One person close to Birmingham Labour said the party’s ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) had blocked the possibility of a coalition or power-sharing agreement. In a statement, the local group said the election results showed it was “time for us to reflect carefully on the result, listen to residents, and rebuild trust and support with our communities”.
That sounds very dumb. If a coalition is what it takes to run the council then they should step up and do it. They could join up with everyone except for Reform and the Tories.
The article text says that this pro-Gaza group have also refused to form a coalition with anyone — that is, unlike the title text, it’s not others refusing to enter coalition with them, but them refusing to enter coalition with anyone else — so I suppose that they’re out too.
And based on the infographic, a coalition needs 51 seats, and Labour+Green+Liberal Democrats only can scrape together 48 on their own. Assuming that all the other parties stick to their stated red lines, I don’t think that Labour can enter a coalition with 51 or more seats.
Reform+Conservative+Lib Dem would be 51. Reform+Green+Lib Dem would be 54. Neither violates the stated red lines, though I suppose that it’d be some odd bedfellows.
Why do they need at least 51 seats? All they need to do is be the largest coalition of the group, which they will be since none of the others would work together.
Then all they need to do is announce policies, watch the other groups torpedo those policies, and now they can lampoon Reform (under the others but no one cares about them outside of Birmingham) on the public stage and demonstrate their deceitfulness. This would be a win for labour if only they were smart enough to be able to see it.
Ah, you’re right, sorry, just said for a majority.
deleted by creator
I see labour are continuing to be wedded to their policy of self-destruction, rather than admit that they have problems they have decided to instead double down. What a brilliant strategy.
I don’t know how you come to that conclusion. Unless you are suggesting Labour legitimise reform by working with them?
History teaches us that if you appease fascists then bad things happen.
Not stated in this article is that the Tories originally agreed to work with Labour but their party leader threatened to sack the local leader so they withdrew from that agreement.
I’m suggesting labour should work with the greens and libdems since they are supposedly politically aligned.
Greens and LDs should work together like the only adults in the room and then invite labour into the fold. Maybe then they can get over themselves.
I’m not local to Birmingham but where I live we have a desperate need for affordable housing and the Greens ran on a “no new housing, no exceptions” platform. They also opposed rollout of green energy solutions, probably to appease the NIMBY crowd.
My point is that at a local level the green party runs on platforms that will cause a lot of social problems that local authorities have to deal with and maybe in Birmingham they have some completely mental attachment to a local cause that is a red-line for Labour.
Lib Dems will do what they are told but arguably closer aligned to Tories.
In any case Labours best strategy is to sit back for a few months and watch reform and the independents self-destruct and see if Green and Lib Dem become more willing to compromise.
OP’s title aside, the article states that Labour have ruled out a coalition or power sharing agreement with anyone. If Labour actually gave a shit about not appeasing fascists then a) they wouldn’t consider working with the Tories either, and b) they’d gird their loins and bring the greens and the lib dems on board.
Instead, both Labour and the Tories are continuing to act as if they between them are entitled govern, and voters are just being petulant children by voting for anyone else.
OTOH Labour have been running Brum for years, it seems right that after getting booted into third place some one else should run it for a while. Given reform have the most seats they should get first try at forming a majority, if not them then the Greens.
I’m not local to Birmingham but where I live we have a desperate need for affordable housing and the Greens ran on a “no new housing, no exceptions” platform. They also opposed rollout of green energy solutions, probably to appease the NIMBY crowd.
My point is that at a local level the green party runs on platforms that will cause a lot of social problems that local authorities have to deal with and maybe in Birmingham they have some completely mental attachment to a local cause that is a red-line for Labour.
Lib Dems will do what they are told but arguably closer aligned to Tories.
In any case Labours best strategy is to sit back for a few months and watch reform and the independents self-destruct and see if Green and Lib Dem become more willing to compromise.
Good Shit, really sad to see the ultranationalist right wing Reform got so many seats.
I know its disheartening
This honestly should not be an issue. While Birmingham council is currently supposed to have a leader, there is provision within the law for a local authority to operate without one (as in, permanently and intentionally, not just as a falback measure). A minority leadership can be a thing too. There are plenty of those about already, and there’s even a minority coalition in Rutland county council
pro-Gaza independents
In…a local election? What possible role does Birmingham city council have regarding Gaza?
I mean, you can maybe declare a city abroad a sister city, for whatever that’s worth, I guess.
You could say the exact same thing about reform. Literally every single one of their policies requires them to being power in order to to implement, the policies don’t trickle down to the local level.
“We will stop immigration and take back Britain’s borders by raising your council tax, making your bin collections every four weeks instead of two, closing down your local museum and pocketing the money ourselves”
This must be all that waste they’ve been talking about
if there has been a significant amount of new immigrant residents locally then there could easily be local changes that can help
peace in gaza ain’t coming from birmingham city council
City councils have a lot of power with regards to local governance and procurement, which is targeted explicitly by the BDS campaign. More pro-gaza councillors = more people to vote on divestment from boycott targets.
That the Faragists and Gallowegians cannot possibly see eye to eye enough to form the reactionary coalition that would naturally emerge from their worldviews really is the narcissism of minor differences, isn’t it?
Though both parties are reactionary, their understanding of the basis of political and economic power are completely opposed, with the workers party being opposed to allying with finance and big business capital, and Reform happily allying with those same powers.
Social policy is not the be-all-and-end-all of theories of change.
Historically speaking, absolutists start rethinking their world-views once rats start congregating in the overloaded bins, and the unmended potholes / cock-and-balls-drawing crew ramp up.
It’s just a matter of time.
Wouldn’t a broad cross party consensus on every topic be better than one party putting through whatever they want, especially if the largest seats are with reform. Now they can’t favour areas of Brum based on the number of muslims or something ridiculous.
