On 3rd May, there will be a referendum on whether Bristol is to have an elected mayor. Below I try to give a detailed explanation of what's being proposed, and some of the arguments for/against which have been expressed.
How does the Council currently work?
Bristol residents elect 70 councillors. Those 70 councillors elect one of their number to be Leader, who then appoints other councillors to form a Cabinet. The Leader/Cabinet is responsible for all executive decision making on behalf of the Council. In practice, the Leader comes from the political party with a majority of councillors (because no other party is big enough to outvote them). Where no party has an overall majority, the result is less certain - in order to be Leader, a councillor will need the support of more than just their own party colleagues. (This has been the case in Bristol for much of the last decade).
Once the Council has elected a Leader, it then is able to scrutinise the way they are doing the job. However, it has no power to control the decisions which are made. If the Leader/Cabinet makes an unpopular decision, the only option available to the full Council to change that decision is to remove the Leader from office and elect somebody new. (There is a process called 'call in' which allows the decision to be reviewed, but a call in cannot change the decision.)
As above, the Leader/Cabinet is responsible for executive decision making. But not everything is an executive decision. Some decisions made by the Council (e.g. planning applications) are called non-executive decisions. Legally, these decisions cannot be made by the Leader/Cabinet. Instead, they are the responsibility of the full Council, though in practice such decisions are made by a committee, such as the planning committee.
Some decisions are made jointly by the Cabinet and the full Council. One example is the budget - the Leader/Cabinet is responsible for proposing a budget to full Council. However, full Council make the final decision on whether the budget is approved, amended or rejected by a simple majority vote.
The definition of executive and non-executive decisions is a matter of law. (See
here!)
What is the change being proposed?
If Bristol votes 'yes' on 3rd May, the Leader will be replaced with a Mayor who is directly elected by the people of Bristol. There will still be 70 councillors, but instead of one of them being elected as Leader, executive decisions will be made instead by the Mayor. Like the leader, the Mayor will appoint a Cabinet consisting of councillors.
Like under the current system, non-executive decisions will still be made by committees on behalf of the full Council, and not by the Mayor/Cabinet.
For jointly made decisions, such as the budget, any changes to the Mayor's proposals will require the support of two thirds of the full Council (rather than just a simple majority as at present).
Will the Mayor have more power than a Leader?
At present, it seems not. The Mayor will only have the same powers that the Leader currently has. One example commonly cited in Bristol is bus services. The Leader currently has no control over First Bus or the services it operates. Neither will the Mayor. The Mayor will also have no control over non-executive matters, such as planning applications. This means that having a Mayor will not change whether the council supports (or otherwise) planning applications for major projects e.g. football stadia.
Many of those in favour of having a Mayor argue that, once Bristol votes 'yes', the Government will be willing to give the Mayor more power to tackle problems and make improvements. The Government is currently offering 'city deals' - more money and power for cities. The criteria for this are vague and ambiguous. Initially, the Government said that being offered a 'city deal' was not dependent on having an elected mayor. It is now saying that only cities with 'robust' governance arrangements (in which it includes an elected mayor) will be made an offer. To some, this seems like a bribe to Bristol to vote 'yes' in the referendum.
What geographical area will the Mayor cover?
Many of Bristol's problems arise from the fact that the City Council's administrative area doesn't include much of the 'real' city, either in terms of the full urban area, or the area which might be described as Bristol in economic terms. This means that decisions affecting the city are being made by four different local authorities - Bristol, Bath & NE Somerset, South Gloucestershire, and North Somerset.
An elected mayor for Bristol would only have authority over the Bristol City Council area. It would make no difference to the other three local authorities.
At present, the four authorities work in partnership in a number of areas (e.g. transport and planning). This is done very much on the basis of them being equal partners. Some concerns have been expressed outside of Bristol that a Mayor would upset this partnership working, by introducing personality politics and alienating the surrounding authorities.
What is the cost?
This has been the subject of quite some dispute. In some ways, the cost is irrelevant - the proportion of its budget that the Council spends on 'democracy' (e.g. elections, councillors' allowances, meetings) is probably less than 1%, and if the change to a Mayor is seen as a good thing, isn't the additional cost worth paying?
The two main additional costs of having a Mayor seem to be:
- The cost of extra elections. Electoral Services say that the cost of electing a Mayor every four years would be £350-400,000
- Salary. The Leader is currently paid £51,889. The Dept for Communities and Local Government says that a Mayor would probably be paid around £100,000.
Those in favour of an elected mayor argue that the benefits of having a mayor vastly outweigh these costs. It has also been suggested that the Mayor would abolish the post of Chief Executive (the most senior full-time paid employee who is paid approx £190,000) and personally take over day-to-day management of the Council's staff.
What are the advantages of having an elected mayor?
Some of the arguments put forward in favour of an elected mayor are:
- It would bring 'stability' to the city. At present, the Council has elections every three years out of four, meaning that the Leader could change on an almost-annual basis. A mayor elected for a four year term could think more strategically without constantly having an eye on the election which is less than twelve months away.
- The position might attract a higher calibre of candidate, perhaps somebody who isn't involved in party politics. An independent candidate, for example, would be more likely to make decisions which are good for Bristol, rather than good for a political party.
- An elected mayor would be a figurehead who could promote the city and lobby for more money and power.
- A Mayor would be directly elected by the people of Bristol, so it would be more democratic.
And what are the disadvantages?
On the other hand:
- Elections give the people of Bristol a chance to offer their verdict on what the Council is doing. The "stability" of having a mayor elected once every four years just means that the Mayor can do what they like, without Bristol residents having a chance to 'apply the brakes'.
- Would an independent candidate really win? Or would it simply be another party political election, with a career politician being elected? There are no independent councillors in Bristol - what reason is there to think that people would vote for an independent mayor?
- Bristol's 70 councillors represent the diversity of the entire city. Giving them a say over how the Council is run (by allowing them to choose and scrutinise the Leader) means that that diversity is represented. How can an elected mayor - just one person - represent everything about Bristol?
- The arguments in favour of an elected mayor focus on what is wrong with Bristol, in the belief an elected mayor could more easily 'put it right'. But they ignore what is being achieved under the current system. In recent months, Bristol has been awarded over £100m in grants by central government for major transport projects, better bus services and primary school places, and in recent weeks has been shortlisted for the prestigious accolade of being European Green Capital. This is in addition to countless other awards such as being a top European city for international investment and M Shed being shortlisted for a Museum of the Year award. The Leader is already able to lobby for Bristol - what reason is there to think that an elected mayor would do a better job?
- Whether we have a Leader or a Mayor, one of the jobs of backbench councillors is to scrutinise them and hold them to account. Is scrutiny not more effective when it is backed up with the threat of the ultimate sanction, removal from office? Once a Mayor is elected, they could wilfully ignore the scrutiny of councillors and do whatever they like for four years with utter impunity.
- The Mayor may be directly elected, but so are the councillors. How can it be argued therefore that the Mayor's mandate is greater than the councillors', or that it is more democratic? And why does it need a 2/3rds majority to change the Mayor's plans? If councillors are also democratically accountable, isn't this undermining their ability to effectively represent their constituents?
What do the political parties think?
Bristol's Conservatives have stated their support for an elected mayor, and have produced leaflets in favour of a 'yes' vote. Labour have said that their official position is one of neutrality, though a selection of senior Labour members (including councillors and MPs) have also stated publicly that they wish Bristol to have an elected mayor. The Green Party are opposed.
Like Labour, the Lib Dems have adopted a neutral position, believing that the decision should be made by the people of Bristol without influence from political parties. Lib Dem members and councillors are therefore able to campaign either for or against an elected mayor, and I know that there are fellow Lib Dems in both 'camps'.
Should Bristol change the way it elects it councillors?
This is a bit of a red herring. Some of the the discussion of an elected mayor has focussed on whether Bristol should change to having 'all up' elections every four years (i.e. every councillor elected for four years on the same day) rather than the current system where 1/3 of councillors are elected every year (i.e. elections for three years, with a fourth year with no election). This is certainly a discussion which needs to be had, but that is regardless of whether there is to be an elected mayor. And only the full Council or the government could change the city's electoral arrangements - whether we have a Mayor or not.
How am I going to vote in the referendum?
At the moment, I am inclined to vote no. I acknowledge some of the benefits it is claimed an elected mayor would have. But I also believe these benefits are not guaranteed to actually come about, and even if they do, many of them are intangible. On the other hand, I believe the disadvantages are real and significant. I also don't believe that the current system is as dreadful as is often claimed. Admittedly Bristol has some problems, but an elected mayor is not a panacea, and nobody has yet managed to make a convincing argument to me that simply fiddling with the Council's governance arrangements will solve those problems.
More Information
The Council's official, neutral information on the referendum is
here.
The 'Yes' campaign can be found
here. The 'No' campaign is
here.
There is an interesting Guardian article about the referendum
here.