Old Before My Time – Living with Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is a condition that I thought only applied to older people. It was the sort of thing people’s grandparents suffered from when they were frail and elderly, wasn’t it? Well, it seems not. I was diagnosed in 2017 with arthritis in my left knee, after suffering nearly 10 years of knee pain. A couple of years later, in my early 50s, I had a partial knee replacement. By that time I had been told I had arthritis in my right knee and both hips, as well as my hands. I am now on the waiting list for an operation on my other knee.

I walk with a stick and I am doing more damage to my hips and left knee whilst I wait for my right knee to be operated on. I am in pain all the time, every minute of every day, chronic pain that stops me doing many of the things I want to do. I can feel the grind and clicking in just about every joint, which leads to pain and inflammation and reduced movement. But it’s a hidden pain, one that few people will notice or understand.

Osteoarthritis hit me when I was 50; it took away my confidence, my ability to walk far, to cycle, even to ride a motorbike. It affects my sleep, as I wake up every couple of hours to turn over, because whichever side I am lying on is so painful I have to move to relieve the pressure. I can’t stand for too long without my knee grinding or giving way, or my feet hurting so much it feels like someone is stabbing them, over and over. I can’t walk far without a lot of pain in my ankles, hips and knees. I can barely cycle as the motion hurts my knees and hips, even sitting can be painful sometimes!

I write this, not to seek sympathy, but to explain what it feels like and to share experiences with others who may suffer similarly. It is only since I started to experience constant, invasive pain that I began to get a glimpse of how much chronic pain must affect people’s lives. It’s not something I had really thought about much before.

In 2019 I was lucky enough to discover the Nuffield Health Joint Pain Programme. It was a six-month programme that focused on both increasing movement and discussion about living with pain. It really helped to be in a group with other people who experience joint pain; to talk to people who were going through some of the same issues. There were shared experiences, chat about issues and problems, and how to deal with different challenges. It also introduced us to gym work, strengthening work essential for improving stability and joint movement, aqua aerobics for cardio work that has less impact on joints, and Pilates for core strength, all really good options for improving mobility and strength.

Sadly, Covid interrupted the programme and I was not able to complete it as we moved away from Bristol, but I’ve taken many of the lessons with me and even kept in touch with some of the people from the group. For me the biggest benefit was definitely being able to talk to people who understood what you were living with and how it impacts on day-to-day living. Doing the exercise and talking to people doesn’t stop the pain but it strengthens both body and mind. It certainly helped me, but the pain is still there and still stops me doing things.

Sometimes I wonder if it is as much a mind thing as it is a body thing. By that I mean I find myself saying no to activities because I imagine I will find it difficult and painful, or I will hold others back because I am slow or can’t do as much. I lack the confidence to go for a walk or to cycle anywhere on my own, in case I fall or it is too painful.. So I leave others to go and do things whilst I sit at home, doing less, which of course doesn’t help.

It is depressing to live in pain and to have to constantly think about whether or not different activities are possible (or indeed worth the likely increased pain I’d experience afterwards). It is depressing imagining things are only going to get worse. It is depressing trying to navigate the medical system to get the best help, particularly now GP appointments take ages to get, waiting lists are years long and dealing with multiple issues appears difficult. But I try not to dwell, I get on with things, hoping for improvements. There are good days and bad days and many in between. But the pain in always there.

I retired early so I could enjoy life, travel to places in the UK and abroad that I’ve always wanted to visit, spend more time gardening, reading and relaxing and doing things I didn’t have time for when I was working. I’ve managed some of those things but in a much more limited way than I hoped.

Advertisement

Bristol needs a new, modern committee system

I’m a fan of local government and of the different systems used to make decisions as long as they work. In my experience it is not the system that fails but rather how it is interpreted and implemented by those in power. In the build up to the Local Government Act 2000 there was plenty of discussion about how the committee system didn’t work, how it was old fashioned and out of date. At the time instead of seeking to improve the way it worked the government decided to replace it, with councils asked to chose from one of the following options:
• Leader and cabinet executive
• Mayor and cabinet executive
• Mayor and council manager executive
• Alternative arrangement

Most councils chose the Leader and cabinet model, which is still the most common form of council structure today, despite a growing number of councils now choosing to go back to a committee system. In Bristol the criticisms were about the council being too bureaucratic, too slow, lacking in vision or action, and there being no clarity over who took decisions. There was a momentum around change both locally and nationally, for a new system of governance that would enable better decision making, clearer definition of roles, less bureaucracy, more involvement, and more scrutiny. Many of the same criticisms were also levelled at this new system when the mayoral system was first proposed.

I was a councillor at the time this new model was implemented and I was part of the group that took the decision to go for a Leader and Cabinet model in Bristol. It didn’t on the surface feel like it would be that different to what was already operating in Bristol, we had our own informal cabinet already made up of committee chairs and other key Labour members. However, what this new approach did was take away the backbenchers ability to engage in policy development and public debate. It left backbenchers and opposition members in a pure scrutiny role, working on new scrutiny commissions often with unclear aims, roles and purpose. It was all new, and it took quite a lot of time to work out quite what this new approach meant and how it could operate effectively.

It also left the majority of councillors feeling disenfranchised and disillusioned. It put decision making power in the hands of a small group and made public involvement more difficult and reduced the role of most councillors to that of looking after their ward, an important role no doubt, but only part of what being a councillor is all about. Whilst the new model may have reduced the time councillors spent in meetings it certainly didn’t do anything to improve their engagement with decisions and priorities. I well remember at the time councillors of all parties bemoaning the lack of involvement, discussion and debate and how the old system had been better.

The old committee system did encourage discussion, about decisions, about policy and strategy and about operational issues. In Bristol most backbenchers on a committee would take the lead on a particular issue and more councillors of all parties were given an opportunity to be involved in different ways. The committees often had very open public debate about difficult issues, with input from all parties making a difference to the final decision. However, there were also many occasions where political voting was decided beforehand and no amount of debate at the committee would make a difference to the decision. This in my view was the main problem with the way the committee system worked in councils where one party was in overall control – they didn’t have to win the argument they just had to turn up and outnumber the others so they could win the vote! In my view what was needed was a modernisation of the committee system, to improve the way it operated rather than the introduction of a new model that introduced a whole set of new issues and problems.

Further change in recent years means the system has continued down the route of focusing power in the hands of one person and moved away from involving the majority of councillors in decision making and policy development in any meaningful way. Since 2012 and the introduction of the mayoral model in Bristol decisions can now be taken by one person without any consultation and without any reference to other elected representatives. Yes, as a a system, it provides clear and more visible leadership, and is a role elected by the whole city rather than a handful of other councillors. But, it lacks accountability within the council, it reduces the role of councillors to ward representative and scrutiny members in a system where scrutiny seems to lack teeth!

The committee system had its strengths and was a system I enjoyed working within. It provided opportunity for debate and discussion, in a public forum. It gave backbenchers an opportunity to get to know an area of the council, to specialise, to get to know the issues and the officers involved. It enabled opposition councillors to engage in discussion and to influence decisions. It wasn’t all bad! It did, however, have it critics. It was slow, cumbersome, involved too many meetings, and could be too ‘political’ with members voting along party lines. I have fond memories of the committee system, and can even now recall some of the cross party discussion and debate we had, the issues we dealt with and the engagement we had with members of the public. I also can remember the long meetings and the frustration with how long it all took to get items onto the agenda, through the various internal processes. I do think the system got a bad press as it can be made to work and is in my view more collaborative than either of the other two systems.

The leader and cabinet system introduced in 2000 was a disaster. I don’t believe councils were properly equipped to change systems. There was no real consideration about how it would really work, how officers should operate, what it meant for scrutiny members and how it really made decision making clearer. It appeared to me a compromise between what the government wanted (a mayoral system) and what councils wanted (to stick with the committee system). One of the reasons I quit the council in 2002 was because of my disillusionment with how cabinet and scrutiny operated. The role of scrutiny was poorly thought through and under-resourced. There was little training to help councillors adapt and little thought about what it would mean for the majority of councillors. We tried a range of things, from working as scrutiny and policy development, introducing select committees, providing scrutiny leads on various issues, but with limited success.

By getting rid of committees we left a lot of councillors wondering what their role was and by bringing in an elected mayor that role was once more reduced to that of local representative with little power or ability to effect change, define priorities or develop policy. What we could have, if we didn’t have a Mayor, is a return to discussion and debate, all councillors properly involved and engaged in developing and delivering on the priorities of the council as well as representing the interests of their voters in a way that may actually support change. However, this could only happen if the political parties were willing to give up some of the control over members on committees and allow them the freedom to vote without constraint.

If change is needed then needs to be relevant to Bristol, to reflect the ambitions of the city and to deliver a system that works for the city and its people. It’s a change of approach as much as it is a change of system, let’s think about how to make the system work as much as we think about what to system to have. What’s needed is a collaborative approach, a willingness to be open and debate issues in public and the ability to listen to and learn from different views. Strong leadership comes in many forms, sometimes it is powerful enough to listen, reflect and amend your views, as it is to stick to your views and plough on regardless. If I had a vote, I would vote to return to a committee system, but I would look to introduce a new, modernised committee system, that delivers leadership, openness, discussion, collaboration and debate. I believe it can if the will is there to make it happen, but as ever it depends on the people involved and how they seek to implement the sytem.

The End of a Journey

Well, that’s it, I’ve finished my PhD and it has now been approved. It’s taken me longer to get to this point than anticipated (but I imagine many PhD students say the same). The important thing is I got here and I enjoyed a lot of the journey along the way.

My last post on here was about submitting my thesis, last November 2019. After submitting my thesis I took a little break away from it before I started preparing for my viva. I wanted time to reflect, to think about other things, to recover from the intensity of writing such a long and complicated document. I discussed with my supervisors who we would like to have as examiners and thankfully they both said yes (thank you Paul Cairney and Noemi Lendvai)! My viva was then set for the end of January, so I began preparing at the start of the month. I was nervous about the idea of discussing my thesis with two experts, I was worried about what they would think of it, I was concerned about the idea of them ‘marking’ it. But I worked through that. I persuaded myself that whilst they would undoubtedly know more about some of the theory than me and might be able to make different connections, I knew my research better than anyone, therefore I was at least an expert in that!

Preparation for the viva mostly meant re-reading my thesis, thinking about the types of questions that I might be asked and then thinking through some points I could make in response. I tried not to overthink things or over prepare.

On the day of the viva I started out a little nervous but then began to look at the process as an opportunity to talk about my research with two people (a captive audience), who both knew a lot about the theory and issues and who would be able to help improve my research, to make a better end product. That was how I tried to approach the discussion, as an opportunity, and a learning exercise, as well as a test, to demonstrate my understanding, my thoughts and my ideas.

I really enjoyed my viva. I was immediately put at ease by both examiners. It was a positive, challenging, interesting and thoughtful discussion. I was tested on key areas, encouraged to discuss, question and challenge, and provided with a supportive atmosphere in which to debate my findings. The areas I was asked to think about made sense to me, by making changes I could improve what I had done. So whilst I’m sure it would have been great to come away with no corrections, I understood why some corrections were necessary and helpful and in the end would be beneficial.

After the viva I took a few weeks off, including a lovely holiday abroad. I then waited to get the official feedback. Whilst waiting the UK went into lockdown, so my world and everyone else’s changed. I found it quite hard initially to get back into thinking about my thesis and the changes I needed to make. It took a while to regain my focus. But I got there, the corrections were approved and I passed my PhD, at last! People keep asking me what next? I have no idea yet, really. An article or two maybe?

A final word of thanks to everyone who has helped and supported me along the way, to all those who put up with me asking them questions and being nosey. I’ve enjoyed the opportunity to do this, even though it’s been pretty tough at times, I have lots of positive memories of doing research, meeting different people, and being part of the School for Policy Studies at Bristol University, a wonderful place to study and do research.

The End of a Journey (almost)

Finally, after nearly 5 years I have submitted my thesis. It was never meant to take this long and it has been quite a challenge. But I’m on the final stage of the journey now, waiting and preparing for my viva (Feb next year), whilst also taking some time out to do other things. There’s a lot about doing a PhD that is fun and interesting, I enjoyed most of it. I love writing and making sense of information, talking to people, finding out what is happening and why, and then crafting that information into something that is understandable and readable. It was a challenge for me because I’m more of a practitioner than an academic, I came into this after 25 years of doing policy and strategy for different charities and business organisations. I spent a lot of that time writing, but for non academic audiences, so moving into the academic world was a whole different discipline with a different language to understand. I met some great people along the way, who gave up their time for me during my research, to be part of it and to help me with it. I was lucky that so many people were willing to participate and support me for so long.

When I first started my PhD people used to ask what my research was about, now the question I get asked is – what did you find out, what does your research say? That’s always the trickiest question to answer. I found out so much throughout the process – about myself, about other people, about doing research, about what others have written, about different theories – and only some of it found its way into the thesis. it would be impossible to cover everything!

My research questions were as follows:

How do issues get onto the policy agenda during an election campaign?

• How are political manifestos developed and how are priorities decided?
• How do candidates prioritise their engagement with different actors?
• Who do they listen to and why?

Who is trying to influence the agenda and how? 


• Who are the main actors trying to influence the election agenda?
• What tactics and strategies do those actors use to get attention?
• What keeps issues on the candidate’s agenda or raises them up/down that agenda?

My research used Kingdon’s multiple streams framework (MSF) to explore the issues and develop my findings. I used housing policy as the basis for discussion and developed the MSF to provide an understanding of how mayoral candidates set their priorities pre- and post-election. The impetus for the study came from an interest in why some issues grab policy makers’ attention whilst others do not and how priorities are set during an election process. It stemmed from a desire to develop a better understanding of the role local elections play in framing policy agendas, the role and impact of different influencers, as well as how politicians make decisions about priorities when time is limited.

The research rests on three basic premises. Firstly, using housing policy as the focus for attention was justified as it was widely acknowledged thatthere was a housing crisis in the UK generally and at a local level in Bristol more specifically. It was also a time of constant, ad hoc policy change at national, sub national and local level.

The second basic premise of the research was that Bristol provides an interesting case study for research. It was the only core city to vote yes to having a directly elected mayor in the city referendums held across England in 2012. Bristol it seemed had a particular set of local circumstances that led to this vote, including perceptions of unstable local leadership with constant changes in political control and leaders, and a lack of visibility, with the council frequently criticised for being inward looking.

Thirdly, an understanding of how issues get onto, and move up and down, the policy agenda during a period of political change at a local level is an area of research that has not received particularly extensive attention over the years. The focus of much agenda setting research is either at a national level or is historically focused, looking back at how a decision was taken or a policy change generated over a longer time period. My research looked at local agenda setting as it happened, at a moment in time, and sought to understand why it was happening, who or what was influencing the process and how those under influence responded and reacted. It focused on an election period where there was a concentration of political activity, over a short period of time, when influence, engagement and responsiveness were likely to be greater than at most other times.

The research considered how, in Kingdon’s terms, a predictable window opened in the politics stream as the election began, and how the streams came together as party agendas were produced and diverged again once the election was over, as a new, smaller window opened before the new mayoral decision agenda was set. The research identified how mayoral candidates operated across the streams, seeking ideas and solutions, from within and outside of the party system. It also highlighted the strategies and tactics used by policy entrepreneurs to bring their issues to the attention of the candidates. It identified key stages in the process where the opportunities for influence were greatest and where agendas were set.

I came up with my own diagram to highlight the process, it’s a combination of the MSF and the stages model of the policy process. I may do a more detailed blog on what this all means:

My research drew conclusions on who and what influences the agenda before, during and after an election and demonstrated the role local political parties and policy entrepreneurs play in party and decision agendas. It illustrated how coalitions and networks bring opportunities for greater influence to the individuals and groups involved in them. The research also demonstrated the benefit of bringing solutions alongside problems, as local actors displayed a willingness to work with the council to achieve more desirable outcomes in the delivery of affordable housing in Bristol.

I identified the types of strategies and tactics people and organisations used to try and influence the candidates, using the work of Cairney (2018) and Aviram et al (2019) as a framework:

• Positive engagement: get to know the candidates and decision makers, use existing connections, professional credibility and reputation, demonstrate willingness to work in partnership;
• Framing a problem: understand how best to position an issue, use emotional connections and stories from real people to demonstrate impacts;
• Indicators and evidence: provide clear, accurate data to demonstrate the extent of a problem. Use simple visuals to highlight a problem. Simplify research information into short briefings. Suggest targets for candidates to include. Engage with others to present the extent of a problem.
• Providing solutions: understand the cause of a problem and provide a range of solutions, and offer to be part of the solution;
• Networking: join with others, coalitions of interest, policy communities, network of interests inside and outside of government;
• Triggering events: use crises and events to focus attention. The election itself provided that opportunity;
• Media attention: tap into the public mood, maximize size of audience, use media to promote policy and attract attention to an issue. Use of publicity stunts, visuals and stories attract media and public attention;
• Salami Tactics: divide policy into stages, provide less risky steps towards policy change, simply the problem and the solution to make it more accessible and acceptable.

I plan to write a more detailed briefing note to send out to all those involved in my research, highlighting the more practical elements of my findings.

The Challenge of Embarking on a PhD at Fifty

Embarking on a PhD in your 50s is a challenging process, not just because re-entering academia after several decades away from it is scary but also because life is very different in your 50s compared to your 20s. For me, at the beginning, the challenge was mostly about confidence, could I really do this now, at my age? Would I have the staying power, the ability to understand all that theory and the motivation to stick with it over several years? When I set out on this journey back in 2015, I couldn’t have anticipated just how challenging it would be, for such different reasons than I initially thought.

Life, family and health interventions have made mine a longer journey than anticipated as my initial plan was to finish last year. I’ve now had over 12 months of interruption across the last couple of years, with 2 major surgeries and associated illness and recovery times (I’d never even been in hospital before this).

During my fieldwork, which was time limited as I was studying activity during an election period, I was actually quite ill but had to carry on regardless. I tried hard to organise interviews, attend meetings, discussions with individuals and other observations so they were spread out and gave me time to recover, but this was not always possible, I naturally had to fit in with the timetable of others. As we got closer to the election this was particularly the case, as meetings, discussions, hustings, campaign launches, and follow up interviews all had to be attended and arranged. There were days when having done one interview I was also due to attend another meeting but just couldn’t manage it, so had to cancel. I missed out on observing and attending some discussions because it just wasn’t possible. Having said that, I am still more than pleased with the amount of access I did get to individuals, meetings and discussions and the number of interviews I was able to carry out. If I’d been well enough though I would have done more (but maybe every researcher thinks there’s more that could be done).

After the fieldwork and just as I began the analysis and initial writing up stages I underwent major surgery and had a total of 7 months off from my studies because of illness beforehand and recovery afterwards. This was a major interruption at just the wrong time, just as I was closest to all the information and my own research, I had to take a break. In the end it was worth it, as my health was much improved afterwards and I was able to concentrate on my research once more. I got back into the analysis, additional reading, and writing first drafts of the main analysis and discussion sections. I even got to the point of revisions to some of the earlier chapters and had finished writing most of the remaining chapters before I had to take another break for another operation.

I am currently resting up after knee surgery and hoping to get back to full time writing over the next few weeks. Each time I’ve had to take time out I’ve found it really hard to get back into the subject matter and to immerse myself in the detail again. Whilst it does provide an opportunity to step back, I find it difficult to re-establish my engagement with my research, particularly at the stage I am at now, which is the final writing stage. An enforced absence of a couple of months has been both liberating and frustrating. Liberating because it does provide that space you sometimes need when you are too close to what you are writing and need to step back from it all to see a clearer picture. Frustrating because I was so close to finishing when the NHS provided a quicker date for my surgery than originally anticipated (which I am grateful for), so I had to stop before I wanted to, before I’d got to the end.

But now it’s time to get back to it, to get on with the writing. I’m at the stage now where I’m mostly revising chapters rather than writing from scratch, and hopefully I am now only a few months off completion. I’m re-reading what I have written with a fresh look, checking on the latest articles in my field and tightening up some of my arguments. My challenge now is to ensure the ‘golden thread’ goes right through my writing, from beginning to end, so the story is clear and my engagement with both the theory and my original research is inextricably linked throughout.

Innovation in Housing

Totally Modular

There’s undoubtedly a housing problem in Bristol, one which most of us recognise: high house prices, high rent costs, poor quality housing, lack of affordable homes, and long waiting lists for council homes. One or more of these issues is likely to affect all of us at some point, and for many of us it can act as a major barrier to achieving a decent, secure, affordable home close to where we work. There are things being done at a local level to overcome these problems, but local government is frequently hindered in its efforts by national policy. But the one thing the council can control is how their own land is used and what is built on that land.

In Bristol there is the beginning of a plan and strategy to enable new different forms of housing to be built on council owned land. There appears to be greater collaboration and engagement to deliver what is needed in different areas and a willingness to embrace innovative and creative solutions. Some examples are now being seen in Southmead, Lawrence Weston and Knowle, where communities, housing associations, developers and the council are working together to deliver housing that meets with local needs.

Another example of this approach is the Bristol Housing Festival, which launched a week ago. Its aim is to be a showcase and a catalyst for ideas around housing, and to ‘recapture the purpose of housing’ as part of creating healthy and resilient communities. What a brilliant idea. As a fan of modular build and offsite manufactured homes I had a happy couple of hours wondering around the Housing Festival site on Sunday. It was great to have the opportunity to see a number of different types of homes all in one place, with the people who make them there to tell you all about how they are made and constructed on site. As well as offsite manufacture, there were examples of temporary homes created using shipping containers, all looked super modern and fitted out to a pretty high quality and standard. For me, there wasn’t quite enough information in some of the homes, whilst it’s good to look round them to see the spaces and design, it was difficult to find out quite what they were constructed from and how. The other thing missing was any information about price. Now I know this is more difficult but to understand quite to what extent these modular homes provide a more sustainable solution I’d like to see costs compared to standard build, so I can make those comparisons for myself. But having said that, it was certainly informative to look round the examples and the exhibitions.

I would like to have seen more of this type of information.

A special mention at this point goes to the Bristol Yimby group because I was so pleased to see people coming together to support housing development rather than oppose it, please do take a look at their site and join in. It’s important to have a proper, unemotional debate about housing and new development in and around the city.

I was particularly impressed by three of the main off site manufactured homes and concepts on show. Firstly, my favourite in terms of design and ability to scale up was Totally Modular, a two bedroomed house with plenty of space and a high quality finish. One of the main benefits is the fact that the house is 97% complete before delivery to site, so can then be finished on site in just a few days. Secondly, the best concept for saving space was the ZEDpod, designed to be built over existing carparks and hardstanding areas, making use of space that is otherwise redundant. I can think of several places in Bristol where this could really work (supermarket carparks being a favourite option of mine). Again these homes are built in a factory and placed on site providing homes for their target group of young people and key workers to much shorter timescales than the norm. Finally my overall favourite for concept, design and engagement is ‘we can make‘, the TAM (transportable accommodation module) home being showcased in Knowle West as a part of a process of unlocking micro sites and providing houses at the point of need. These homes are creative and innovative and are rooted in the local community. They can be made locally, by local people and built in 12 weeks, providing flexible, energy efficient homes for local people. The module on site was an example of a unit to provide supported housing for young residential care leavers and had been built in 6 days.

ZEDpod

We can make

Overall, the houses on display and the conversions of shipping containers for temporary homes provided some brilliant examples of what can be done if we stop assuming all housing has to be provided by volume house builders, to the same standard and build as usual. With offsite manufacture and modular build there is an opportunity to provide creative and innovative housing, of higher quality and environmental standards, in a much shorter space of time, using local factories, developing local skills and at a more affordable price. The Bristol Housing Festival, along with the Council and other partners, has generated a momentum that will hopefully see some new opportunities for these types of houses to be built across the city.

Scaling Up – Community led housing

There appears to be little to argue about when it comes to community-led housing. It’s a good idea, it puts local communities front and centre of the housing debate, helps to deliver what local people want and provides some great opportunities for us to de-commodify housing. There are some brilliant examples from across the country and elsewhere in Europe and Scandinavia. Yet somehow this approach to housing is still seen as small scale, pilot schemes and show schemes. It’s not considered as a key part of the mainstream delivery of housing in England. Most schemes have so far been small scale demonstrators of what is possible. Many of them use different approaches to building houses, with off-site manufacture, design and build schemes more prevalent than the bricks and mortar approach of the volume house builders. They could all be scaled up to help solve the housing crisis but we don’t appear to be geared up to embracing new models of delivery. The barriers are always there when it comes to doing something different.

We have some excellent examples and ideas being developed in Bristol, as I found out at a recent Festival of the Future City event where Melissa Mean talked about the concept of “we can make” which has been developed by the Knowle West Media Centre in collaboration with White Design. They have developed a housing modular unit that can be used to infill on large garden plots and micro sites across the Knowle West estate. This is an area I know quite well as I was the local councillor for Knowle for 7 years. A large part of the estate is made up of 3-bed semi-detached houses built around Garden City principles at very low density, with plenty of open space, large gardens and roads with wide grass verges. A large proportion of the estate is still in council ownership. There are significant opportunities to densify the estate, working with the local community to identify need and provide solutions that work. That’s what ‘we can make‘ is all about, it’s about putting people and communities at the heart of housing to develop the micro sites that exist but with the community as the developer and meeting local housing requirements at the point of need. In Bristol there are many other similar estates to Knowle West, so the potential across the city is immense. The particular housing unit designed so far, and on show locally, is a straw bale construction, that is flexible and adaptable to changing needs, that could be made in a factory locally, using local labour.

This is just one example of what is possible if you look beyond the mainstream to provide the local housing required to reflect local community need.  The Bristol Community Land Trust is another organisation working with local people who need an alternative route onto the housing ladder. They have completed one scheme in Fishponds and are about to start a co-housing scheme in Lockleaze. Both schemes provide an opportunity for local people to access housing in a different way, through self-finish and cooperative housing, with shared space and shared living. But still these schemes are small scale and seen as outside of the norm.

There are other offers on the table too, using alternative construction methods to provide cheaper more affordable homes, that meet the highest of environmental standards. One example is the recently developed Snug Homes brought to you by Ecomotive, an organisation dedicated to promoting self-build as part of the solution to the housing crisis. There’s also the potential offered by Apple Green Homes, a fast build, affordable, sustainable wooden framed home, partially built in a factory. But all too often these innovative, affordable homes have difficulty competing with the larger volume house builders. They get squeezed out of the market and find it difficult to secure the land to provide much needed affordable homes. Council’s themselves are often the main stumbling block, with local bureaucracy never at ease with doing something different. The barriers are all too often insurmountable, even if the will is there, the ability to find a way through the red tape just takes too long, to the point that even the most committed social entrepreneur may well give up.

What can council’s do to make things happen and make it easier for those with the solutions? It’s actually quite simple in concept but difficult in practice. All that is required is a change of attitude. Instead of constantly responding with “no that’s not possible” or “we’ve never done that before, so don’t know if we can”, we need politicians to respond positively with “ok, we’ll find a way“. That’s it! I remember only too well the conversations I used to have as a councillor with the legal team at the City Council, all too often their response was ‘sorry councillor we can’t do that’. My response was always the same – “yes we can I just need you to work out how!”

The other important thing to remember is that the council cannot solve this problem alone. Even with its plan to set up a housing company and build more council houses itself, more is still needed. Working in partnership and collaboration is a key theme of the current Mayor’s approach, and there’s no where we need it more than in ensuring the delivery of affordable housing.

If the commitment and desire is there, then it can be done. Bristol has some great examples already, as well as some brilliant social entrepreneurs willing to put time and effort into a new generation of community led housing. It’s about time the Council played a more positive enabling role to help make it happen. Otherwise we may find the people with ideas and creativity give up and/or go elsewhere and Bristol once more falls behind as a result of the ‘deadhead of the council’.

How the English Devolution Deals were done – policy making ‘front’ and ‘back’ stage

Successfully managing the transition between ‘back stage’ negotiations and ‘front stage’ decision making is essential for the future success of English devolution. That is the conclusion of the Political Studies Association’s Research Commission I was involved in to examine the role of ‘informal governance’ on devolution to England’s cities. It is also the focus of an article I co-authored on ‘front and back stage decision making’ just published in the British Journal of Politics and International Relations.

The case of English Devolution in recent years provides us with an interesting example of the complex interrelationship between ‘front’ and ‘back’ stage policy-making. Front stage, public officials are observable and accountable as office holders in elected bodies and are constrained by established bureaucratic rules, codes of conduct and public scrutiny. Back stage describes the world of complex decision making where public officials are hidden from public scrutiny and can engage in negotiations less constrained by formal rules

Research findings reveal that the devolution deal process is purposefully low on guidance and has involved a small number of key actors from central and local government negotiating the deals largely behind closed doors. This process has been criticised by some as being secretive and lacking transparency and legitimacy. From this perspective, high levels of informal working can be viewed as the latest chapter in the power-hoarding instincts of the British political tradition. By using informal means to shape local aspirations behind closed doors, the ‘shadow of hierarchy’ is operationalised in more subtle ways.

Nonetheless, the findings in our article are more nuanced than this account describes. Evidence also indicated a genuine desire on the part of critical actors involved in the process to drive forward devolution. One local government respondents said ‘it created momentum and progress in a policy area that had limped along for years’. Informality had created an innovative space to explore policy options and to generate trust between central and local actors. Back stage negotiations were seen as a route to achieving the transfer of power to the local level. While there were differences of opinion on the details of the negotiations, the majority of respondents from central and local government viewed the process positively. On the whole it was seen as far less adversarial than in the past.

But, momentum and progress was made at the cost of inclusivity and buy in from a broader stakeholders and the public. Deals were offered to areas on a take it or leave it basis and some areas chose to leave it as deals have collapsed in parts of England. Our research shows that the trust generated back stage between core insiders did not always percolate to the formal front stage. The challenge for policy makers moving forward is to strike the right balance between the flexibility afforded by back stage informality and demands for greater front stage democratic accountability.

For example, a lack of public awareness and opportunities for consultation have undermined an effective transition between back and front stage decision making. Public information and consultation at critical stages in the process might alleviate this risk. Second, the move towards more transactional and negotiated deal making clearly advantaged some areas over others. Those with a history of partnership working and established high trust relationships with central government were best able to champion local interests. Third, while some areas of the negotiation might best remain back stage, the blanket ‘shut down’ in local dialogue undermined the potential for sharing best practice and policy innovation. Allowing some elements of the bids to be discussed more openly would permit a ‘softer’ transition between back and front stage.

In the context of Brexit and a public mood of mistrust and apathy towards politics and politicians it is even more important than ever before to get the balance right. A policy agenda that is supposed to be about empowering local areas needs to be seen to be conducted in a democratic way.

This blog post was written with Sarah Ayres (University of Bristol) and Mark Sandford (House of Commons Library) from our recently published article. A version of this blog post has also appeared on the PSA Blog.

A One City Plan for Bristol

Mayor Marvin Rees introduced the idea of a “One City Plan” for Bristol at his inauguration speech back in May 2016.  He talked about the need for Bristol to have a big vision, looking to the future, rather than just getting caught up in immediate issues and projects. His focus was on developing a vision that addressed the big issues collaboratively, as a collective endeavour:

• ensuring Bristol doesn’t have any areas in the top 10 of the most deprived areas in the country;
• breaking the link between economic background and educational attainment and health inequalities; and
• doing development in a way that reduces inequality.

So why does Bristol need such a “Plan”? What’s wrong with all the ones we’ve got? The idea of a ‘One City Plan’ as suggested by the Mayor, is that we produce a plan for the whole city, not just a land use plan or a city council plan, but a plan that brings people, institutions, business and the council together in common interest, that covers all the big issues and looks further ahead to the kind of Bristol we want in the future. So this time we have to do it differently, make it a plan people can sign up to, that all the key agencies and businesses in the city have a stake in, and that residents are involved in creating.

The Plan could be an opportunity to set out how we would like to see Bristol in the future. Thinking far enough ahead enables us to be bold and visionary as well as practical, ambitious as well as realistic. It could be where we get that real chance to address the ‘big issues’ that we shy away from in other strategies and plans, or where we finally manage to link things together well enough to generate positive change.

Many US cities have big plans and visions that seek to address poverty and inequality, taking these as the starting point for change, but looking further into the future than most of our plans do. For example, the Philadelphia Plan – Shared Prosperity Philadelphia: Our Plan to Fight Poverty 2013, or the Toronto Poverty Strategy –  TO Prosperity: Toronto Poverty Reduction Strategy  and the New York City Plan – OneNYC Plan.

Other cities, such as Chicago have a long history of visionary plans, bringing public and private sectors together to set out their vision for the future, celebrated recently in the centennial programme, 100 years after Burnham’s first Plan of Chicago (1909). The Plan was about thinking big, as Burnham aptly puts it:

“Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency.”

All of these Plans focus on collective impact, common agendas, shared measurement systems and continuous communication – all themes that are important to city development and are needed to make change happen, as the TO Prosperity Strategy points out: “why expect different results if we continue doing things the same way?” That’s exactly the point, for too long we’ve done things the same way and expected change, doing things differently may just provide the change we want. That’s how I see the potential of the One City Plan.

The idea of a strategic level shared vision for the future of the city is a bold idea that has the potential to really make a difference to the key challenges we face as a city. It’s where the Mayor’s city office can bring people and organisations together to work collaboratively to set out a long term, simple but ambitious vision, with measurable and achievable short, medium and long term objectives and targets. It needs to be about addressing the root causes of problems rather than just the symptoms, about providing sustainable solutions and not ducking the difficult issues as we so often do.

In an era where local government and other public services are being decimated by unnecessary cuts it’s ever more important to work collaboratively, to combine efforts and resources to address the challenges we face. The One City Plan could be an opportunity to do just that. I’ll be interested to see how this idea develops in Bristol.

Who influences what and how? A study of agenda setting and policy prioritisation during the Bristol Mayoral Election.

I thought it was about time I wrote another blog, and this time it’s a quick summary of what my PhD research is all about. I’ve written blogs before about my PhD Journey, but have shied away from too much detail on what my research actually covers. So time to give it a go, in a few hundred words, explaining the theoretical framework and the questions I am attempting to address!

My PhD research is about housing policy, agenda setting and how policy priorities are defined at election time. The impetus for this study comes from an interest in why some issues are rarely discussed and why some issues grab policy makers attention whilst others do not. It stems from a desire to develop a better understanding of the role local elections and new models of local governance have on framing policy agendas. It also comes from an interest in agenda setting theory, particularly Kingdon’s multiple streams framework (MSF), and how that can be applied at a local level in the UK.

Kingdon’s MSF has traditionally been used to explore agenda setting at a national level, initially in the US, and more recently across a range of countries. Most of the research has been qualitative, using interviewing and documentary evidence as the main form of data collection. Very little research has been carried out at a local level in the UK and none of that has specifically looked at agenda setting as it happens during an election period or within the new model of local governance where there is a directly elected mayor.

Using Kingdon’s MSF as a starting point enables my research to consider the relevance of the framework to agenda setting activity during a local election for a directly elected mayor in Bristol. My research is based on a live study of that activity as it took place, pre and post election. It explores the relevance of the idea of ‘windows of opportunity’ and the role of ‘policy entrepreneurs’ throughout this process, highlighting where the MSF provides a useful framework for understanding as well as where the gaps might be. It is not, however, a study that seeks to test a theory or hypothesis. Rather, it seeks to use the Framework to help understand what is happening and to construct a story of events as it is seen by the people at the centre of the action. The approach adopted seeks to use the idea of constructing and interpreting actors own constructions of what they are up to through an analysis of their beliefs and everyday practices. It focuses on a local case study of Bristol using a live ‘ethnographic’ approach to examine how, if and why housing policy is prioritised and in whose interest. It does this through a detailed exploration of the approach, beliefs, reactions and perceptions of local political decision makers and the individuals, groups and networks trying to influence them.

My research seeks to understand the way in which different actors perceive and make sense of the world and aims to understand how individual actors influence a specific policy agenda during an election. The intention is not to generalise about the findings in empirical terms but to use the case study to provide input to the theoretical development of policy agenda setting and policy prioritisation during elections.

My research aims to provide an insight into the world of policy prioritisation during the Bristol Mayoral election in May 2016. It uses Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) as a starting point for discussion on agenda setting before, during and immediately after the election to identify who influences what and how. The story that emerges details the influencers, their tactics, what works and what doesn’t, and at the end of it all, after the election, what makes it onto the policy agenda of the new mayor. The story is about a local policy prioritisation process, at a moment in time, where action and change is prompted by the Mayoral election.

The story of how things get onto the agenda and into political manifestos at election time is not a simple story. It is built around a myriad of different influences that are formal and informal, covert and overt, direct and indirect. It is difficult to piece these together in a timeline or coherent and logical manner, as the process is anything but logical. It seems to be an ad hoc process involving different people and organisations at different times and one that in the end appears to come down to personalities and individual preferences and beliefs, as much as it does evidence, identified need and viability.

The justification for the research is constructed around three basic premises. Firstly, that there is currently a national housing crisis, an issue accepted and acknowledged by many, with constant, ad hoc policy change occurring at national, sub national and local level. Nationally the talk is frequently focused on the supply of housing, with different political parties competing to set the highest target for new build. The wider approach to housing policy varies from supporting people to buy their own home and reducing the unnecessary restrictions of the planning system, to encouraging landowners and property developers to release more land for housing and supporting buy-to-let landlords. The ability to approach the problem comprehensively seems to get lost in a myriad of politics, ‘big ideas’ and short-term thinking. In Bristol the crisis is played out in terms of both the overall supply and affordability of housing. Outside of London and the South East, Bristol and the West of England is one of the most expensive places to live in the UK.

The second basic premise is that Bristol provides an interesting case study for research. It was the only city to vote yes to having a directly elected mayor, with an Independent Mayor (George Ferguson) elected in November 2012. The local circumstances that led to this vote were commonly quoted as being about poor and unstable leadership, constant changes of leadership and lack of visibility in terms of leadership. There has also been considerable recent debate about devolution and the role of city regions, with Bristol featuring as one of the areas that has been given increased powers and resources from central government in exchange for adopting a combined authority and metro-mayor. My research focuses on the Mayoral Election in 2016, where the first re-election of a directly elected mayor will take place alongside a full council election (for the first time in nearly 20 years). This was therefore quite a significant local election, coming just a year after the general election, and potentially a period of significant change for the city.

Thirdly, an understanding of how issues get onto, and move up and down, the policy agenda during a period of political change at a local level is an area of research that has not received particularly extensive attention over the years. The focus of much agenda setting research is either carried out at a national level or is historically focused, looking back at how a decision was taken or a policy change generated over a longer time period. My research looks at local policy prioritisation as it happened, at a moment in time and seeks to understand why it is happening, who or what is influencing the process and how those under influence respond and react. It focuses on an election period where there is likely to be a concentration of political activity, over a short period of time, when influence, engagement and responsiveness are likely to be greater than at most other times.

The two main questions this research seeks to address are as follows:

1. How do issues get onto the policy agenda during an election campaign?

• Who is responsible for putting issues on the policy and political agenda during an election?
• What keeps those issues there or raises them up/down that agenda?

2. How do the political candidates respond and react to different influences before, during and after an election campaign?

• Who is trying to influence the candidates during the election process?
• What tactics do different local actors use to get attention?
• Who do the candidates listen to and why?

I’ll return to write another post soon about some of the findings, that begin to put some detailed responses to the questions outlined above.