People’s Spaces event
Monday 16th March 2015
Report
0
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................2
Introduction – What is People InSpired?................................................................................................4
What three words do you think describe politics? .............................................................................6
What three words do you think describe how politics should be? .................................................7
What issue facing people in Bradford would you like to see tackled? ............................................8
Scenarios: How would you like to see your issue tackled? ............................................................ 11
Who would you like to be involved? .................................................................................................... 13
Conclusion and next steps ...................................................................................................................... 15
Participants’ Detailed Responses ........................................................................................................... 17
1
Executive Summary

On 16 March, Bradford Cathedral held a 'People InSpired' event - part of a
national initiative of the same name. The event aimed to give people a chance
to discuss their current feelings about politics and how they would like it to
change.

The event was attended by 38 people - a good number for an evening event
at the cathedral. While the age profile of attendees was undoubtedly rather
higher than the age profile of the local population, there was a good mix of
gender, and good representation from people with disabilities. A number of
ethnicities were represented, but greater ethnic diversity would still have
been desirable. Notably, very few of the participants were previously known
to the cathedral.

Participants' views about politics are overwhelming negative. Out of 85
words written down, only 10 could be described as positive. The most
common words were Important; Short termism; No vision; Ineffective; Selfseeking; Distant; Media-driven.

Participants’ current views about politics contrasted sharply with how they
would like it to be. When asked what three words do you think describe
how politics should be, the most common answers were Honest; Justice;
Participatory; Transparency; Listening; Representation; Inspiring.

The key issues that participants would like to see tackled by decision-makers
ranged from Education to Leisure, Poverty, Employment and the
Environment, The most frequently raised issue was Education.

Participants then focused on how they would like a decision on these issues
to be made. They had a choice of 5 options: Traditional decision-making,
Consultation, Citizens’ juries, Deliberative events, and Referendum. The most
popular choices were Deliberative events and Citizens’ juries (chosen 4 times
each). Traditional Decision Making and Referendum each received one vote,
and no group chose Consultation – this is worth noting, as the Consultation
process is very often the way in which local and national government
currently seeks to engage with people.

Participants were keen for a wide range of people to be involved in the
decision-making process on the issues they cared about. These ranged from
local residents to campaign and community groups, to businesses to council
2
and government officials.

The results from the evening will now be taken forwards. This report will be
used both at the Hustings to be held at Bradford Cathedral on 12th April to
challenge the parliamentary candidates, and also in future to open discussions
with local representatives and officials about the issues which people care
about in Bradford.

Participants' feedback about the event was overwhelming positive. The most
common words used to describe the experience on feedback forms were
interesting, engaging and enjoyable/fun. Participants also commented on how
much they enjoyed the chance to meet and talk to new people, finding out
about their views.
3
Introduction – What is People InSpired?
The idea for People InSpired was developed by the Cathedral Innovation Centre and
the Association of English Cathedrals, and aims to use the spaces provided by
Cathedrals to offer venues for people to come together and discuss issues in local
and national politics which concern them, and which they would like to see resolved.
Cathedrals have been at the heart of English communities for centuries.
In Bradford, our involvement with People InSpired is threefold.

Firstly, we held a ‘People’s Spaces’ event, on Monday 16th March 2015, for
people to share and identify the local and national issues they’d most like to
see tackled, and to discuss and create ideas for how they’d like to see
decision-making change, ensuring people have more of a voice between
elections. This document is the report from that event.

Secondly, there will be a follow-up event on Sunday 12th April 2015 at 6.30
pm, which will be an ‘Accountability Hearing’. This will, broadly speaking,
follow the format of a Hustings, allowing local people to question
parliamentary candidates about the issues raised in this report.

Thirdly, the content of this report will be shared and used in three ways:
o with those who participated in the event on 16th March and any other
interested parties, via the Bradford Cathedral website;
o nationally, to be collated with reports from other Cathedrals
participating in People InSpired, and to be presented to national
decision makers after the General Election for their consideration;
o locally, with local decision makers and the elected MP for the
Bradford West constituency after the General Election, to challenge
them to respond to the issues raised, thus increasing local
participation in politics between General Elections.
The event held on 16th March 2015 was attended by 38 people. While this number
may seem small, it represents a good turnout for an evening event for Bradford
Cathedral, which is in a part of the city to which people have some nervousness
about coming in the evening. The event was well publicised across a range of both
secular and church media locally and regionally. In itself, the low turnout may reflect
a level of disengagement with politics in central Bradford.
4
Particularly noteworthy was the fact that the majority of attendees were not
previously known to the Cathedral (i.e., not members of the congregation or of our
regular networks). While the age profile of attendees was undoubtedly rather
higher than the age profile of the local population, there was a good mix of gender,
and good representation from people with disabilities. While a number of ethnicities
were represented, greater ethnic diversity would still have been desirable.
“Everyone in our groups participated and there was a good atmosphere”
Following hospitality and a welcome from the Dean, attendees were grouped around
five tables and took part in a range of discussions. Discussion was lively on all tables.
Feedback from participants at the end of the evening was very good. Participants
wrote down a total of 94 words and phrases in response to the question “What
three words would you use to describe your experience today?” A huge majority of
these were positive (83 words), 1 was neutral and 10 negative. People enjoyed
meeting people and hearing their views, working in small groups, the opportunity to
discuss, and the whole way in which the event was designed and conducted.
Negative feedback included a perception that the event could have been longer, to
allow for more time for discussion.
5
What three words do you think describe politics?
This was the first exercise of the evening, and, together with the following exercise,
operated both as an icebreaker to enable participants to get to know each other,
and also as context-setting for the later discussions. People were invited to write
down three words and then to discuss with people at their tables why they had
chosen those words. A number of people wrote phrases rather than individual
words.
Out of 85 words/phrases written down, 10 could be described as more or less
positive, from the rather grudging ‘Sometimes works’ through to ‘Excitement’. It is
noteworthy that ‘Excitement’ was written by an individual who works with students,
who explained that they had chosen that word because the people they worked with
were excited about voting for the first time. Some of the remaining words were
neutral – such as ‘Machine’, ‘Debate’ and ‘Voting’, or about specific issues such as
‘Economy’, ‘Austerity’ and ‘Public Services’.
Predominantly, however, the words chosen were negative, and reflected a level of
cynicism in the room, both about the ability of politics to resolve issues for the
better, and also about the motivation/attitude of politicians. Most words/phrases
only came up once, although many words with similar meanings were used. Those
words which appeared twice were: Short termism; No vision; Ineffective; Selfseeking; Distant; Media-driven. One word appeared three times: Important.
The full list of words can be found in the full feedback document, which is attached
as Appendix 1.
6
What three words do you think describe how politics should be?
This second exercise followed the same format as the first and unsurprisingly the
tone of the words used was uniformly positive. Far more words were repeated this
time round. The words that appeared most often were:
x 6 Honest
x 5 Justice
x 4 Participatory; Transparency
x 3 Listening; Representation; Inspiring
x 2 Inclusive; Well-informed; Engaging; Open; Involving; Democratic; Visionary
leadership; Long-term perspective; Trust; Integrity; Equality; Working for the
common good; Effective; Constructive; Enabling.
Many other words also linked to these themes, and reflected hopes both for the
ability of ordinary people to be involved in or consulted about political decisions, and
for the motivation and approach of politicians.
The full list of words can be found in the full feedback document, which is attached
as Appendix 1.
7
What issue facing people in Bradford would you like to see tackled?
This exercise, together with the following one, formed the major part of the event.
To ensure that people had time to think about what mattered to them, everyone
was given this question on the way into the event.
The intention of the exercise was both to capture issues that are important to
people and on which they would like to see action, but also – and just as importantly
– to enable people to think about the way in which the decision-making process
works, rather than simply to think about the specific action they would like on each
issue. To this end, each table had five Scenario Cards outlining different methods of
public engagement in decision-making, which will be discussed in more detail in the
next section.
Issues raised could be grouped into the following areas:
1. Education & opportunities
Concern was raised about the quality of education in Bradford, and also the
inequality between the life-chances and opportunities for young Bradfordians
compared to young people from elsewhere in the country
“9% of young Bradfordians attend university / 53% of young people in
Reading. You are 5x more likely to get into a Cambridge College from
SE/E/London than you will from anywhere else in the country.”
2. Environmental concerns
This heading covers a range of issues from the problem of
unoccupied/derelict buildings to litter, and from the lack of green space in the
city to national and international issues such as Britain’s ability to feed itself
and climate change.
3. Leisure
There was a concern for the provision of more facilities and/or green areas in
the inner city, and leisure opportunities for young people.
8
4. Diversity/multiculturalism
A number of people raised the need for greater integration, community
cohesion, understanding and respect between communities in Bradford,
“Greater levels of integration and community engagement across the
district to show the best aspects of a multicultural city”
noting that Bradford could show the way nationally on how to be a
multicultural city in the 21st Century.
5. Employment
Employment was a major concern in the room – not merely the problem of
unemployment, but also the quality of jobs on offer, and specifically, jobs for
young people.
6. Poverty
Poverty was raised by a number of people, who mentioned homelessness,
destitution, deprivation and the increased need for and use of foodbanks.
One person specifically noted in-work poverty as an issue.
7. Health and Welfare
People were concerned about welfare reform, in particular those issues
which appear to impact disproportionately on those who are sick or disabled.
“Treating people with respect – many of the
issues around welfare ‘reform’ don’t do this!”
Two people raised the issue of NHS dentistry.
8. Community safety
A small number of people raised issues which could be categorised under this
issue; specifically – safety and harassment around University and College
areas, dangerous driving, and the sexual exploitation of women and girls.
9. Gaza/Palestine was raised by two people.
10. Representation
Concerns about the quality of political representation were raised by two
people.
11. Transport, especially public transport for children and young people, was an
issue for one person.
9
12. Other
Other issues raised which did not fall into any of the above categories:
London!
Transient population
Third-sector corruption
One person’s issue covered a number of the above categories: ‘Opportunity
for ALL people to flourish (i.e. tackle poverty, housing, schooling, benefits,
unemployment, living wage)’
Each group was asked to pick one of their issues out of a bag to use as an example in
the next exercise – making it clear that this did not mean this single issue was
preferenced in any way over the issues which were not discussed. The full list of
issues can be found in Appendix 1.
10
Scenarios: How would you like to see your issue tackled?
As described above, the intention of this exercise was to encourage people to think
not just about what solutions they wanted to particular issues, but what democratic
processes might usefully contribute to those solutions. For example – if ‘the quality
of education’ was raised as an issue, we wanted participants not merely to say that
the solution was for the quality of education to improve, but also to consider how
decision-makers and officials might go about achieving that solution.
The five scenarios offered for discussion were:
TRADITIONAL DECISION-MAKING:
In Sally’s area, politicians make decisions based on their own view and advice from
officials.
CONSULTATION:
In Bikram’s area, politicians and officials come up with a list of possible solutions.
They put these on a website and give people time to feedback. The politician then
decides what to do.
CITIZENS’ JURY:
In Martin’s area, officials bring together a representative sample of the population
(according to age, background etc). These people then act like a jury in a criminal
trial, listening to evidence on the issue and discussing the options together. At the
end of the process they make a clear recommendation about what should happen.
DELIBERATIVE EVENT:
In Carmen’s area, officials organise an event for everyone who is interested in or
affected by the issue. They publicise it well to make sure a wide range of people
attend. People discuss together what should be done about the problem. The
findings from the day are used by politicians and officials to come up with a solution.
11
REFERENDUM:
In Zainab’s area, everyone in the area gets to vote on what should happen. The
options they get to choose between when they vote could be decided either by
politicians and officials, or by a Citizens’ Jury.
Each group was asked to pick two of the above scenarios, and to write why they had
chosen them on the back of the cards (although unfortunately not all groups did
this).
By far the most popular choices were Deliberative Event and Citizens’ Jury, each
with four votes. Traditional Decision Making and Referendum each received one
vote, and no group chose Consultation.
Where reasons were given, these were:
Deliberative event
- involving people who are affected by the issue; a lot of people
able to get involved.
- more community involvement; need to involve politicians and
officials in the discussion process before possible solutions
formulated.
Citizen’s jury
- people making recommendation to officials; collaborative
process; evidence based decision.
- Truly representative of communities – would get better buyin for recommendations put forward. Process will need to be
driven with passion to get best results.
12
Who would you like to be involved?
The final exercise of the evening was designed to encourage people to think about
who needs to be involved in resolving issues. Each table was given a list of eight
groups of people who might be involved, as listed below. They were also given blank
cards so that they could add additional groups or individuals who ought to be
involved.

Council/government officials – either local and/or national

Politicians – either local and/or national

Businesses – either local and/or national

Campaign and community groups – where their views and/or work is
relevant to the area being discussed

Service staff – people who work in the area being discussed, for example,
care workers if the discussed area is about adult social care

Service users – people who use the facility or service that’s being discussed.
For example, people who use local mental health services, if this was the area
under discussion

Local residents

Experts – for example academics
Notably, every table wanted every group above involved in decision-making.
Additional groups/individuals differed according to the specific issue each table
discussed, and are copied in full below.

Faith groups

Parents and young people

People in other countries

Trade unions

Practitioners

International organisations e.g. IMF

Voluntary groups

Cultural groups

Media
13

Educational establishments (schools, colleges)
One group noted especially the importance of all groups being effectively connected
for solutions to be achieved.
14
Conclusion and next steps
The next event in the Bradford People InSpired series is an accountability hearing/
Hustings, to take place on Sunday 12th April 2015 at 6.30 pm. At this event, the
parliamentary candidates will be asked to respond specifically to the issues raised in
this report.
After the election, the report will also be used to inform discussions about the issues
raised, with local representatives, officials and the elected MP.
Two conclusions stand out from the event on 16th March. Firstly, local people are
disillusioned with politicians and politics, which they feel is distant and
unrepresentative. People evidently do not trust politicians’ motives, or their ability
or will to make changes for the better. In Bradford, there is a great sense of ‘us-andthem’ – not only between the city and politicians, but also between Bradford and the
better life chances which appear to be possible in London and the South East.
“London!”
But they are hopeful for the future of politics.
Secondly, and very much linked to the disaffection described above - in order for this
hopeful future to be achieved, local people clearly want more of a say in decision
making.
“Participatory
Local
Non-hierarchical
Inclusive
Well-informed
Approachable
Listening
Decentralised”
There are a number of ways of achieving this – deliberative events and citizens’ juries
being the most popular proposals from the Bradford People InSpired participants.
15
“Please more of these events, more events like this”
We hope that this report may act as a catalyst for local people’s greater engagement
in the resolution of issues facing the people of Bradford. We urge local and national
politicians to pay heed to the concerns of local people, and to make genuine
commitments (not just election promises) to greater engagement and involvement at
local level. To this end, Bradford Cathedral:

intends to continue to offer itself as a venue for conversations of this nature,
and

commits itself to engaging with politicians and officials after the election to
further this discussion.
16
Appendix 1
Participants’ Detailed Responses
What three words do you think describe politics?
The following is a list of all the words used in this exercise, in alphabetical order.
Where the same word appeared more than once, this is indicated.
Adversarial
High unemployment
Anger
Hope
Austerity
Hot Air
Baraderi
Important (x3)
Broken
Ineffective (x2)
Centralised
Institutional racism
Challenging
Lack of accountability
Clueless
Machines
Compromise
Marginal to people’s lives
Confusion
Media driven (x2)
Corrupt
Mundane
Debate
Narrow minded
Democracy
Nothing changes much
Disaffected
No vision (x2)
Disagreeing
Over-ambitious
Disenchanted
Party political
Distant (x2)
Personal ambition
Diverse interests
Petty
Dysfunctional
Pointless
Economy
Polarised
Elitist
Power £$e
Engaging
Privileged
Environment (negative)
Problem-creating
Excitement
Process
Fair
Public services
Faith illiterateFlaccid
Removed
Flip-Flop
Rhetoric
17
Rules
Sometimes works
Same faces, same views
Stealthy
Samey
The austerity lie
Seen by some people as not affecting
The stronger ones win
them
Them and us
Self-aggrandisement
Undemocratic
Self-seeking
Unfit
Self-serving
Uninspiring
Shallow
Unrelateable
Short-termism (x2)
Voting
Shouting the odds
What a democratic government needs
Sneaky
18
What three words do you think describe how politics should be?
The following is a list of all the words used in this exercise, in alphabetical order.
Where the same word appeared more than once, this is indicated.
A system of productivity
Inspiring (x3)
Accessible
Integrity (x2)
Accountability
Involving (x2)
Active
Joined up
Advantageous
Justice (x5)
Approachable
Justice – 1% own 99%
Attractive
Knowledgeable
Care/vision for the planetCaring for all
Listening (x3)
Change
Local
Clear
Long-term perspective (x2)
Consensus
Mediate interests (nb definitely not
Constructive (x2)
media interests!)
Decentralised
No preconceptions
Democratic – people driven (x2)
Non-hierarchical
Dismantled
Not about power
Easy to get
Open (x2)
Effective (x2)
Participatory (x4)
Empowering
Passion
Enabling (x2)
PR
Engaging (x2)
Principled
Equal access
Proactive
Equality (x2)
Problem solving
Fairness
Public service
Greater involvement by local people
Recognising diversity
in decisions
Representation (x3)
Helpful
Resourceful
Honest (x6)
Respectful (x2)
Identifiable
Serving
Impact
Serving the people to meet needs
Inclusive (x2)
Shared power
19
Significant
Social justice
Subsidiarity (listening to grass roots)
Tackling inequality
Transparency (x4)
True debate
Trust (x2)
Truthful
Understood by everybody
Visionary leadership (x2)
Well-informed (x2)
Work for value for money
Working for the common good (x2)
20
What issue facing people in Bradford would you like to see tackled?
The following is a list of all the issues people wrote down, grouped into common
themes.
EDUCATION & OPPORTUNITIES

Education: 9% of young Bradfordians attend university / 53% of young people
in Reading. You are 5x more likely to get into a Cambridge College from
SE/E/London than you will from anywhere else in the country.

Education (x4)

Quality of education

State of secondary education

Aspiration & opportunity

Low educational attainment

Relative inequality of opportunity

Poor educational attainment in Bradford West

More opportunity/variety for school leavers
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Litter

Buildings that are beautiful and have incredible history – like Town Hall – to
be celebrated

Fill up empty buildings with people

Unoccupied/derelict housing

Green space

Local food: Britain needs to be able to feed itself

Pollution/waste problems

Climate change (x2)
LEISURE

More facilities/green areas in inner city

Leisure for young people so they do not hang around on street corners
21
DIVERSITY/MULTICULTURALISM

Interpretation

Bring community & different parts of it closer together in Bradford

Bradford faces issues of segregation

Diversity

Islamophobia & hate crime

Community development & politics

Greater levels of integration and community engagement across the district
to show the best aspects of a multicultural city
EMPLOYMENT

Unemployment (x4)

Quality employment

Jobs

Unemployment – middle-aged women who want to work but can’t find paid
work

Employment especially for young people – local and nationally

Employment opportunities
HEALTH & WELFARE

Drugs

Better support for disabled people

Treating people with respect – many of the issues around welfare ‘reform’
don’t do this!

Abolish sanctions against sick and disabled people (WCA)

NHS dentists (x2)
COMMUNITY SAFETY

Safety issues – harassment around University and College areas

Dangerous driving

Sexual exploitation of women & girls
22
INTERNATIONAL ISSUES

Gaza/Palestine

Support Palestinian rights to be treated as refugees with right of return
ISSUES OF REPRESENTATION

Quality of political representation

Concern about current MP
TRANSPORT

Children & young people’s access to public transport
POVERTY

Homelessness & housing

Destitution & poverty

Poverty x2

Poverty in Bradford

Need for foodbanks – in-work poverty

Housing

Deprivation

Jobs/poverty

Massive increase in use of foodbanks
OTHER

London!

Opportunity for ALL people to flourish (i.e. tackle poverty, housing,
schooling, benefits, unemployment, living wage)

Transient population

Third sector corruption
23