed legislation, effectively forcing councils like Bristol to abandon the committee model, sits firmly in a broader historic trend of democratic retrenchment. The recent English Devolution White Paper claims to simplify governance and boost accountability. Yet critics argue it offers less local choice, more central prescription, and a narrowing of the space for genuine self-determination.
The democratic irony is hard to ignore. Despite national rhetoric about “devolution revolutions,” “levelling up,” and “power and partnership,” Westminster continues to undermine local autonomy. Bristol has now twice voted on how it wants to be governed. But if this Bill goes ahead, that democratic choice could be overturned by a stroke of a pen in Whitehall.
Behind all this sits a bigger structural problem: local government in England is responsible for critical services, like adult social care, children’s services, and housing, but remains financially dependent on the centre. Councils’ ability to raise revenue independently is extremely limited, with council tax (their main income stream) capped by central government. Meanwhile, new responsibilities are regularly devolved. without the funding or discretion needed to carry them out effectively. Local authorities are left with legal duties but few real powers, navigating rising demand under ever-tighter financial constraints, with little genuine autonomy or discretion.
A Verdict on the Committee System?
As for whether Bristol’s committee system is “working,” it is far too early to say. It was introduced due to criticisms of a centralisation of power into the mayoral office, reduced councillor influence and a stifling of scrutiny. Through their referendum vote Bristolians were seeking a different form of inclusive and representative governance.
Whether that has been realised remains to be seen. A full evaluation will be carried out in 2026 by the Bristol Civic Leadership Project, ironically, just as the city could be asked to change course yet again. What is clear is that Bristol faces enormous challenges: mounting pressure on SEND and social care services, ageing infrastructure, and a crisis in housing and homelessness. Whether a new governance model would help or be a distraction hindering progress on these issues is a live debate. But whatever system is in place, it is councillors across all parties who are on the front line of tackling these problems and Bristolian’s will be looking at them to deliver.
This is an opinion piece by Dr Thom Oliver, a senior lecturer in politics at UWE Bristol
Oliver co-leads the Bristol Civic Leadership Project a research collaboration between The University of the West of England and the University of Bristol which has studied governance in the City of Bristol since 2012.
Bristol Civic Leadership Project 