Anger over council cuts builds as rebel councillor defies orders
Libraries consultation trigger for widespread anger
He’s a rebel with a cause and he’s posing a huge headache for the Labour leadership in Birmingham.
As the impact of dire cuts to public services begins to become real, Councillor Martin Brooks has become a voice for citywide anger and frustration against his own party.
Today’s Inside Birmingham with Jane Haynes newsletter focusses on dissent inside the Labour Party in Birmingham.
If you enjoy it please do me a favour and share the link with your friends. I’m keen to grow the readership so I can deliver more exclusive content in this ad-free, user friendly format that readers tell me they like.
A lifelong Labour member and councillor for Harborne, Martin Brooks is currently very miffed with his party and is not afraid to say so. His social media feed on X, formerly Twitter, has become a timeline of dissent against the leadership of Labour locally and nationally.
His most recent messages include retweets criticising the party over its “Tory lite” financial approach and the winter fuel payments cut. He also lays into Yardley MP Jess Phillips this week for her harmful claim that a Birmingham Palestinian doctor let her jump the queue when she went to A&E recently ‘because of who she was and because she voted for a ceasefire in Gaza.’
He tweeted: “Jess Phillips is a piece of work. She was at A&E with breathing problems- that’s why she got to see a dr. quickly. To suggest she was prioritised because she’s an MP or supports a Gaza ceasefire is a real slur on the NHS and its staff. The hospital needs to rebut her nonsense.”
He’s also used his platform to reiterate criticism from the left about Keir Starmer’s Labour. Not very comradely, some would say.
Rewind to March 5 this year when the full Birmingham City Council gathered in the Council Chamber to sign off a catastrophic 2024-25 budget that included a 9.9% Council Tax hike and cuts that went deeper than any single one of the austerity years.
Brooks was away on a pre planned holiday, so did not vote. He says had he been present he would not have supported it. “It is a budget that undermines the social fabric of the city and does irreparable damage,” he says.
He believes some of his fellow Labour members who were present were hoodwinked into backing the damaging proposals, told they had no choice and that the city’s poorest would be protected. The council’s government appointed commissioners, reporting in at the time to Michael Gove, were overseeing the council’s every move in the historic chamber that fateful budget day, and it was made clear that if the members failed to back the cuts they would step in.
Fellow backbenchers have since said they felt extremely uneasy about the whole situation. Many say they had virtually no say in the proposals that emerged, and no time to debate them. They were advised to get behind their leaders anyhow. If they refused, the government would withdraw its offer of exceptional financial support - a £1 billion-plus ‘credit agreement’ that allows the council to sell assets and use the proceeds to fund equal pay liabilities, among other things.
Since then councillors who voted for the proposed cuts have been out lobbying their own leadership to abort some of the measures that make up the ‘recovery’ plan. Labour councillors have spoken out about youth service cuts, day service closures, the axeing of early help, cuts to arts funding and much more - all of which were the explicit outcomes of the budget they voted for.
The real size of the equal pay liability is a huge bone of contention too.
There is hope that the new Labour Government, with Angela Rayner overseeing local government, will step in and do “something” about Birmingham - though the best many realistically hope for is a longer timeframe to balance the books.
Brooks is not alone within the Labour Group in being furious about what’s going down. Many are lobbying internally for change; or more tactfully making their views known.
Brooks can’t be doing with any of that.
He has refused to play the game. He has turned the spotlight on his own leadership, posting barbed comments about the actions of cabinet members.
That’s what has put him on a collision course with Labour that could ultimately end in his suspension.
His ‘outsider’ status was confirmed last week. While fellow councillors and MPs gathered at the Park Regis hotel to celebrate election victory, Brooks was outside with protestors lobbying them over libraries and day centres. He was not even invited, I understand.
Standing with Jean, whose brother Robert is one of the regulars at closure-threatened Harborne Day Centre, he described the proposals for these closures, and the cuts to libraries, as a travesty, and shameful.
He has described the consultations that are under way over the planned closures as inadequate and shares concerns that they will be subject to judicial review. In no uncertain terms, he’s criticised his group leaders and the council as a whole for what he sees as bowing to pressure from commissioners, rather than doing what’s best for Brummies.
A second round of libraries consultation has now begun before a final decision on their fate. Brooks had been critical. All of the meetings to discuss the plans are being held on weekdays, with no evening or weekend options - a move that Brooks says are convenient for officials but not necessarily all residents.
He has also joined condemnation about the outcome of the first round of consultation that resulted in the publication of a preferred option by the council that mirrored its original, leaked intentions dating back to January. It has been described variously as a box tick exercise and a sham. Its failure to consider or include as an option a carefully put together alternative proposal that would save all libraries under a new partnership funded model has been particularly condemned.
The preferred option lined up by the council would see just ten libraries remain full time (open five days, 35 hours), and 14 go “part time”, open 2 days, 14 hours. Seven more might survive if partners take on the costs and staffing.
Harborne is among the part time options being touted. Asked about the proposals, Brooks said of them - and posted on his Facebook page - “Very concerning to see the proposals coming out of Birmingham City Council on the future of our community libraries. This isn’t in any way about ‘transforming’ the service - it’s about cuts and managed decline. And it’s being done without any certainty as to whether such severe cuts are even necessary. Yet the officers and politicians responsible for bringing the Council to this position have not faced any consequences.
“The consultation so far has been highly flawed. In Harborne it’s consisted of a poorly organised online consultation attended by only six people. while an in-person consultation scheduled for mid-June did not even take place. The proposed closure of Harborne library - one of the best used in the city - -and its replacement by a part-time library in an unspecified location is a blow to our community which we must challenge.”
Not surprisingly, Brooks’ comments and general stance have not gone unnoticed by the party hierarchy. Brooks has been spoken to and written to by Labour group chief whip Ray Goodwin, acting on behalf of the leadership. In one email, he was told that speaking to the media on the issue without prior authorisation is “not acceptable”.
That’s part of a wider clampdown against backbenchers who have been warned not to speak to me, or other media, on ANY topic without first checking it by the chief whip. A ludicrous state of affairs for local democracy - and an issue I’ll return to in a separate newsletter.
But sticking to the issue in hand - Brooks knows that suspension from the party is an option but is clear his own fate is not as important to him as having a clear conscience.
Asked about the threat to his own position - either due to suspension or being deselected by the party for future elections - he said: “I’m speaking up against the cuts in libraries and youth services because they’ll devastate the social fabric of the city and damage young people’s life chances for years to come. Most cuts have neither been discussed nor voted on by the city’s Labour Group.
“Although I’ve only been back on the City Council for two years I’ve served nearly 20 years on the Council and have never broken the Party Whip. But I’m going to continue to speak out against the cuts - there’s nothing anyone can give or take away from me that will make any difference to me.”
Therein lies the dilemma for the leadership. Unlike many backbenchers, Brooks claims to have no ambitions for advancement within the group. He is currently chair of the planning committee, a privilege he’d prefer to retain but not at any cost.
The party can’t smooth his troubled brow with any promises or offers, it seems, and is unlikely to try. It leaves them with limited options.
If they kick him out of the party, he will continue as an independent, voicing his anger from the back of the chamber. Come the 2026 local elections, he could be in a strong position among local voters as their ‘champion’ that he could retain the seat over a Labour candidate.
Brooks’ attack on the libraries consultation poses an especially sensitive dilemma for group leader John Cotton.
His partner Kalvinder Kohli is the assistant director who has led the review of the libraries and the accompanying consultation arrangements. To avoid claims of a conflict of interest, or a perception of such, Cotton has not been directly involved in the libraries issue, I understand. It is instead being overseen politically by Councillor Saima Suleman, Cabinet Member for Digital, Culture, Heritage and Tourism.
There is absolutely no suggestion of impropriety by either of them. But Brooks has been warned by chief whip Ray Goodwin about his dissent on the libraries issue and been told in writing that any future commentary he wants to make publicly around libraries should be discussed with Goodwin “or the leader or deputy leader”.
Things could get very messy if Cllr Cotton has to recommend action against a member of his group for his dissent over a council consultation fronted by his partner.
In response to my inquiries about whether any conflict of interest was being adequately protected, there was assurance that Councillor Cotton had appropriately declared his interest and relationship, and that Cllr Suleman was the political representative on the issue.
Regarding the issue of Cllr Brooks being called out for his dissent on the issue, a Labour group spokesperson said: “Members of the group are encouraged to engage with and advocate on behalf of their local residents, including on such matters as the library service. The whips team remind members to behave in a comradely manner towards colleagues online and that there has been and will be further opportunity to discuss this matter privately within the group and with the cabinet member. We encourage all members of the group to attend and engage within those sessions or alternatively arrange to discuss with the cabinet member.”
I understand it is not Brooks’ challenges over the libraries per se that is viewed as problematic, but comments made publicly to and about individuals.
Brooks has not eased off on his criticism in the meantime. He has separately called out a decision by new Labour regional mayor Richard Parker to make Sharon Thompson his deputy. She is also deputy leader of the city council, a full time job. Brooks says this represents a potential conflict of interest and detracts from the focus she should have sorting out the council crisis. I’ve reached out to Parker and the council to clarify the deputy mayor role and the time expectation and allowance linked to it, so far without reply.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Inside Birmingham with Jane Haynes to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.