Matthew Lloyd analyses the recent local election results in Birmingham and the lessons they hold for Andy Burnham as Prime Minister.

Birmingham is the largest local authority in Europe. Like many local authorities, it struggled financially and by 2023 it had joined the list of local authorities which had been declared bankrupt. Before the local elections the city was seen as a Labour stronghold, but after heavy Labour loses, Birmingham has its first ever Liberal Democrat council leader who is supported by a cross-party coalition.

Labour faced multiple electoral threats from pro-Gaza independents, Reform and the Greens, who all threatened different parts of its electoral coalition. Though local politics did have an impact on Birmingham’s local election results, they also offer a snapshot of the electoral dilemma Labour faces across the UK.

If the Labour Party is to rebuild its electoral coalition for the next set of local elections, and ultimately the general election, then lessons must be learnt from what happened in Birmingham.

Labour had run the council since 2012, but at this election the party lost 48 seats, relegating it to the third-largest party. Labour suffered two defections a month after the local elections reducing it to the fourth largest party.

Source: Author generated using electoral data – Changes in number of Birmingham City Council seats between political parties 2010-2026

Reform UK came in as the largest party, gaining 23 seats. The Greens gained 17 seats, becoming the second largest party. The Lib Dems remained even at 12 seats. The Conservatives declined from 22 to 16 seats and the independents, among whom many campaigned specifically on the issue of Gaza, gained 13 seats. The Workers’ Party of Birmingham gained 1 seat.

Source: Author generated using electoral data – Changes in number of Birmingham City Council seats in the 2022 and 2026 local elections.

Reform UK’s growing strength in Birmingham did not emerge overnight. It reflected a combination of local and national factors. Birmingham’s financial crisis, declining public services and the prolonged bin strikes created a sense that the city was no longer working. Reform was able to channel that frustration.

At the same time, national debates around immigration, identity and patriotism became increasingly prominent. It was no coincidence that last summer’s flag flying campaign originated in Birmingham. The campaign reflected a growing confidence among Reform supporters and demonstrated that questions of identity had become politically salient well before the local elections. Rather than creating Reform’s success, it revealed a political mood that the party would later convert into votes.

At the other end of the political spectrum, Starmer’s initial handling of the party’s response to Israel’s war in Gaza was used in the Green Party’s and Birmingham independents’ literature, with both opposing the government’s stance (see leaflet graphics below). These local elections revealed Labour’s worst nightmare, as residents in areas such as Kings Heath and Stirchley who had resisted the ‘flaggers’ turned to the Greens as progressive alternative to Reform UK.

Supporters of both Reform UK and the Green Party appeared united around their dislike for Starmer, even if this opinion is grounded in different reasons. Both parties battled to be seen as the party that could ‘stop Labour’ or ‘defeat Starmer’ (see leaflet graphics below).

Nigel Farage claimed that this same anti-Starmer tactic was used in the recent Makerfield by-election, but was less effective as Labour’s candidate and potential future leader, Andy Burnham, was also able to claim he would seek to remove Starmer from Number 10. This provides hope for Labour that a new leader could somewhat recover its electoral appeal.

Source: Author generated and collected from leaflets handed out to Birmingham residents during the 2026 Birmingham council elections

Local factors also meant Birmingham Labour always faced a difficult fight. Birmingham’s equal pay crisis arose because successive administrations failed to resolve longstanding pay disparities and bonus arrangements across the workforce. Some local agreements in male-dominated services, including refuse collection, contributed to those liabilities. The council also faced equal pay claims triggered in 2021 partly due to alleged inflated pay, the creation of new roles and new practices such as ‘task and finish’, which were part of settlements to avoid strikes by refuge workers.

Source: Facebook Ad by ‘Unite for a Workers’ Economy’ Group during the Birmingham Local Elections

Equal pay claims coupled with the costs of a botched implementation of a new IT system contributed towards the council being declared bankrupt and the now infamous bin worker strikes that have meant Birmingham residents have not had their recycling collected since Christmas 2024.

Birmingham’s local elections should be seen as a warning for Labour rather than an exception. The party is losing different parts of its electoral coalition for different reasons. Reform appealed to voters frustrated by economic decline and declining public services. The Greens and pro-Gaza independents appealed to progressive voters who felt Labour no longer represented them.

While local factors made Labour’s position worse, the underlying trends are national. One lesson is that Andy Burnham’s argument for deeper English devolution deserves renewed attention. Giving mayors and local leaders greater powers over economic development, transport, housing and public services would allow places like Birmingham to respond more directly to local challenges and rebuild trust in politics. If Labour is serious about renewing its electoral coalition, it will need to combine a national vision with a stronger model of local government.

By Matthew Lloyd, PhD candidate, Queen Mary University of London and political strategy consultant.

Erskine May

8 min read20 min

That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the government to lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America, including but not confined to…

So begins the lengthy resolution come to by the House of Commons on 4 February 2026. In response, the government provided 1,000 pages of documents in two tranches, in March and June 2026. As a result of a manuscript amendment to the original motion, documents thought to raise issues of national security were first seen by the Intelligence and Security Committee.

These events can be seen as a welcome assertion of the power of Parliament over the executive. Certainly they have deep historical roots; but do they have quite the magical powers that many would wish to see?

The principle set out in Erskine May is that each House has the power to call for the production of papers by the government of the day, by a “motion for a return”. A return from the Privy Council or from a department headed by a secretary of state is called for by an humble (always “an” humble, not “a” humble) address to the sovereign; papers from any other body are sought simply by means of an Order of the House. The somewhat artificial distinction is based on the theory that secretaries of state are created by the King, and that the departments which they head are his property.

The power of each House to call for papers is in effect delegated to select committees, whose parent House has given them the power “to call for persons, papers and records” (known as PPR). This is of greater practical importance in the often adversarial surroundings of the House of Commons than in the calmer waters of the House of Lords. A select committee with PPR cannot exercise that power directly, as if it were the House itself. Rather, a select committee whose request is refused can report the matter to the House to take action (at which point, of course, the committee loses control of the process). It is sometimes suggested (but not by me) that such requests should be backed by a penal power, which would no doubt risk bringing the courts into the picture. In my experience, as a tussle over information is essentially a political struggle, witnesses come to realise quite quickly that continuing to refuse a select committee’s request may be much more damaging than giving in gracefully.

There remains a category of proceeding which is entirely at the initiative of ministers: “Motions for Unopposed Returns”. Some of these have become traditional: the Financial Statement and Budget Report and the accounts of the Contingencies Fund are two examples. The unopposed return is also used as a means of conferring the protection of privilege upon a document – typically the report of an inquiry – which otherwise might be the subject of legal proceedings.

Because a motion for an unopposed return (moved by a minister) is an indication that the document is about to be provided to the House, it is not in order to seek to oppose it (unlike a motion for an humble address, as we shall see).

The relationship between Crown and Parliament has proceeded in parallel since the very earliest days. Even after the Reform Act 1832 the procedure of the House of Commons, and the standing orders which regulated it, would have been easily recognisable to a Member in the Long Parliament of 1640. But the rapid development of the corporate state and government in the middle to late 19th century brought profound procedural change. Business became more complicated, and the standing orders proliferated to match it. Most important, the government took control of the agenda and the time of the House of Commons, a process completed – for the time being – by the ‘Balfour Reforms’ of 1902.

One type of proceeding that was profoundly changed by these developments was calling for papers. In earlier centuries, seeking the production of papers for the information of the House was fairly frequent, and often had a charming informality (as it were, “we’d like to know more about this, so we had better see some papers”). The establishment of co-ordinated machinery of government in the latter half of the 19th century meant that a great deal of information began to be routinely provided to Parliament, both in Command Papers (presented to Parliament “by command” of the sovereign) and Act Papers (where statutes required the submission of reports to Parliament). This meant that there was much less need to call for papers by motions for returns or humble addresses.

But the power of both Houses to call for papers remained unchanged, and as the Commons Procedure Committee noted in 2019, has never been challenged. There are no limits upon it in common law or statute.

The House of Commons must be able to instruct His Majesty’s ministers, and refusal to comply must in turn be an issue of privilege, and ultimately of confidence

Advertisement

Humble addresses went into near-hibernation for some years (although at the start of every parliamentary session each House has agreed a motion for an humble address to the sovereign for the Queen’s or King’s Speech from the throne). Motions for humble addresses are still frequently seen, as any attempt to have a statutory instrument annulled takes the form of a “prayer”; whereby an address would be presented to the sovereign, praying that the such-and-such statutory  instrument be annulled. It is extremely rare for a motion of this sort to be agreed, so they are essentially vehicles for debate.

In the 2017-19 session, the issue emerged from hibernation, with 10 motions in the name of the leader of the opposition put down on opposition days. Four (seeking the submission of papers to a select committee) were agreed, and the others were negatived.

The profile of humble addresses seeking information was raised sharply in November 2018 when the House agreed a motion calling for legal advice given to ministers (contrary to the convention in the Ministerial Code). The government responded in general terms, only for the House, in December 2018, to find ministers in contempt for not providing the Attorney General’s advice as given. This prompted the inquiry by the Commons Procedure Committee

So, how effective is the humble address of the type relating to Lord Mandelson? The answer must, I think, be “fairly effective”. First, you need time on the floor of the House. If the government of the day is not going to provide this (and there may well be political reasons why any government might be reluctant to do so) then the obvious vehicle will be an opposition day.

Second, will an agreed motion be binding on the government? On 1 November 2017 the then-opposition tabled a motion for an humble address seeking impact assessments for a number of sectors following Brexit. The motion was agreed to, and the then-shadow secretary of state for exiting the European Union, Keir Starmer, asked the Speaker if the decision of the House would be binding on the government. In a somewhat rambling ruling, the Speaker said that “motions of this kind have been traditionally regarded as binding or effective”.

From first principles, this must be right. The House of Commons must be able to instruct His Majesty’s ministers, and refusal to comply must in turn be an issue of privilege, and ultimately of confidence.

Third, will you get what you asked for? The government response to the humble address relating to Lord Mandelson very helpfully sets out the process followed in assembling the material sought. It quotes the resolutions on ministerial accountability to Parliament, allowing non-disclosure when disclosure “would not be in the public interest”. Redactions were made to protect national security, international relations, junior staff or people peripherally involved, or to protect legal professional privilege.

Within these constraints, the humble address provided what was expected – although it must be remembered that in this case the government was a willing player.

There has been some unease about possible prodigal use of these motions. In 2019, the Commons Procedure Committee was pretty unsympathetic. It pointed out the options available to the government: simply vote against the motion (or amend it); negotiate over the material to be provided; or have the material submitted to a select committee for analysis and report.

So, two (or even two-and-a-half) cheers for the humble address. Like any procedural device, it should not be used too often; but in Parliament’s dealings with over-mighty executives (and executives are always over-mighty) it remains a weapon in the armoury. 

Lord Lisvane is a crossbench peer and former clerk of the Commons

8 min read12 min

Andy Burnham inherits a raft of government-backed projects, from a controversial third runway at Heathrow to the massively expensive High Speed 2 rail line, and an ambitious programme of new towns as part of a pledge to build 1.5 million homes before the next election.

As Labour MPs are only too aware, the Makerfield MP’s promise to put “good growth in every postcode” presents an opportunity to change direction on each of those schemes, particularly as he seeks to draw a contrast with his predecessor, Keir Starmer.

On High Speed 2, Burnham has been clear he wants to reverse Rishi Sunak’s decision to axe the line’s ‘northern leg’ to Manchester – though precisely what combination of levers he would pull to pay for it remains unclear.

Ahead of his election in Makerfield, Burnham told the i Paper there is a “cleverer way” of funding the route north of Birmingham, drawing on his experience as the minister who signed off on the funding for London’s Elizabeth line. According to a 2024 report commissioned by Burnham, that could involve money raised from business rates.

“A portion of the net-increase in business rates that is directly attributable to the project (i.e. which would not have been ‘generated’ if the project was not delivered) could be ringfenced over time, and used to repay upfront financing to support the capital works,” said the report, overseen by former HS2 Ltd chairman Sir David Higgins and the engineering consultants Arup.

Henri Murison, chief executive of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, which contributed to the report, points out that the most expensive parts of the route have already been allocated funding.

“The most expensive bit, which is Manchester Piccadilly underground station through to Manchester Airport, has just been re-branded as part of Northern Powerhouse Rail,” he says.

“So, when we talk about HS2, the thing you’ve got to remember is that the most expensive bit at the bottom and top is still being built. It’s just the relatively cheap bit in the middle that we’re not doing.”

Given that extending the line north of Birmingham would generate a significant increase in passengers, Murison argues that future fare income could be key in helping to pay for the full route.

Burnham has also talked about land value capture as a way of raising funds for it, which Murison believes has been a missed opportunity in the project’s first phase.

“Planning permissions have gone sky-high in Birmingham, the same thing’s happened at Old Oak Common [in west London], but all that uplift in the value of land around the stations and the depots on the route of phase one has been given away by the UK government – and I think that’s scandalous.”

The stage has only been set for restoring the route, he adds, as the land has been carefully safeguarded against attempts to sell it.

“Fundamentally, between the then-chancellor Jeremy Hunt, Andy Burnham, Andy Street, a load of us in the private sector, we have managed to avoid the government and the country doing something really stupid, which was making decisions it couldn’t reconsider…

“That is the real victory. The fact that Andy is one of the people who has been on that side of the debate is obviously a huge help to us when trying to finish the job.”

When it comes to Labour’s housing mission, Burnham inherits a programme of new towns which remains at a relatively early stage. Between March and May this year, ministers consulted on seven proposed sites, with the outcome of that exercise yet to be published.

Sir Michael Lyons, who chaired the taskforce which recommended a shortlist of 12 locations from which the seven have been drawn, is encouraged by what Burnham has said on housing so far.

“Everything that he says points to a further concentration on the housing shortfall in this country and a proper role for government and the public sector in making sure that we move faster towards homes for all,” Lyons tells The House.

“We’ve got a massive task there, years of work ahead of us. It’s not helped by setting targets which you can’t meet. Frankly, the 1.5 [million homes] figure was hope against experience.”

While he acknowledges that the target has prompted “a lot of action” in difficult circumstances, he believes the next PM should replace it with a new 10-year goal, stretching beyond the current Parliament and focused on ensuring authorities meet local quotas.

Burnham’s boosterism, Lyons argues, will itself have a positive impact on confidence in the housebuilding sector.

“We have managed to avoid the government and the country doing something really stupid”

“I do think it makes a difference if the country’s led by somebody who emphasises that you can do things, rather than that ‘it’s all complicated’. That is not to be underestimated, in releasing energy, in releasing innovation and basically building a coalition of people willing to find ways of progressing things faster.”

He also believes Burnham will bring new ways of thinking about funding major developments.

“There’s quite a lot of people talking about the fact that while we are severely limited in terms of public expenditure, that does not necessarily go for long-term investment and that there is scope for government to do more in that area.

“I think we will see Burnham coming forward with sound proposals for patient capital to be invested in housing and infrastructure – I’m fully expecting that.”

While Burnham has promised to devolve new decision making powers to local communities, Lyons warns that this cannot mean allowing councils to “pull up the drawbridge” on new homes.

One of the seven new towns consulted on is at Crews Hill and Chase Park on the northern edge of London. But there, Enfield council’s new Conservative administration has “formally withdrawn” support for the scheme, saying it “reflects the democratic will of the residents we have been chosen to represent”.

As far as Lyons is concerned, Burnham’s government should firmly push back against such resistance, arguing that housing should be viewed through the same prism as defence.

“Defence is an issue of national interest,” he says. “We don’t start debating with local communities whether they want a submarine base on their doorstep. You can’t run the country that way.”

During his taskforce’s work identifying sites, Lyons says that in some cases, he saw “people opposing development in the most offensive terms, really, about keeping out others”.

He adds: “For many more people, it’s about not wanting their quality of life to be damaged by development.

“I think the answer to that is investment in economic and social infrastructure – so that your doctor’s surgery isn’t all of a sudden flooded, your local schools do have enough places to accommodate the homes being built. But this isn’t beyond us, actually. These are things that can be planned for.”

Perhaps most fascinating will be the approach Burnham takes on Heathrow expansion. The scheme, touted by Chancellor Rachel Reeves as a critical growth project, continues to divide Labour MPs, particularly in London, where mayor Sir Sadiq Khan is opposed on environmental grounds.

MPs trying to prevent a third runway are reassured by comments made by Burnham following Reeves’ announcement about the scheme in January 2025, when he told Times Radio that expansion “diverts infrastructure investment away from the North and traps it in London and the South East”.

Burnham called it “a model for an ever-overheating UK economy, rather than a more balanced, levelled-up economy, which is what we would argue for”.

One London Labour MP tells The House those comments “have not passed us by” and that Burnham’s ascendency brings “an opportunity for a change of conversation” about the project.

“It doesn’t make economic sense – it’s just a financially unviable scheme. I cannot see how it can meet our climate targets, but also I think it would be much better for regional growth [not to build it],” they say.

“If there’s going to be growth in air transport, it’s better to share that out with the regional airports, and I hope to get a good hearing on that from Andy.”

Another London Labour MP argues that if Heathrow expands: “Manchester Airport loses out, currently Birmingham Airport loses out even more and therefore the hinterlands, the economies of those regions around those airports… I wouldn’t put any money on runway three getting any further.”

But Steve Race, the Exeter MP who co-convenes the Labour Growth Group, believes the next PM should press ahead with the work started by Reeves.

“As long as we can do it within our carbon budget, as long as we’re forcing airlines and airports to get to [improved] sustainability as quickly as they possibly can, then I think connectivity, trade and infrastructure development is absolutely key to this economy,” he says.

One well-connected source says that as much as Khan and Burnham “don’t particularly get on” with one another, the new PM will not want to “go to war” with London’s mayor “unnecessarily about something he doesn’t really care about”.

But Burnham, they add, may still “take a more economically minded view of this than people might first assume”.

One option would be to back the rival expansion proposal by the hotel tycoon Surinder Arora. Unlike the airport’s own proposal, Arora’s plan would avoid the M25 motorway needing to be tunnelled under Heathrow, as it would mean building a shorter third runway on the airport’s existing footprint.

 “That would be a compromise,” says the source. “Andy is pretty into compromises.”