Uma Kumaran MP on Instagram
For decades, Newham has been synonymous with Labour dominance. The borough has consistently delivered some of the party’s strongest results anywhere in the country. But as we approach the May 2026 mayoral election, a perfect storm of a changed electoral system and political upheaval threatens to end that era.
The System That Protected Labour (though it rarely needed it)
Until now, Newham’s mayoral elections used the Supplementary Vote system, where voters could express both first and second preferences. If no candidate secured over 50%, second choices were redistributed between the top two. In practice, this rarely mattered — Labour won outright on first preferences in five of six elections. Only in 2006, when George Galloway’s Respect Party mounted a strong challenge, did Labour need second preferences to win.
Had the Tories not abolished this system in 2022 it would have provided Labour with a crucial safety net this year. Progressive voters could have backed the Greens or another party as their first choice, knowing they could return to Labour via second preferences. Even with Labour’s support weakened by the unpopularity of the Starmer government, the party would likely have benefited from transfers from other progressive voters keen to keep less appealing alternatives out.
That buffer has for the time being disappeared. Despite introducing legislation to reinstate the supplementary vote, parliament has not yet passed it into law, so the 2026 election will use First Past the Post. One vote, winner takes all, regardless of whether they achieve a majority.
Historical Strength, Meet Historic Weakness
To understand how extraordinary the current situation is, consider the numbers. In 2018, Rokhsana Fiaz won with a commanding 73.4%. Even in 2022, when her support dropped significantly, she still secured 56.2%.
Historically, Newham Labour’s candidates have outperformed national polling by 25-40 percentage points. For example, when the party polled 29% nationally in 2010, their mayoral candidate won 68% locally. Newham has always been a Labour bedrock.
Fast forward to January 2026, and Labour is polling at a catastrophic 17-22% nationally — the party’s worst position since monthly polling began in 1983. Even with the usual level of out-performance versus the national party, Newham Labour may struggle to hit even 40% this time.
And with the early messaging from Labour candidate Forhad Hussain suggesting he is running against the current mayor’s record rather than the Opposition, that is doubtful. “Labour’s made a mess of it, vote Labour” is s hard message to sell.
The Challengers Emerge
Given the polls and the change to the voting system, this election is genuinely competitive.
The Newham Independents’ candidate, Councillor Mehmood Mirza, represents the largest opposition group on the council with four seats (or is it five?). His populist platform — council tax freezes, free parking, public events, even more free parking, and free sports gear for every child — taps into dissatisfaction over street cleaning, parking charges, and council governance, as well as anger over Labour’s stance on Gaza. Whether his ambitious spending promises can be delivered within a balanced budget is questionable, but the appeal is undeniable. Promises cost nothing, and by the time voters find out he can’t actually deliver them, it’s too late.
The Green candidate, Councillor Areeq Chowdhury, defected from Labour in 2024. His candidacy provides a direct bridge for disillusioned Labour supporters into another progressive option. The Greens already hold the Stratford Olympic Park ward and are targeting council seats in Stratford, Forest Gate and the Royal Docks. They came second with 17.4% in the July 2024 general election in Stratford & Bow, demonstrating organised support across the borough’s younger and more affluent areas. His promise to “ensure we have a clean, green place to live in” will resonate with those voters.
The central structural problem for Labour is that they and their main challengers sit broadly within overlapping political spaces. They share concerns about housing quality, street cleaning, regeneration, and accountability. Despite his regressive policies on climate and tax, Mirza enjoys the endorsement of Jeremy Corbyn, while the Greens have also attracted support on the Left with positive messaging on migration and calls for a wealth tax.
If Chowdhury attracts environmentally-minded and younger voters, while Mirza consolidates anti-establishment and community-based support, Labour’s vote could be eroded from two directions at once.
Reform UK adds another layer of complexity. Newham is not an obvious Reform stronghold. It is younger, more ethnically diverse, and more urban than the areas where Reform has typically done best. Its core base — older, white, socially conservative voters — is relatively smaller here. But the party’s emphasis on social conservatism and cultural issues may resonate with some older and more religious voters who feel detached from Labour’s current direction. Without much in the way of local campaigning infrastructure they secured around 17% in the recent Plaistow South by-election. Reform doesn’t need to win to make a difference because it draws votes from multiple pools: disaffected Labour supporters, residual Conservatives, and general protest voters. Ten or twelve percent could reshape the contest by lowering the threshold for victory.
The Fragmentation Factor
Put these elements together, and the outcome is unprecedented fragmentation and a potentially knife-edge result. Something along these lines is entirely plausible:
- Labour: 32-40%
- Newham Independents: 25-33%
- Greens: 18-25%
- Reform: 10-15%
- Others: 5-10%
Labour might win with barely a third of the vote, meaning a large majority preferred someone else. Alternatively, if one challenger consolidates better or is more effective at turning out its vote, the party could lose out entirely.
The Irony of Simplification
Historically, Newham’s mayoral elections were about majorities – often big majorities. In 2026, they’ll be about pluralities. Labour’s dominance was built on strong first-preference support, reinforced by second preferences when needed. Under FPTP, only the first layer remains. Its proponents claim it’s a simpler system, easier to understand. Ironically, it could lead to a result that is more complicated and unpredictable.
For Labour, the task is clear but difficult: hold the vote together in an unfavourable national climate and prevent further defections. Their current strategy, focusing on parking and traffic management, is seriously puzzling. Why add salience to issues that Mirza is actively campaigning on and at the same time risk alienating younger and environmentally conscious voters, for whom the Greens are already an attractive option?
For the challengers, the dilemma is opposite. Each has a case against Labour, but collectively they risk canceling each other out. Fragmentation may hand Labour victory by default.
Whatever happens, 2026 will produce a mayor backed by fewer people than any of their predecessors. In a borough long accustomed to clear mandates, that would mark a profound shift in how local power is won — and how legitimate it feels. Labour may be about to learn a harsh lesson about the vagaries of first-past-the-post in an age of political volatility.
forestgatedotnet 
Good to read your thoughtful post – your contributions are all too few these days! This leaves people largely at the mercy of Open Newham for their information by such sources, whose more frequent posts are often petty and distorted. And strangely 🤔, he doesn’t allow anyone to post comments to provide balance or context. Funny, that.
However, I would point out an apparent discrepancy in your argument.
You describe the Supplementary Vote (SV) as “The System That Protected Labour”, or rather, the system that could actually protect Labour this time: “it would have provided Labour with a crucial safety net this year.”
When you say Labour “benefited from transfers from other progressive voters keen to keep less appealing alternatives out”, you presumably have in mind Reform now. But Reform aren’t in serious contention (for the mayoralty, at least) here. Many voters have no knowledge of the relative strength of party support locally, and have often felt the need to vote Labour, to keep such groups, or even just the Conservatives, out in the past.
Incidentally, you refer to the idea of “progressive voters” voting Labour, whereas it’s questionable whether Labour currently qualifies for that label.
But by the end, you suggest the opposite effect of abolishing SV: “but collectively they [Greens & Mirza] risk cancelling each other out. Fragmentation may hand Labour victory by default.”
And I would agree with this latter argument – it’s a typical conceit of the Labour establishment that Labour are the default “progressive” choice in such circumstances.
Many people express hatred of the council, owing to their experiences of it, and may connect this with the party that has run it permanently. It seems at least as likely to me that, given a second choice under SV, Green and Newham Independent supporters would vote for each other as their back-up choice.
Lastly, you say “If Chowdhury attracts environmentally-minded and younger voters, while Mirza consolidates anti-establishment and community-based support…” Since when were the Greens not “anti-establishment”?!
Thank you for your kind words and considered comments. Labour in Newham has rarely faced any kind of organised opposition and this year it does, from two sources. Two and a bit months out from polling day it’s impossible to see how this works out. The change to voting system another complicating factor. To address one of your points about SV, were it in place this time: if I were a Green voter the very last place I’d put my second vote was with Mirza. His policies on parking and low traffic neighbourhoods are the antithesis of what I would want.
Yes, maybe if you were a Green voter who is a *dedicated environmentalist* , or otherwise has a strong such view on parking, that would be true. But most people who might vote Green in an election *now* , will not have been die-hard activists. These people aren’t likely to have strong opinions on the parking issue specifically (at least if they don’t have a car), but may be attracted to any party to the left of where Labour are perceived to be, or just be fed up with the council. To these people, Greens and N. Independents would both be attractive options.
Indeed, to the non-political, voting for the Greens and *Reform* can both seem like similar “up yours” messages to the system!