Author Archives: davidsweeting

How to improve the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Posted on November 12, 2025 | Leave a comment

In October 2025 the Bristol Civic Leadership Project submitted evidence to the Public Bill Committee that is examining the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Our evidence suggests that the Bill should be strengthened to include a clause to provide constitutional protection for all elected local authorities in England and we recommend the deletion of Clause 57 (which proposes the abolition of the committee system of local governance in England).

This evidence was first published on the UK Parliament website on 14 October 2025:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmpublic/EnglishDevolutionCommunityEmpowerment/memo/EDCEB29.htm

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Written evidence submitted by Emeritus Professor Robin Hambleton BA MA PhD MRTPI FRSA FAcSS. (EDCEB29)

About the author

My name is Robin Hambleton. I am Emeritus Professor of City Leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol and I have expertise in three main areas relating to the English Devolution Bill: civic leadership, city governance and community empowerment.

I have held professorships in town and regional planning, city management, public administration, urban policy, and city leadership in universities in the UK and the USA. My international research has focussed on how to improve local and city governance. Alongside my academic work, I have provided consultancy advice to national governments, including the UK government, and to city governments in many countries. I was the founding President of the European Urban Research Association (EURA), and I served as Dean of the College of Urban and Public Affairs (CUPPA) at the University of Illinois at Chicago, USA.

Summary of recommendations

Recommendation 1: Introduce into the Bill a clause, or clauses, enshrining, for all elected local authorities in England, the right to exist, the right to tax, and the right to take action to improve the quality of life of their citizens as they think fit.

Recommendation 2): Delete Clause 57 from the Bill.

Key starting point: recognising the current threat to our democracy

1. I welcome the bold aims the government set out for devolution in the English Devolution White Paper published last December. In her Foreword to that paper Angela Rayner, the then Deputy Prime Minister, states, correctly in my view, that: ‘The controlling hand of central government is stifling initiative and development throughout the country… If we are going to build an economy that works for everyone, we need nothing less than a completely new way of governing – a generational project of determined devolution.’ [1]

2. A major flaw in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is that, as drafted, it will not succeed in delivering on this important objective. This is because the Bill manifestly fails to recognise the current threat to democracy in our country. In this submission I will argue that, if this threat is to be averted, it is essential to bring about a major constitutional shift – one that expands significantly the formal powers of place-based elected and accountable local authorities and protects them from unwarranted interference from a future central government. In taking such a step the government would be establishing an approach to local/central government relationships that is commonplace in other western democracies.

3. All areas of the country, and particularly the so-called ‘left behind’ localities, need to be given a much stronger voice in the governance of their communities if we are to combat the growing mood of public alienation. Devolution needs to deliver, not just ready and open routes for grievances to be expressed, but also to ensure that elected local governments have the powers and capacity to respond to these concerns in a way that is both responsive and effective. By bringing about a significant constitutional expansion in the power of all local authorities the Bill can help to win back trust in government.

4. The rise of far-right extremist groups in the last eighteen months gives renewed urgency to this task of developing, what the White Paper describes as ‘a completely new way of governing’. The signals indicating the need for radical action grow louder with the passing of each month. The response to the troubling street riots that took place in July and August 2024 were inadequate – they tended to focus on ‘law and order’ concerns. The need to address more fundamental issues, notably racism and feelings of disempowerment, were not recognised. [2] It is, then, not surprising that, during the last few months, far-right extremist groups have become much more active in seizing upon local concerns about disempowerment to fan hatred and promote division in many communities within England.

5. Public demonstrations came to a head with a major ‘unite the kingdom’ protest held in London on 13 September 2025. The speakers on the platform at this rally spread misinformation and hatred of immigrants. Downing Street fiercely condemned the ‘dangerous and inflammatory’ language used by some of the speakers. The event exemplified what Professor Paul Jackson describes as ‘Pride in prejudice’. [3]

6. It is important to record that, while the speakers on the platform were clearly far right extremists, many protesters who attended did so, not because of racial prejudice, but because they feel abandoned by mainstream politics and politicians. Kenan Malik, a leading expert on race relations and multiculturalism, who has interviewed protesters at many demonstrations including the London rally, concluded the following:

‘What the march illustrated was the way sections of the working class can be drawn to the far right not because they are hardcore racists but because most of the old political outlets for their discontent have eroded…’ [4]

His conclusion is that politicians need to do much more to address the issue of wages, housing and the loss of dignity and belonging that pervades many working-class communities. He stresses that the widespread belief that many people have – ‘Nobody listens to us’ – must be countered.

7. In this context Clause 58 of the Bill, which will require on all local authorities, in England, to establish effective neighbourhood governance, is to be warmly welcomed. The main goal here is to move decision-making closer to residents, so decisions are responsive to local concerns and priorities. Provided the forthcoming regulations relating to neighbourhood governance deliver significant and important powers to local communities, it is possible that this measure could play an important role in rebalancing power relations between the state and local citizens. It could, alongside other measures, demonstrate that the government really is listening to excluded voices, particularly in deprived neighbourhoods and localities. Research carried out in the last thirty years, both in the UK and elsewhere, demonstrates that strong neighbourhood governance can be effective in bringing excluded voices into the political process. Moreover, it can lead to the co-creation of innovative solutions and can fortify community cohesion. [5] But neighbourhood governance is not a panacea – it can only form part of the strategy for rebuilding trust in government.

8. Crucially, alongside developing neighbourhood governance across the country, effective devolution needs to rebalance the power relationship between local and central government. It is well known that England has become one of the most centralised countries in the developed world. [6] A radical shift of formal power to elected local authorities would lead to more effective and accountable government and would also help to win back trust. In addition, it would be a wise protective measure. It is important to understand that UK society is, because power has been over-centralised in Whitehall over a long period, entirely vulnerable to a far-right takeover at the next General Election.

9. Over a year ago, and before the summer riots of 2024, I argued that English elected local governments needed constitutional protection as part of a strategy for stopping the advance of the far right. I used Hungary’s unhappy experience to illustrate what could happen here. [7] Partly because elected local governments in Hungary do not have constitutional protection it was not difficult for Viktor Orban, the populist Prime Minister elected in 2010, to enfeeble the power of all elected councils in a very short period. He also weakened the powers of the judiciary and eroded press freedom. Hungary changed quite quickly from being a society characterised by active citizen participation and respected local governments to one in which power is now exercised by national politicians who have become increasingly authoritarian and repressive. The Bill should be modified, as I explain below, to put in place, as soon as possible, solid constitutional protections for all elected local governments in England. Unless action is taken the UK could end up following a path similar to the one suffered by Hungary.

Rebalancing local/central power relations in England

10. A little over ten years ago it was an honour for me to be invited by the Local Government Association (LGA) to carry out a small action/research project on devolution in England. This led to the production of a short international review of different models of city region governance. It was rewarding to work with a group of senior leaders in local government to identify principles of good governance on a cross-party basis. Launched at the LGA conference in 2016 this study fed into the ‘Devo Next’ national debates then being promoted by the LGA. [8] Executing this study prompted me to carry out further work on local/central relations in England. I was startled to discover that the so-called ‘devolution’ policies then being pursued by Conservative Government ministers were, in practice, super-centralisation policies ‘dressed up’ as so-called devolution. [9]

11. The English Devolution White Paper makes it clear that Government Ministers are determined to move away from the ‘cap in hand’ approach of the previous government. But despite this, there are no proposals in the bill to provide formal constitutional protection for elected local authorities in England. This would be a serious omission even if the rise in momentum of far-right anti-immigration groups was not taking place. Unfortunately, as explained in paras 4-6 above, far right racist groups now present a worrying threat to local democracy in this country. Where to turn to seek insights on what constitutional protection for English democracy might look like?

12. In my ongoing international comparative research on local governance I have become increasingly impressed with the performance of local governments in Sweden. In articles for the UK local government press I have drawn attention to how Sweden’s very strong system of local government helps to explain why the country is delivering far better economic growth than the UK. Sweden also outperforms the UK on a whole raft of social and environmental indicators. In addition, the country continues to be successful in tackling inequality – the country has no need for food banks – and civic engagement is outstanding. Voter turnout in local elections in recent years has been over 80%, which compares with figures of less than 40% for local elections in England. [10]

13. Sweden also provides us with an attractive approach to constitutional protection for local democracy. Local self-government, including the right to tax, is enshrined in the Swedish constitution. The Swedish Instrument of Government (1974) ensures central government cannot ride roughshod over the heads of local voters. It also ensures that, should a far-right party be elected to the national government in Sweden, it would face very effective opposition from localities across the country. This is because governmental power is dispersed, and democratic practices have deep local roots. Many other western democracies also have constitutions that provide legal protection for their elected local governments.

14. Taking account of the arguments presented above I invite the Public Bill Committee (PBC) to introduce a clause, or clauses, granting all elected local authorities in England: 1) The right to exist, 2) the right to tax their citizens, and 3) The legal power to take action to enhance the quality of life of the citizens living in their locality as they think fit. I stress that I am not attempting to suggest here the detailed wording of a clause or clauses. The wording will require further careful thought. I invite the PBC to consult the Local Government Association, as they may have already carried out work on the drafting of such a clause or clauses. It would also be wise to study the constitutions of other countries that include measures for protecting the independence of elected local authorities.

Recommendation 1: Introduce into the Bill a clause, or clauses, enshrining, for all elected local authorities in England, the right to exist, the right to tax and the right to take action to improve the quality of life of their citizens as they think fit.

Retaining the option of a committee system

15. Clause 57 of the Bill proposes the abolition of the committee system of local governance in England. The government has offered no evidence to justify this extraordinary centralisation of state power. To make such a suggestion without presenting evidence is a troubling example of top-down government and it is, of course, out of step with the aims of the government’s own White Paper which explicitly states that micromanaging from the centre is harmful. I published an article in August explaining why this Clause is misguided and I invited the local government minister to provide the evidence to back this decision. [11] None has been forthcoming. Clause 57 is both an unnecessary and an unacceptable intervention in the detailed working arrangements of democratically elected local authorities.

16. For those who believe in local democracy this measure is wrong in both principle and practice. The committee system was introduced into English local government by the Municipal Corporation Act 1835. This legislation recognised the importance of moving away from closed municipal corporations towards bodies that would be far more accountable to local taxpayers (or ratepayers as they were then described). The historical record demonstrates that English local authorities have, for close to two centuries, achieved startling progress in tackling in an imaginative way a very wide range of societal problems – in environmental health, housing, economic development, education, social services, transport, culture, city planning and so on. These achievements have been accomplished by local councils operating a committee system of local governance – literally all of them up until 2000. Clause 57 pays no attention to these remarkable achievements.

17. Critics of the committee system may claim that, while it clearly served society well in the past, times have changed, and the model is no longer appropriate or effective. This would be an entirely false claim. In my international book Leading the Inclusive City I examine the performance of some of the most innovative cities in the world. [12] Following five years of research I identified 17 cities and localities in 14 countries, that were widely seen as breaking new ground in tackling the growing challenges facing modern societies. Some of the cities celebrated in my book have directly elected mayors – Portland, Oregon is a fine example. But the evidence shows that some of the best run cities in the world operate, right now, a committee system of local government. Here are just a couple of examples from my book.

Malmo

18. Earlier (paras 12-13) I mentioned how the Swedish approach to local governance delivers far better economic growth than the UK and that it outperforms our country on a wide range of social, environmental or civic indicators. All local authorities in Sweden operate a committee system of local government. Allow me to take one world leading example to drive home the point. In 1994 the civic leaders of Malmo were faced with the economic collapse of their city, a slump that was rather like Liverpool’s. The civic leaders had to come up with a radical shift from viewing their city as a ship building centre into something else. The elected councillors, working with a committee model of governance, accepted this challenge, and they have established Malmo as a leading European eco-city.

Copenhagen

19. In June, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, Copenhagen replaced Vienna as the world’s most liveable city. [13] Like all other local authorities in Denmark, it has a committee system of governance. Its achievements are rightly celebrated because of its people-centric approach, the vital role of all elected local councillors, its focus on sustainability and its very strong commitment to citizen participation. Additionally, Copenhagen has been recognised for its low crime rates and high levels of trust to the point that, in 2021, it was named as the safest city in the world. My book explains how civic leaders transformed a car-oriented, polluted city into an eco-friendly place in which five-year olds can now cycle without fear around the wonderful city centre. It is worth noting that the previous holder of this title (it is now second) is Vienna which also operates a committee system of governance.

20. Coming closer to home, two cities in England – Sheffield and Bristol – have conducted (at considerable public expense) referenda, in May 2021 and May 2022 respectively, in which citizens at large have voted in favour of having a committee system of governance for their city. It would, clearly, be a denial of the will of local people if the central state were to decide, without offering any evidence, or an opportunity for a new referendum, to introduce a Bill that overruled the results of these local referenda.

21. Removing this clause would be an important step in strengthening the Bill. It is entirely cost-free to do this. More important, it would signal that the government is not aiming to micromanage, in a completely unjustified way, the internal organisational arrangements of independently elected local authorities in England. The government should allow local authorities to retain and/or adopt a committee system of governance.

Recommendation 2): Delete Clause 57 from the Bill.

Conclusion

I thank the committee for considering the evidence presented in this statement and I hope that my two recommendations will be supported by the committee.

3 October 2025

[1] HM Government (2024) English Devolution White Paper. Foreword by the Deputy Prime Minister. 16 December.

[2] Runnymede (2024) Beyond crisis. Analysing responses to the racist riots. Policy Briefing. October.

[3] Jackson P. (2022) Pride in prejudice. Understanding Britain’s extreme right. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

[4] Malik K. (2025) ‘No one listens to us: the working-class despair fuelling the rise of the far right’. The Observer, 21September, p.30.

[5] Burns D., Hambleton R. and Hoggett P. (1994) The politics of decentralisation. Revitalising local democracy. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press; McLaverty P. (ed) (2002) Public participation and innovations in community governance. Abingdon: Routledge; Smith I., Lepine E. and Taylor M. (eds) (2007) Disadvantaged by where you live? Neighbourhood governance in contemporary urban policy. Bristol: Policy Press; Moulaert F., Swyngedouw E., Martinelli F. and Gonzalez S. (eds) (2012) Can neighbourhoods save the city? Abingdon: Routledge; Brownill S. and Bradley Q. (2017) Localism and neighbourhood planning. Power to the people? Bristol: Policy Press; Frontier Economics (2025) The evidence for neighbourhood-focussed regeneration. A report for the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods. London: Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods.

[6] Pope T., Dalton G. and Coggins M. (2022) Subnational government in England: An international comparison. London: Institute of Government.

[7] Hambleton R. (2024) ‘How to resist the threat from the far right’, Local Government Chronicle, 30 July.

[8] Hambleton R. (2016) English devolution. Learning lesson from international models of sub-national governance. June. London: Local Government Association.

[9] Hambleton R. (2017) ‘The super-centralisation of the English state – Why we need to move beyond the devolution deception’, Local Economy, 32 (1) pp3-13.

[10] Hambleton R. (2022) ‘Economic growth Swedish style’, Local Government Chronicle, 30 September.

[11] Hambleton R. (2025) ‘Show evidence for committee system abolition’, Local Government Chronicle, 26 August.

[12] Hambleton R. (2015) Leading the inclusive city. Place-based innovation for a bounded planet. Bristol: Policy Press.

[13] Economic Intelligence Unit (2025) Global liveability index. June. https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/global-liveability-index-2025/

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

Show evidence for committee system abolition

Posted on August 28, 2025 | Leave a comment

Robin Hambleton

This article was first published in Local Government Chronicle on 26/8/25: https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/governance-and-structure/robin-hambleton-show-evidence-for-committee-system-abolition-26-08-2025/

The government’s evidence-free proposals to abolish the committee system in English local government must be opposed by all those who care about local democracy, writes emeritus professor of city leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol.

In June, local government minister Jim McMahon announced proposals to abolish the committee system in English local government. 

Astonishingly, the minister offers no evidence to justify this unacceptable top-down intervention in the workings of our long-established system of local democracy.  

All we were told was that the committee system ‘can be unclear, duplicative, and wasteful, leading to slower, less efficient decision-making’.   

No evidence, just an assertion.

In fact, the evidence points the other way: the committee system has underpinned decades of remarkably successful practice in English local government, and international comparative research demonstrates that, right now, some of the best run local authorities in the world operate with a committee system.

Historical success

The committee system was introduced into English local democracy by the Municipal Corporation Act 1835.  This Act recognised the importance of moving away from closed municipal corporations towards bodies that would be far more accountable to local taxpayers (or ratepayers as they were then described).  

Think about it.  The committee system was introduced 190 years ago to strengthen local accountability, and it worked.

The historical record demonstrates, and this is incontrovertible, that English local authorities have, for close to two centuries, achieved startling progress in tackling in an imaginative way a very wide range of societal problems – in environmental health, economic development, housing, education, transport, culture, city planning and so on. 

In addition, elected local authorities have also strengthened the quality of democracy by expanding citizen involvement in decision-making in a remarkable variety of ways.

These achievements have been accomplished by local councils operating a committee system of local governance – literally all of them up until 2000.  Opponents of the committee system need to present evidence-based arguments explaining why these spectacular achievements of the committee system of local civic leadership are irrelevant.

International success

Critics of the committee system may claim that, while it clearly served society well in the past, times have changed, and the model is no longer appropriate or effective.  Wrong answer.

This is a false argument as the committee system continues to underpin the efforts of many local authorities in England, and countless successful local authorities in other countries.

In my international book Leading the Inclusive City I examine the performance of some of the most innovative cities in the world. 

Following five years of research I identified 17 cities and localities in 14 countries, that were widely seen as breaking new ground in tackling the growing challenges facing modern societies.

Some of the cities celebrated in my book have directly elected mayors – Portland, Oregon is a fine example. 

But ministers need to recognise the evidence shows that some of the best run cities in the world operate a committee system of local government.  Here are just a couple of examples.

Malmo

In these pages I have explained how the Swedish approach to local governance delivers far better economic growth than the UK.  More than that, it outperforms the UK on just about any social, environmental or civic indicator you can think of. 

All local authorities in Sweden operate a committee system of local government.

Let’s take one world leading example to drive home the point.  In 1994 the civic leaders of Malmo were faced with the economic collapse of their city, a slump that was rather like Liverpool’s.  The civic leaders had to come up with a radical shift from viewing their city as a ship building centre into something else.  The elected councillors accepted this challenge, and they established Malmo as a leading European eco-city.

Copenhagen

In June, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, Copenhagen replaced Vienna as the world’s most liveable city.

Yes, you guessed it: like all other local authorities in Denmark, it has a committee system of governance. 

Its achievements are rightly celebrated because of its people-centric approach, the vital role of all elected local councillors, its focus on sustainability and its very strong commitment to citizen participation.  Additionally, Copenhagen has been recognised for its low crime rates and high levels of trust to the point that, in 2021, it was named as the safest city in the world.

My book explains how civic leaders transformed a car-oriented, polluted city into an eco-friendly place in which five-year olds can now cycle without fear around the wonderful city centre. 

Follow the evidence

I invite Minister McMahon to provide LGC readers with answers to three simple questions:

  • What detailed research has your department carried out on the performance of the committee system of local governance in England?
  • What does this research reveal about the evidence both for and against the democratic performance of the committee system?
  • What are the findings of the research your department carried out on the performance of the committee system in other countries before you made your announcement on 24 June?

Robin Hambleton, emeritus professor of city leadership, the University of the West of England, Bristol. 

His latest book, Cities and Communities Beyond Covid-19. How Local Leadership Can Change Our Future for the Better, was published in 2020:

https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/cities-and-communities-beyond-covid-19

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

Westminster continues to undermine local autonomy

Posted on July 3, 2025 | Leave a comment

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.

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

How councils can strengthen civic engagement

Posted on January 15, 2024 | Leave a comment

Robin Hambleton

Robin originally published this article in Local Government Chronicle on 10/1/24

Given the widespread rise in societal tensions local councils can do more to promote effective participation in civic affairs, writes the emeritus professor of city leadership, University of the West of England, Bristol.

Just before Christmas, I attended a rather startling Bristol City Council meeting.  On 12 December 2023, the lord mayor had to suspend proceedings not once, but twice.

Social tensions in the chamber were so high that he had to ask city council security staff to move into the public gallery to help calm the febrile atmosphere.  Why were tensions so high in Bristol?

The two issues that caused such strife related to, firstly, a call from a group of Bristol citizens, many of whom clearly knew people living in Gaza City, who asked the city council to advocate a ceasefire in the Israeli/Palestine conflict, and, secondly, statements from citizens living in the Barton Hill high-rise flats, who were forced to evacuate in November because of alarming concerns about the structural safety of their homes, who asked if they would be able to return home for Christmas.

These two enormously important public issues clearly transcended party politics.  I was able to see from my vantage point in the public gallery above the council chamber that councillors from all parties sympathised to a very great extent with the views expressed by the many animated citizens sitting, and at times standing and shouting, next to me.

Participatory and representative democracy

Local authorities across the country should be praised for developing, over the years, many new ways of blending participatory democracy with representative democracy. 

Innovations with, for example, citizens’ assemblies, participatory budgeting, and co-production of public services have expanded.  Organisations like the Local Government Association and the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny have played a helpful role in facilitating the sharing of practical advice about these experiences.   

In some cases, local authorities have attempted to revitalise their full council meetings by creating space for citizen voices to contribute.  Thus, in 2000 Bristol City Council introduced a public forum space at the beginning of each council meeting during which individual citizens can submit public statements and/or ask public questions.

This approach – and similar practices have been developed by other local authorities – has the benefit of enabling citizens to contribute directly to local civic discourse.   Innovations of this kind can certainly enliven local democracy, but they also create challenges.

The rituals and ceremonies of council meetings have their basis in history.  The mayor, or lord mayor, usually enters with the mace, a symbol of the mayor’s authority as the ‘first citizen’ of the locality.  Council meetings express, then, a reassuring continuity. 

Enhancing citizen participation

Given the rising societal tensions now facing British society, I offer here three suggestions on how councillors could enhance citizen participation in civic affairs.

New settings for civic dialogue.

First, local authorities can become much more active in co-creating new civic spaces in which citizens and, indeed, young people who may not yet be recognised as formal citizens, can express their views on policy priorities.  Looking ahead, the ‘democratic offer’ that an elected local authority presents to citizens needs to break new ground.

In Bristol, under the leadership of Mayor Marvin Rees, the city council has, in the period since 2016, developed a prize-winning approach to inclusive city governance, known as the Bristol One City approach.

This strategy has been successful in bringing a very wide range of civic voices (public, private, trade union, non-profit and community) into the problem-solving capacity of our city. 

The city gatherings, which are held twice a year and attract over 300 participants, enable diverse voices, including the voices of young people, to participate directly in the governance of Bristol.  They not only revise and update the 30-year One City Plan and decide on top priorities for civic action in the forthcoming year, but they also initiate numerous citizen-led initiatives to tackle specific policy concerns.

Experiment with existing council meetings.

Second, local authorities should revisit the way they construct and conduct meetings, including their full council meetings.  Is it worth asking if the council meetings in your authority are readily perceived by citizens as truly welcoming spaces? 

For example, who decides on the agendas for council meetings?  Do citizens have a voice in this process?  Do agendas focus on the needs of the locality across the board, or the narrow business of the council?  Does your council have a public forum space within each council meeting enabling citizens to stand up and ask a question that the council is committed to answering in writing?

Strengthen the power of elected local authorities.

The civic vibrancy of a locality, as well as the potential for successful local economic development, is shaped to a very significant degree by the amount of political and fiscal power exercised by the elected council.

Countries where local government has solid constitutional protection and significant fiscal power are far more successful than the UK, not just in achieving public policy objectives, but also in fostering active participation in local affairs. 

In Sweden, for example, the voter turnout in local elections has been running at around 80% for many years, which compares with an average figure for the UK of around 32%. The evidence from international research shows that countries that value local democracy and encourage citizen participation in civic affairs, also deliver far better economic, social, and environmental outcomes. 

In 2024, given a General Election is looming, UK citizens should be encouraged to ask candidates for political office in Westminster: ‘What are your specific proposals for boosting the power of local councils and enlivening civic democracy in our country?’

 Robin Hambleton, emeritus professor of city leadership, the University of the West of England, Bristol.  His latest book, Cities and Communities Beyond Covid-19. How Local Leadership Can Change Our Future for the Better, was published in 2020:

https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/cities-and-communities-beyond-covid-19

The original article can be found here: https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/governance-and-structure/robin-hambleton-how-councils-can-strengthen-civic-engagement-10-01-2024/

Robin Hambleton: How councils can strengthen civic engagement

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

Why we must reverse forty years of super-centralisation

Posted on July 20, 2023 | Leave a comment

Robin Hambleton originally published this article in Local Government Chronicle on 18/7/23

Giving a significant boost to local government tax raising power is the key to restoring trust in politics and bringing about sustainable economic growth, writes the emeritus professor of city leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol.

Robin Hambleton, emeritus professor of city leadership, University of the West of England, Bristol.

Forty years ago, in the summer of 1983, local democracy in the UK started to tumble off a cliff. 

In a startling move, the Conservative Government published a White Paper proposing that local citizens should no longer have the freedom to tax themselves as they wished.

Published on 1 August 1983, the Rates White Paper came as a profound shock to Conservative local government leaders, let alone politicians representing other political parties.  The Government soon found itself struggling to persuade senior Tory local government leaders to tone down their angry opposition to the government’s direct attack on the central founding principle of local democracy.

The Conservative chairmen of the Association of District Councils (ADCs) and Association of County Councils (ACCs), remember this was in the days before the creation of the Local Government Association, were not deterred by the ‘behind the scenes’ pressures imposed on them by Tory ministers to fall into line. 

Grave constitutional implications

They were very upset indeed.  Ian McCallum, Conservative chairman of the ADC, said the Government’s plans ‘represent state intervention on a scale unprecedented in this country.  They smack of Big Brother, on the threshold of 1984’.  John Lovill, Tory chairman of the ACC said his association would be campaigning ‘hell for leather’ against the proposed bill.

These local leaders rightly drew attention to the grave constitutional implications of the Government’s desire to undermine the independent power of elected local governments in our country.

Sadly, the fervent objections of elected local government leaders from all parties were to no avail.  Patrick Jenkin, the then Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, and the originator of the totally misguided poll tax that ended the political career of Margaret Thatcher, ignored all of them. 

The passing of the Rates Act 1984 meant that local electorates in England and Wales would no longer be able to vote for expenditure and rating policies of their own choice, an arrangement that immediately set UK local government apart from local authorities in other western democracies.

In the years since then the powers of local government have been eroded to the point where the evidence shows that the UK is now the most centralised country in Europe.

‘Devolution deception’

Endless ministerial announcements, in the period since 2010, about so-called ‘city deals’ and ‘devolution deals’, and the like, a national narrative that I have described elsewhere as a ‘devolution deception’, should not distract us from the extreme centralisation of power that is continuing to take place.

These behind closed door deals, and misleading claims about so-called ‘devolution’, cannot disguise the fact that right now, in the UK, around 80% of all spending decisions, and around 95% of all tax decisions, are made centrally rather than locally.  This is entirely unacceptable in a country that claims to have a modern, responsive democracy.

With the public realm in a state of collapse across the country, with increasing levels of spatial inequality, and with very low levels of economic growth, it is time to reverse the super-centralisation of power within the UK state. 

The first point to recognise is that the UK is now a strange outlier when compared with other advanced economies.  Countries that have decided not to crush local democracy are outperforming the UK on just about every economic, social, and environmental indicator you can think of. 

By way of example, I recently explained in these pages that in Sweden, a country in which elected local governments enjoy full constitutional protection from an overbearing central state, economic growth is much better than in the UK. 

Moreover, Swedish environmental policies to address the climate crisis are far more advanced and, not surprisingly, the country has no need for food banks as UK levels of grinding inequality would never be tolerated.

Promising prospects 

The good news is that solid evidence supporting the case for giving the fiscal power of elected local authorities a truly dramatic boost is mounting.  The wide-ranging report by former PM, Gordon Brown, A New Britain: Renewing our democracy and rebuilding our economy, published in December 2022, sets out radical proposals for devolving new economic powers to elected local authorities.

Keir Starmer, in his New Year’s speech, picked up on themes Brown had presented and emphasised a ‘Take Back Control’ message stating: ‘We will spread control out of Westminster. Devolve new powers over employment support, transport, energy, climate change, housing, culture, childcare provision and how councils run their finances’.

While the speech did not set out any specific proposals relating to fiscal devolution, clearly a disappointment to many in local government, it offered promising prospects.

The need to rebalance local/central power relations is not going to go away, and it is encouraging to see that pro local democracy think tanks are now making a range of helpful contributions to the debate.  For example, Jessica Studdert, in her April 2023 paper on Fiscal Devolution for New Local, outlines suggestions not just on how to strengthen local fiscal power, but also on how to deliver a solidarity system to ensure equalisation between areas to ensure no places are left behind.

At this important time in our national politics, it is worth remembering that opinion poll evidence consistently shows that councillors are trusted more that MPs and government ministers to make decisions about local services.

Local government leaders should not become absorbed in the minutiae of potential, so-called ‘devolution deals’, for their area.  Rather they should keep their eyes on the main prize, which is to bring about a radical rebalancing of local/central power relations in Britain.

As I explain in my recent book on Cities and communities beyond COVID-19, it is now essential to bring about a major expansion of place-based power in the UK, hopefully to equate with the level of local power taken for granted in other western democracies.

Robin Hambleton, emeritus professor of city leadership, the University of the West of England, Bristol.  His latest book, Cities and Communities Beyond Covid-19. How Local Leadership Can Change Our Future for the Better, was published in 2020.

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Economic growth Swedish style

Posted on December 6, 2022 | Leave a comment

Robin Hambleton originally published this piece in Local Government Chronicle on 30/9/22

Sweden’s very strong system of local government helps it deliver far better economic growth than the UK, writes the emeritus professor of city leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol.

Robin-Hambleton-300x200.jpg

Robin Hambleton, emeritus professor of city leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol

If central government wants to bring about strong economic growth whilst also levelling up the country it should be drawing lessons from countries that have already done this.

An excellent example is provided by Sweden – a prosperous country that has for the past 20 years or so operated at around 12%-20% above the average prosperity level for OECD countries.

How does Sweden compare with the UK?

OECD figures on productivity per head show Sweden’s economic performance is far better than the UK. Thus, in 2021 the Swedish GDP per hour worked was 107 from a 2015 baseline of 100, compared with the UK’s 103.

Sweden also outperforms the UK on a whole raft of indicators relating to tackling climate change.  For example, OECD environmental indicators show that in 2020 the Swedish greenhouse gas emission per capita was 4.5 tonnes of CO2 which compares with a figure of six tonnes for the UK.

Most important, income inequality in Sweden is much lower than in the UK. OECD data on the Gini coefficient, an internationally respected measure of income inequality, shows the UK, with a figure of 0.37 (in 2019), is one of the most unequal countries in Europe, whereas Sweden, with a figure of 0.28 (in 2020), is one of the most equal.

Zarah Sultana, Labour MP for Coventry South, attracted headlines in April when she issued an eye-catching tweet noting that “there are now more foodbanks in Britain than McDonalds restaurants”.

She was correct and, sad to say, the situation is now even more troubling. A House of Commons Library research briefing published in July indicates that there are now well over 2,500 foodbanks in the UK. This is close to double the total number of McDonald’s locations, which stands today at a little under 1,400.

What can we learn from a society that is outperforming the UK on all fronts, a society that has no need for food banks?

Insights from Swedish local government

Sweden has a strong state that intervenes boldly in society to improve the quality of life. Interestingly, the central state is relatively small when compared with the local state – the main job of providing public services is rightly seen as being the role of local government.

As the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR) (equivalent to the Local Government Association) points out: “Since local self-government makes it possible to design services in different ways, it is possible to find flexible solutions that are appropriate for a particular municipality or county council.”

Local self-government, including the right to tax, is enshrined in the Swedish constitution. This ensures central government cannot ride roughshod over the heads of local voters.

Local authorities in Sweden have immense fiscal power – they raise around 70% of their revenue from local taxes, including a local income tax. This proportion compares with around 50% for English local authorities raised via the council tax.

There is, of course, no question of the Swedish central state capping the tax raising powers of elected local authorities. That would be instantly ruled out as unconstitutional.

The Swedish justification for very strong local government is twofold. The political argument is that powerful elected local authorities can represent local people and act as a robust barrier against national authoritarian rule.

The managerial argument stems from a desire to deliver really cost-effective public services. Why burden citizens with all the costs of a massive, over centralised state when elected local authorities can do most things for themselves?

The Swedish system not only delivers outstanding services, it also enjoys an impressive level of democratic legitimacy. Voter turnout in recent UK local elections has been in the region of 31% to 39%. In Sweden voter turnout in local elections in recent years has been over 80%, although they take place at the same time as national elections.

Lessons for the UK

The evidence from Sweden demonstrates that strong local authorities can play a major role in tackling the pressing challenges that societies now face – including the cost-of-living crisis, the climate emergency, and the importance of including excluded groups in social and economic recovery from the devastation imposed by covid.

Three lessons for the UK emerge from Swedish experience.

First, the international evidence, not just from Sweden, shows that really strong local governments can play a pivotal role in meeting the complex challenges local communities across the world now face.

Second, if economic growth and levelling up are to be delivered, the UK state needs to intervene in an intelligent way that is responsive to the different needs of different places. This means giving the political and fiscal power of all elected local authorities in the UK a truly transformational boost.

Third, an independent constitutional convention on the governance of the UK should be set up as soon as possible.

It should examine the way power has been removed from localities over the years, take evidence from civil society, trade unions, businesses, voluntary organisations and public service leaders, learn from local democracy abroad, and set out bold proposals to rebalance the local/central power structure of our country.

As Sweden shows, it is not difficult to identify how to improve the social, economic and environmental performance of the UK. What is needed is political will.

Robin Hambleton, emeritus professor of city leadership, the University of the West of England, Bristol. His latest book, Cities and Communities Beyond Covid-19: How Local Leadership Can Change Our Future for the Better, was published in 2020.

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Greg Clark should return to his old devolution diagnosis

Posted on July 28, 2022 | Leave a comment

Robin Hambleton published this piece in Local Government Chronicle on 26/7/22


The new levelling up secretary’s 2003 analysis of over-centralisation in the UK could be used to make a lasting mark on the future governance of our country, writes Robin Hambleton, emeritus professor of city leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol.

I send congratulations to Greg Clark on his appointment as secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities earlier this month. For those of us who care about local democracy in our country the good news is that, early in his career, Mr Clark demonstrated a well-honed and sophisticated understanding of the dangers of centralising too much power in Whitehall.

In 2003, when he was Director of Policy for the Conservative party, he co-wrote, with James Mather, a blistering attack on Labour’s centralised approach to government. Their report, Total Politics. Labour’s Command State, provides a lucid analysis of the four main drivers of centralisation: targets imposed from Whitehall, centrally controlled funding, bureaucratic audit and inspection, and rigid terms and conditions.

Lost wisdom

Clark and Mather concluded that it was essential to create local communities where: ‘Local government is directly accountable to ordinary people, not lost in the complexities of Whitehall’ (p. 100). Sounds good.
The bad news is that, when he was communities’ secretary in 2015-16, Mr Clark seemed to lose sight of the wisdom articulated by his younger self.

In practice, and this was startling to witness, he presided over, what can only be described as, an extraordinary super-centralisation of power in Whitehall – one that has not only ripped power away from ‘ordinary people’, but also landed local leaders in a bewilderingly complex process of ongoing, and entirely wasteful, negotiations of ‘complexities’ with civil servants in Whitehall.

Take the misnamed Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. Those involved in setting up the new ‘combined authorities’ in 2017, and ever since, were required to engage in the preparation of Parliamentary Orders documenting, in mind-boggling detail, how each combined authority would operate.

Devolution in name only

These new arrangements, and the whole ‘devolution deal’ approach that Mr Clark promoted, extended ministerial control over the minute details of how individual places in particular parts of England would be governed. It made the Blair Labour Government’s approach to local government of the 2000s appear almost entirely hands off.

The central problem with the Conservative government’s approach to devolution in England during this last ten years or so is that it is not, in fact, devolution at all. On the basis of their own unpublished preferences, ministers have been picking and choosing which localities are to benefit from these various deals. Ministers decide the criteria, ministers decide the content of each deal, and ministers decide what funding will flow to the selected areas. To suggest that this model of decision-making has anything to do
with devolution represents a misuse of the English language.

Various academic studies have shown that this super-centralisation of decision-making in Whitehall, which is entirely out of step with other western democracies, has not only done great damage to local government, but also paved the way for central government practices that border on the corrupt.

For example, it was claimed by ministers that the Towns Fund, announced in 2019, and the Levelling Up Fund, launched in 2021, were designed to allocate billions of pounds to localities selected on the basis of local need. However, independent academic analysis by, for example, Chris Hanretty at the University of London, demonstrates, in detail, how ministers took decisions that were, in practice, biased to favour Conservative marginal seats.

Rebalancing power

His important paper, ‘The pork barrel politics of the Towns Fund’, published in the respected academic journal, Political Quarterly, last year concluded that:

‘The findings call into question ministers’ commitment, under the Nolan principle, to take decisions “impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.”’(1)

This finding is explosive. Go past the diplomatic academic language and recognise that rigorous academic research demonstrates that Conservative ministers clearly did not act impartially and that, moreover, they paid scant regard to scientific evidence relating to social needs.

Whilst the title of his department now no longer includes the words ‘local government’, a stain that will remain on the Conservative Party until the department is renamed, the most important challenge now facing Mr Clark is to consider how to level up, or rebalance, power between local and central government.

The international evidence shows that countries with very strong systems of local governance have coped far better with current challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic, than centralised states. I explore this theme in my recent book, Cities and Communities Beyond Covid-19. How Local Leadership Can Change Our Future for the Better, and I also explain how to rebalance power in the UK.

The uncertainties posed by the current Conservative Party leadership contest certainly provide troubling challenges for Mr Clark. But he has an opportunity. I encourage him to revisit his 2003 clear-sighted analysis of local/central relations and take steps to bolster the political and fiscal power of all elected local authorities in the UK.


1) Hanretty C. (2021) ‘The pork barrel politics of the Towns Fund’, Political Quarterly, Vol. 92 (1), 7-13.

Robin Hambleton is Emeritus Professor of City Leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol. His latest book, Cities and Communities Beyond Covid-19. How Local Leadership Can Change Our Future for the Better, was published in 2020. https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/cities-and-communities-beyond-covid-1

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

Two minus one equals… none?

Posted on March 29, 2022 | Leave a comment

Why I won’t be voting to abolish the city mayor because we have a metro mayor

David Sweeting

Some have made the argument that as now Bristol has a metro mayor, there is no longer any need for a city mayor. That’s the opinion of George Ferguson, Bristol’s first directly elected mayor, Stephen Williams, former Lib Dem councillor, MP, and Minister, and Mark Weston, leader of Bristol’s Conservative group on the council. Why have a city mayor when the metro mayor can just as well speak up for Bristol?

However, the metro mayor occupies a precarious position, and no matter how effective and talented the people who occupy that post might be, they might not be around for very long. Two lessons from history support this view.

First, arrangements for sub-regional governance in England can be short-lived. In 1974 the Conservative government of the day created six Metropolitan County Councils in the West Midlands, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and Tyne and Wear. It’s no coincidence that several of those same places have also recently created metro mayors. Only 12 years later the next Conservative government of the day abolished them. A similar fate awaited Labour’s Regional Assemblies. Created in a wave of optimism in 1998, they were all gone by 2010, abolished by the last Labour government of that period. The message is clear: regional and sub-regional arrangements in England don’t last, and I wouldn’t want to bet on any of the current combined authorities surviving the whims of successive central governments.

Second, arrangements for sub-regional governance in the Bristol area are fragile. The West of England Combined Authority (WECA) comprises three of the four Councils that Used to Be Avon (or CUBA, as the local governance in-joke goes), minus North Somerset, who didn’t want to join, despite their leader signing the original devolution agreement. Avon County Council was created in 1974 by the same Act of Parliament that created the six metropolitan counties that were abolished in 1986. Avon lasted a little longer, until 1995. It was abolished by the Conservative government of the day as part of its review of local government, at least in part at the behest of the councils in Bristol and Bath, fed up with having the artificial Avon County Council above them. Sound familiar? How long before the constituent authorities get fed up with working with WECA, and perhaps start to agitate for its abolition?

I’m all in favour of a metro mayor for the West of England. They clearly perform a vitally important strategic governance role for the area. What I’m not in favour of is saying that because we’ve got a metro mayor, we don’t need a city mayor. By all means vote to abolish the city mayor if you don’t think it’s a good idea – and there are many strong arguments for and against here –  but my view is that those arguments don’t include because we’ve now got a metro mayor. It’s perfectly possible that if we vote to remove one mayor, we’ll end up with none at all, because we might not have a metro mayor for very long. And who would speak up for Bristol then?   

The Bristol Referendum 2022: Thinking through the options is available at www.bristolcivicleadership.net.

David is senior lecturer in urban studies at the University of Bristol

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Elected mayors deliver ‘direct democratic accountability’ academic claims

Posted on March 27, 2022 | Leave a comment

Robin Hambleton

Article first published on Bristol Live on 18 March 2022

In a referendum on 5 May 222, Bristol citizens will make an important decision about the way our city is governed. 

They will be asked to choose between retaining the existing directly elected mayor model of governance, which was introduced in 2012, or to opt for a committee model of governance, which was last used in Bristol in 2000.

What does the experience of cities abroad tell us about the value of directly electing a city leader?

In some democracies, for example, the USA, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, directly elected mayors have been a central feature of local government for over a century. 

More interesting is the fact that, over the last thirty years or so, a growing number of other countries, including Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Slovakia, have chosen to discard earlier models of decision-making and introduce directly elected mayors for all their local authorities. 

Why is the mayoral model of city governance rising in popularity across the world?

Reformers in these various countries explain that directly elected mayors have been introduced because they can provide highly visible, strong, and accountable leadership.  Their experience tells them that the direct election process can strengthen local democracy and provide local communities with a leadership advantage. 

But what, exactly, are the benefits of direct election?  Here, by drawing on my international research on city governance, I highlight three closely related arguments that have proved to be persuasive in these different countries.

First, direct election delivers direct democratic accountability.  A simple question arises for Bristol citizens: Do you want to choose the leader of your city, or would you prefer to have somebody else choose your leader for you?

When voting directly for a city mayor each citizen decides who is going to represent their interests. In addition, under the mayoral model, all citizens of Bristol retain the direct power to remove a mayor who does not deliver for them. 

Second, direct election delivers unparalleled legitimacy to lead.  As part of my research on how to improve city leadership I have interviewed many directly elected mayors in different countries, including two who have also served as a council leader in England before they were elected as a mayor.

Sir Peter Soulsby, Mayor of Leicester since 2011, and Sir Steve Bullock, Mayor of Lewisham (2002-2018), both explained to me that the process of direct election meant that, as mayor, they were seen by all stakeholders in an entirely different light.  They were no longer seen as ‘leader of the council’ but as the authoritative ‘leader of the city’.

Drawing on their direct experience of both roles, they stressed that the legitimacy provided by direct election was far superior to the legitimacy provided by councillors deciding who should be the leader of the council.

This is important because direct election enhances the soft power of the city leader.  It boosts their ability to bring stakeholders together from inside and outside the city council in efforts to address the challenges facing the city.

Third, direct election enhances leadership effectiveness.  I document many examples of successful mayoral leadership from cities around the world in my book on Leading the Inclusive City. 

One of these is Freiburg, Germany, a city that has established itself as a world leader in how to promote green values and cultivate wise decision-making relating to city development.  The city, long recognised as a foundational player in the creation of the Green Party in the 1970s, has a directly elected mayor. 

Under mayoral leadership Freiburg has developed a far-sighted land/use transport strategy, one that pioneered the 15-minute neighbourhood, meaning that most essential services are available to people without the need to use a private car.

I encourage all Bristol citizens to vote in the referendum in May.  This will be an unusual visit to the polls because the decision we are asked to make is not about individual candidates or political parties.  Rather, it concerns how we want to govern ourselves.  In my view the arguments in favour of retaining the direct election of our city leader, with appropriate checks and balances, are compelling.

Robin Hambleton is Emeritus Professor of City Leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol.

He is a co-author of a new report from the Bristol Civic Leadership Research Project on the governance of Bristol:

Sweeting D., Hambleton R., and Oliver T. (2022) The Bristol referendum 2022. Thinking through the options. School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol.

Click to access the-bristol-referendum-2022.-thinking-through-the-options.pdf

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

The Bristol referendum 2022: Thinking through the options

Posted on March 6, 2022 | Leave a comment

The co-authors of this contribution are members of the Bristol Civic Leadership Research Project: David Sweeting, Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies at the School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol; Robin Hambleton, Emeritus Professor of City Leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol; and Thom Oliver, Associate Lecturer, University of the West of England, Bristol.

In a referendum on 5 May 2022, the citizens of Bristol will make an important decision about the way our city is governed. 

Citizens will be asked to choose between retaining the existing mayoral model of governance, which was introduced into Bristol in 2012, or to opt for a committee system of decision-making, which was last used in Bristol in 2000. In a new report, called The Bristol referendum 2022: Thinking through the options, we consider:

  • What exactly are these two ways of running a city?
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of these two models?
  • How could the models be designed to enable Bristol to respond to the current challenges the city now faces?

This is the latest report from the Bristol Civic Leadership Project (BCLP). This project, which brings together city governance experts from our two local universities, has been examining the impact of mayoral governance on the city since 2012. 

Research findings on mayoral governance and the committee system

Our research has shown that the introduction of mayoral governance has had many benefits for Bristol. Opinion research carried out by the BCLP before and after the introduction of a directly elected mayor – in 2012, 2014 and 2018 – indicates that the citizens of Bristol felt that the leadership of the city became far more visible. Civic leaders agreed that the mayoral model enhanced the visibility of the city leader, and they also felt that the mayoral model had improved the leadership of the city. 

Detailed investigation over the last ten years has also revealed that civic leaders in the city, in the public, private and community sectors, as well as citizens at large, take the view that Bristol’s first two directly elected mayors, Mayor Ferguson (2012-2016) and Mayor Rees (2016-2024), have both been successful in developing a positive vision for the future of the city and that the mayoral model meant that the city was much better represented in national and international settings.

On the downside BCLP research has also shown that, following the introduction of mayoral governance, many councillors felt that their role in city governance became unnecessarily restricted. There was also concern amongst civic leaders that too much power had become concentrated in the office of the mayor. Our survey research also suggests that citizens’ views on the timeliness of, and trust in, decision-making have not been improved by the introduction of mayoral governance in Bristol.

This new report also reviews experience with the committee system used in Bristol and across local government in Britain up to 2000. Supporters of the committee system argued that it enabled local government to be both effective and democratic, and that it provided councillors with influential roles in decision-making. 

However, in a report published by the Bristol Local Democracy Commission in 2001, major criticisms of the committee system were identified. The Commission found that there was no clear and accountable leadership, that important decisions were not subject to proper and effective scrutiny, and that a lot of time and effort was absorbed to no great effect in committee meetings.

Where next for city governance in Bristol?

Current legislation means that the referendum will fix the governance system of Bristol for ten years, from 2024 to 2034. It is a hugely significant decision. This new report discusses a range of issues for citizens to consider and here we highlight three important themes.

First, the literature on city leadership suggests that the way city governance is organised can have an important impact, not just on whether a city council is able to be effective in meeting the many complex issues they face, but also on the democratic vitality and inclusiveness of decision-making in their city. 

It follows that all the citizens of Bristol should be encouraged to consider which of these two models of governance will help the city respond to the major challenges now facing the city. These challenges include: responding to the public health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic; revitalising the economy of Bristol in the face of economic downturn; addressing the global climate emergency; and addressing increasing social, economic and racial inequality in our city.

Second, key democratic questions emerge in this debate. What are the advantages and disadvantages of enabling citizens to directly elect the city leader? What are the pros and cons of the committee system, where the council leader is selected by councillors? As part of our research on mayoral governance, we have long argued for stronger roles for councillors within the mayoral system. Adopting a committee system gives councillors clear roles in decision-making. In our report, we consider these and other matters, and include consideration of the ways that the models shape political leadership, their impacts on accountability and the ways that they affect the representation of people locally and the city externally.

Third, given the momentous significance of the May referendum for the future governance of Bristol the report recommends the establishment of an independent Bristol Governance Commission. This new commission, which would need to include representatives from across the voluntary, community, trade union, business, public and university sectors should be charged with the task of considering the best way to improve the governance of the City of Bristol. 

This new commission should be set up without delay to take evidence, to consider experiences with successful city governance elsewhere in the world and to make recommendations to Bristol City Council. 

The outcome of the Bristol Referendum in May 2022 is best seen not as the end of a debate about city leadership in Bristol, but the beginning of a civic conversation on how to improve the quality of city governance in our city.

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized