The Whip Cracks Back
One Labour councillor has walked away. Another has put his objections in writing. Birmingham Labour now faces questions that are becoming harder to ignore.
Cllr Diane Donaldson walked away from Labour this week. That alone would have been enough to make Birmingham political eyebrows perform a small Mexican wave. But now GRIT has been passed a private email from Cllr Majid Mahmood to Birmingham Labour’s leadership, and it turns the Donaldson resignation from an isolated departure into part of a much larger story. The email was sent to Cllr Nicky Brennan, Cllr Suranjeet Kaur and Cllr Ray Goodwin following the reconvened Council AGM. It was not a rant, not a tantrum and not one of those late-night political WhatsApps written with one thumb and too much righteous caffeine. Cllr Mahmood is a lawyer, and it shows. The email is shaped with judicial precision: calm, structured, evidential and quietly devastating.
Its central allegation is stark. Cllr Mahmood says Labour councillors were whipped into supporting arrangements that could have enabled Reform councillors to take control of key committee positions at Birmingham City Council. He says he had made clear beforehand that Labour should not vote in a way that could allow Reform to chair Planning, yet the group proceeded with an arrangement which, if successful, would have handed Reform influence over some of the council’s most important democratic functions. This lands at a particularly delicate moment. Cllr Mahmood is also understood to be facing disciplinary action, or at least investigation, this weekend over his public position that there was no final deal on the Birmingham bin strike. That is a separate issue, but the timing is impossible to ignore. One senior Labour grafter, Cllr Donaldson, has already walked. Another, Cllr Mahmood, has now placed on record a forensic objection to the party’s conduct over Reform and is reportedly being called in over the bin strike row. In politics, coincidence often arrives wearing a very bad disguise.
The email asks the questions Birmingham Labour may least want to answer. Did the party authorise negotiations with Cllr Jex Parkin, the Reform Group Leader? If so, were Labour’s Birmingham leaders given similar leeway to negotiate with other political groups? What discussions took place with the Greens, Liberal Democrats and Independents? And if no acceptable agreement could be reached, why did Labour not simply withdraw and nominate only Labour candidates, rather than support arrangements that have caused such obvious reputational damage? Those are not the questions of a man throwing his toys out of the pram. They are the questions of a lawyer building a paper trail. And that is where this story becomes rather more serious than a routine disagreement inside a political party.
The most striking aspect of Cllr Mahmood’s email is that it is not really about Reform at all. Reform is merely the trigger. The real issue is what Labour was prepared to do and why. Cllr Mahmood’s argument is essentially that Labour found itself supporting arrangements which could have handed significant influence to a party many of its own members regard as fundamentally opposed to Labour values. For a city like Birmingham, that matters. This is not some sleepy rural district where the biggest political controversy of the month involves a hedge being six inches too tall. Birmingham is one of the most diverse cities in Europe. Every ward contains communities of different faiths, cultures, ethnicities and traditions. Political decisions are not merely administrative. They carry meaning.
Cllr Mahmood’s email sets out why he believes Reform holding key committee positions would be deeply troubling. He refers to comments made by Nigel Farage concerning British Muslims. He refers to Sarah Pochin’s comments regarding the burqa. He refers to Reform’s position on the kirpan and concerns expressed within Birmingham’s Sikh community. He refers to criticism of Muslim prayer within civic life and wider concerns about community cohesion. Whether one agrees with every point or not is almost beside the point. The point is that Cllr Mahmood believes these concerns are serious enough that Labour should never have found itself facilitating Reform’s route to influence over important council committees. That is a remarkable position for a senior Labour councillor to feel compelled to place formally on record.
What makes the situation even more awkward for Labour is that Cllr Mahmood’s concerns now sit alongside those expressed by Cllr Donaldson. Cllr Donaldson’s resignation initially looked like the departure of a respected councillor frustrated with the direction of travel. Now, viewed through the prism of Cllr Mahmood’s email, it begins to look more like part of a broader pattern. Cllr Donaldson spoke of concerns around bullying, lack of support, internal democracy and the direction of the party. Cllr Mahmood is now asking whether proper alternatives were explored before Labour entered discussions that could have benefited Reform. One councillor leaving can be dismissed as an individual decision. Two respected councillors expressing profound concern over the same political episode becomes much harder to explain away.
The difficulty for Labour is that both Cllr Donaldson and Cllr Mahmood fall into the same category. They are workers. Neither is known for grandstanding. Neither spends their days hunting television cameras. Neither has built a reputation for dramatic public outbursts. These are not the usual suspects. These are precisely the sort of councillors parties normally treasure. Which is why the current situation looks so odd. At a time when Birmingham Labour is already struggling with electoral losses, declining public confidence and growing voter frustration, one might imagine the priority would be retaining experienced and respected local representatives. Instead, one has left and another appears to be heading into a disciplinary process.
There may, of course, be explanations for all of this. Labour may argue that the arithmetic of the AGM left limited options. It may argue that difficult compromises were unavoidable. It may insist that no endorsement of Reform was intended. It may explain that the disciplinary process concerns entirely separate matters. All of those arguments may yet be advanced. But politics is not merely about what happened. Politics is also about what people believe happened. And that is where Labour has a problem. The image now emerging is of a party that appears increasingly comfortable disciplining dissent while becoming increasingly uncomfortable answering questions. That may not be fair. But it is becoming a perception. And perceptions have an unfortunate habit of turning into political realities.
The broader question now facing Birmingham Labour is surprisingly simple. When respected councillors raise concerns, does the party listen? Or does it reach for the disciplinary handbook? Because voters are watching. Party members are watching. Councillors are certainly watching. And somewhere in the middle of all this sits Cllr Majid Mahmood’s email, quietly asking questions that nobody seems especially keen to answer. Perhaps Birmingham Labour has good answers. If so, now would be an excellent time to provide them. Because when grafters start walking away and loyalists start writing letters of conscience, the machine is not demonstrating strength. It is demonstrating strain. And strained machines have a habit of breaking at precisely the moment their owners insist everything is working perfectly.
Richard, thank you for takingg the time to comment. There is a great deal in what you say that deserves serious consideration.
I do not think many people would argue that Bham is a perfectly cohesive city. We are a city of strong communities, distinct identities, differing faiths and, increasingly, differing political outlooks. The election results certainly suggest that questions of identity, culture, religion and community can influence voting behaviour alongside the traditional issues of taxation, services and party loyalty.
Where I would perhaps part company with you is on the conclusion. The fact that social cohesion is imperfect does not necessarily mean it does not exist. Nor does it mean that it is not worth striving for. Bham remains a city where millions of daily interactions take place peacefully across cultural, religious and ethnic boundaries. That reality exists alongside the tensions and divisions you describe.
On Councillor Mahmood, I suspect his critics and supporters would both agree that Reform’s electoral success cannot simply be wished away. Reform’s support is real and substantial, and any serious politician ignores that at their peril. Equally, those who support RReform should recognise that concerns about community relations are not automatically illegitimate simply because they are expressed by political opponents.
The challenge for B'ham over the next four years is not whether disagreements exist. They clearly do. The challenge is whether those disagreements can be argued through democratic politics rather than hardening into permanent tribal divisions.
That, I suspect, is a debate worth having, regardless of which party any of us support...
I read your comments on Councillor Mahmood and noticed his comments about why Reform, the largest party in the Chamber, should not be allowed to chair scrutiny committees. I notice his comment about social cohesion. That made me laugh out loud. Birmingham has no social cohesion. It is a divided place. You speak of the variety of religions and cultures in each ward. But that runs contrary to reality. Ghettoes exist be that in Sutton or in Heartlands etc. To dream of a multicultural city where people of different colours and religion live side by side is akin to the dream of the rainbow republic South Africa. Both are just dreams. You have only to look at the election results in 2026 to see that race and religion were determining factors of who won in most wards. This can be seen most starkly in eg Oscott ward, where Reform won comfortably. Yet half of that ward is part of the Perry Barr constituency that has a Muslim Independent MP. How do those voters feel about being represented by an MP utterly opposed to what they voted for in 2026? The answer borders on a mix of stoic acceptance to rage. This is not simply a matter of politics; it is a matter of race and religion, as it has been before in eg Liverpool and Bolton back in the 1950s and 60s where race and religion determined for whom you voted. It petered out there in the 1980s and 1990s Now we have it here. The problem for Councillor Mahmood is his failure to recognise reality; his failure to see that Reform is a consequence of a problem and not the problem itself. When in the 1950s and 1960s the Liberals and Tories in Bolton agreed each to stand aside to prevent the Irish Labour voting from winning Bolton East and Bolton West religion and race mattered. Mahmood and others demonstrate not only that there is a problem but that religion again trumps national political discourse. That bodes badly for the coming four years; community cohesion there is not.