‘The feeling is growing that too much power has been put in the hands of one person’

Everyone expects Labour’s Marvin Rees to win again in Bristol’s mayoral election on May 6. Ladbrokes have him as the 10-1 ‘on’ favourite. He is followed by Sandy Hore-Ruthven for the Green Party, whose odds are 6-1 against.

Yet enthusiasm for Rees isn’t as strong now as in 2016, when the Corbyn surge doubled his previous total from 31,259 votes to 68,750 votes, while George Ferguson barely moved his total from 37,353 votes to 39,577 votes.

Worries about what’s seen as Rees’ authoritarianism, and unwillingness to listen to his electors, are common.

Rees has adopted a governance system called “One City”, with six boards which represent different facets of the city’s life. But the boards are entirely appointed by the mayor through the City Office.

Bristol’s 70 elected councillors have been relegated to deciding planning applications, local CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) and s106 decisions, voting on the annual budget, and asking awkward questions (“scrutiny”). They have only minor other roles.

One City boards consist of academics, business leaders, and people linked to the mayor’s political networks from around the city.

This sounds fine until you realise they mostly have no actual power – they can mostly only recommend. But the key problem is that people who are not sympathetic to the mayor are not appointed. Those who become critical or awkward can at any time be removed. Ideas that the mayor does not approve of are not welcome.

One of Marvin Rees’ key election pledges was the formation of a ‘City Office’ – photo: Bristol24/7

The problem with this structure is obvious. Quite aside from being undemocratic, citizens cannot get ideas through to the mayor. Power is extraordinarily centralised. To communicate with the mayor you need to belong to one of his political networks, or be invited by him to sit on a board.

The mayor never appears in public without questions being pre-scripted or (alternatively) being in control of the microphone. Under him there are no US-style “town hall” meetings at which anyone can speak. His message is at all times rightly controlled.

One department which has expanded in Bristol (in an era of cuts) under the current administration is the city’s public relations department. The PR department sends out a continuous stream of “city-happy” messages, many of them referencing One City. These are purportedly for the common good but of course all implicitly reference Rees, who continuously reminds the public that he created One City.

Mayor Rees’ isolation behind a wall of PR may be why increasingly odd ideas have emerged unfiltered from the mayor’s office.

The centre of Bristol is gradually being covered with high rises, buildings which few except Rees want.  The shovel-ready arena was cancelled, against the vote of every councillor, although its location would have encouraged walking and cycling and city centre shopping and eating out.

An arena had been planned for Arena Island, before it was scrapped by Rees and his cabinet. Image: Bristol City Council

Now there is a plan to run a dual carriageway up the Avon to near the Suspension Bridge, which again is being pushed with no consultation.  The mayor is visibly “getting stuff done” without seriously considering the consequences, or listening to input.

Mayor Rees appears to believe that people who criticise his policies always do so for self-seeking political reasons, or for other reasons which can be discounted. He will not engage intellectually, he will not consider alternative evidence, he will not accord those who criticise his ideas the benefit of the doubt, he believes that their motives are always questionable. He knows what is right and what is wrong, and that is that.

The resignation statement of the latest of five Labour councillors to resign because of bullying, Jo Sergeant, noted that Rees sees local councillors as an “annoying inconvenience” and has “no respect” for any members other than those Labour individuals in his “inner circle”.

She said he set up the City Office and One City Boards as an “alternative council” to make policy in a way that “circumvents democratic process”. She describes the Bristol Labour party as being “focused on power for power’s sake and beset with a culture of fear and bullying”.

Former Labour councillor Jo Sergeant launched a stinging attack on Rees before crossing the floor of City Hall to join the Green Party. Photo: Jo Sergeant

The mayor’s relations with opposition councillors have been even worse than those with members of his own party. Councillors emerge from the council chamber shaking with rage and humiliation after the mayor, who controls microphone time while others’ responses are strictly time-limited, insults and condescends to them.

One aspect of Bristol’s total centralisation of power is that the administration keeps decisions secret until the last possible moment.  Why isn’t clear – no rationale is given – but it makes local participatory democracy impossible.  This secretiveness is repeated in every consultation on the built environment held under Rees.

Typically the public competition for the most important site in Bristol – Canon’s Marsh – was held in secret, and decided in secret.  But when questioned the mayor said that it wasn’t secret, merely confidential.

What leader does not allow his citizens to see the submissions for an architectural competition affecting the most prominent site in a beautiful, historic city?

Secretiveness also makes the work of the scrutiny committees impossible. With little scrutiny, the administration has been financially accident-prone.

Nine candidates are vying for the role of mayor, which Montagu-Pollock has reservations about. All photos: Aphra Evans

The city’s power distribution company Bristol Energy, started under Rees’ predecessor, was allowed to build up more than £50m in losses, although opposition councillors had been warning against continuing to invest since 2016. The directors who sat on the Bristol Energy board collectively received over half a million annually; and one had a payout of £250,000.

The mayor’s authoritarianism has now put on the agenda a question: should the elected mayoral system be abandoned?

In reality, the system has pros and cons.

If the mayor’s visibility is the aim, the system has been successful in Bristol: Bristol’s mayor is all over the world, attending conferences and receiving awards. But it would seem likely that many Bristolians value their ability to participate in the democratic process more than they value the visibility of their mayor.

The feeling is growing that too much power has been put in the hands of one person, that locals cannot get heard.

Matthew Montagu-Pollock is a campaigner against tall buildings in Bristol. A longer version of this article is available at Bristol Commentary.

Main photo: Bristol24/7 / YouTube

Read more: Your chance to quiz Bristol’s nine mayoral candidates