Why democracy is in danger in Bristol

This comment column is written by Cllr Gary Hopkins, group leader of the Liberal Democrats at Bristol City Council

When the referendum over whether Bristol should have an elected mayor took place in 2012, we were told by those campaigning in support of the mayoral model that Bristol would directly benefit from bringing democracy closer to the people. This has not happened. 

We were also told by some of the practical benefits of greater powers being delegated from Westminster if Bristol said “yes”. This was always called into question and the promise has not been kept.

So why is democracy in danger? No system of local government can deliver everything that everybody wants all the time. But democracy should aim to satisfy the majority of needs and aspirations of its citizens without oppressing the minority, and should involve people in the process to enable this to happen. 

For many years we have elected MPs who come together to form a government. We do not however elect a president. For many years councillors in Bristol have come together, representing a wide range of communities. Although different priorities have been pursued by different administrations, all communities have had a voice and an impact through their local representatives, who work together to deliver the broader strategy. 

This has now changed under the mayoral system. We no longer have a variety of voices and communities feeding in to decisions. 

The cabinet is of course window dressing with some making a positive effort to help, others not even trying, but none empowered with taking decisions. They are in effect yes men. 

Council officers meanwhile have served Bristol citizens through a variety of administrations. It is telling that many of them now refer to the mayor’s administration as the “regime” and that a representative of a major, respected media organisation compared the current state of how Bristol City Council is run as like dealing with communist China. 

On the arena, residents’ parking schemes and the Green Capital the Liberal Democrats have not been afraid to ask the tough questions. But the mayor has repeatedly reacted to the questions and scrutiny with anger and a refusal to cooperate. 

The mayor should treat the overview and scrutiny process as an asset. Instead he gives the impression of someone who sees scrutiny as an obstacle which needs to be avoided. 

The mayor’s preferred communication to councillors is one-on-one meetings. He has come up with some curious and cryptic accusations in these meetings; he accused me of secretly plotting to get a Labour mayor elected in 2016. Behind closed doors and away from the eye of the electorate, the mayor’s public demeanour quickly turns into a more hostile approach. 

In these meetings, the mayor suggests that it is wiser to raise our concerns in private or preferably not at all, rather than out in the open. But it is not in our residents’ interests to brush matters under the carpet just to help spare the mayor embarrassment. The mayor’s insistence on doing so shows a complete disregard for due process, transparency and local democracy and is an insight into how he thinks he can abuse his legal powers.  

My party has made clear how uneasy we feel about these meetings because there is no record or minutes available to the public to know what has been said. The mayor’s insistence on closed doors is not transparent, it’s not grown-up politics and it is bad for democracy. 

The mayor’s insistence on secret meetings is having a wider impact on the culture at the council. For example, there was no public debate on the new financial estimates associated with the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre Metrobus Scheme at cabinet earlier this month. Reports have surfaced that the scheme’s costs have soared by more than £9 million since the summer. But the appendix to the cabinet report outlining the costs was only available to cabinet members and was not available to the public or councillors.

It is a shame that Bristol has found itself in this position. It is why we have started a petition to call on the government to grant the citizens of Bristol the right to demand a local referendum on whether to retain or abolish the post of elected mayor. Bristol is the only place in England with an elected mayor that does not have this right. We feel residents should have an opportunity to look again at how their city is run, if they want to.

If you look at the comments from people that have signed the petition already there are a wide variety of reasons for why they have signed it; from a large number who are angry with the mayor to those who simply demand the democratic right to choose. How much is this public anger a result of the individual or the mayoral system? 

The petition also has cross-party support from all three major parties but some members fail to support it openly in public. What are they afraid of? We will find out when the matter is debated at City Hall in 2015.