Tag Archives: Local Elections 2026

Desperate times

2 Apr

Reform UK may have bagged themselves a mayoral candidate for Newham, but it seems they are struggling to find enough people to stand for council seats.

The above was posted to Twitter by one of the Conservative Party’s candidates for Canning Town South in a thread about Reform’s desperate efforts across the country. It’s all a bit embarrassing for a party that the pollsters say is the most popular in the country right now.

I have no idea who the Labour candidate is, though it must be someone Reform had a number for and who was thought to be persuadable. While we know some councillors and candidates have a transactional relationship with party affiliation, surely Reform is a step too far, even for them.

Amusingly, the Reform mayoral candidate’s blog ran a piece a few weeks ago about ‘Labour’s candidate crunch’, noting the trouble the ruling party is having filling its slate. People in gals houses…

Election 2026

25 Mar

With the final meeting of the current council out of the way, it’s time to elect a new one.

The timetable for the election is:

Publication of Notice of Election Wednesday 25 March 2026
Receipt of Nominations 4:00 pm Thursday 9 April 2026
Withdrawal of Candidate 4:00 pm Thursday 9 April 2026
Appointment of Election Agents 4:00 pm Thursday 9 April 2026
Publication of Notice of Election Agents 4:00 pm Thursday 9 April 2026
Publication of Statements of Persons Nominated 4:00 pm Friday 10 April 2026
Last Date for Registration Monday 20 April 2026
Receipt of Postal Vote Applications 5:00 pm Tuesday 21 April 2026
Last day for Voter Authority Certificates 5:00 pm Tuesday 28 April 2026
Publication of Notice of Poll Tuesday 28 April 2026
Receipt of Proxy Vote Applications 5:00 pm Tuesday 28 April 2026
Appointment of Poll and Count Agents Wednesday 29 April 2026
First Day to Issue Replacement Lost Postal Ballot Papers Thursday 30 April 2026
Last Day to Issue Replacement Spoilt or Lost Postal Ballot Papers 5:00 pm Thursday 7 May 2026
Receipt of Emergency Proxy Vote Applications 5:00 pm Thursday 7 May 2026
Day of Poll 7:00 am to 10:00 pm Thursday 7 May 2026
Return of Election Expenses Friday 12 June 2026

Notice of council election (PDF)

Notice of mayoral election (PDF)

Candidates for mayor of Newham must pay a £500 deposit (returnable if you receive 5% or more the votes cast). There is no deposit for council candidates.

To vote in these elections you must:

  • be registered to vote at an address in Newham
  • be 18 or over on the day of the election 
  • be a British, Irish, qualifying Commonwealth citizen, qualifying EU citizen
  • not be legally excluded from voting

Polling stations will be open between 7am and 10pm on Thursday 7 May. Due to the recent changes in election law, you must take photographic ID with you.

Voters who have registered to vote by post will be able to post their ballot paper to the Council. If you would like to register to vote by post, you can complete an online application at www.gov.uk/apply-postal-vote.

Dude, where’s my car?

23 Mar

With the main contenders in May’s elections desperately trying to outbid each other to win the votes of car drivers – free residential parking permits, an hour (or two!) of free parking every day, a new multi-storey car park on Green Street – it’s worth asking… why?

Car ownership is a minority pursuit in Newham. Across the borough, less than half of households own a car or van. And there isn’t a single ward where car ownership exceeds 60%. In every single ward at least 40% of households won’t see a single penny of benefit from free permits or high street parking. But they will suffer the consequences of more traffic, more pollution, more noise and less safe streets.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Ward

Total HHs

HHs with no car

% no car

Stratford

6801

4776

70.22%

Stratford Olympic Park

4513

3105

68.80%

Royal Victoria

6745

4276

63.40%

Canning Town South

2795

1729

61.86%

Maryland

4521

2641

58.42%

Canning Town North

3830

2229

58.20%

Plaistow West & Canning Town East

5824

3170

54.43%

Forest Gate South

5864

3147

53.67%

Plaistow North

5752

3001

52.17%

West Ham

5338

2774

51.97%

Royal Albert

3660

1811

49.48%

East Ham

4299

2099

48.83%

Boleyn

4566

2189

47.94%

Manor Park

4688

2213

47.21%

Green Street West

4136

1938

46.86%

Plaistow South

4215

1974

46.83%

Custom House

6195

2866

46.26%

Green Street East

4440

2053

46.24%

Forest Gate North

3802

1738

45.71%

Little Ilford

5065

2292

45.25%

Plashet

2948

1292

43.83%

Wall End

4597

1971

42.88%

Beckton

5485

2249

41.00%

East Ham South

5435

2178

40.07%

TOTAL:

115514

59711

51.69%

Source: Office for National Statistics, 2021 UK Census

“Car is a necessity not a luxury,” says Cllr Mirza, Newham the Independent candidate, in his election materials. Given half of all residents in the borough don’t own a car, I wonder how he thinks they survive. Does he imagine they are all sat at home, unemployed and starving because they can’t get out to find a job or go to the shops?

A Failure of Leadership

19 Mar

Ballot box
“We will consult properly and use community ballots to make sure decisions on important changes to your local street and environment are made by you.” So says Forhad Hussain on his current election leaflet, under the heading ‘Leadership you can rely on.’

Similarly, Newham Independents candidate Mehmood Mirza promises to “cancel all proposed LTNs and properly consult on the existing ones.”

When local politicians champion “community ballots” or “proper consultation” on schemes like low traffic neighbourhoods, they frame it as ‘democracy in action’—giving residents the final say on their streets. The reality, however, is that this is an abdication of leadership at precisely the moment when communities need it most.

The fundamental problem with these ballots is that they reduce complex policy decisions to binary choices. Traffic management isn’t about whether people like or dislike a scheme in isolation. It’s about balancing competing needs: child safety versus driver convenience; air quality versus journey times; long-term health outcomes versus short-term disruption. These are exactly the kinds of trade-offs we elect representatives to navigate on our behalf, using evidence and expertise alongside public input.

Moreover, the playing field for these ballots is far from level. Well-organised opposition groups, amplified by outside actors with their own agendas, flood communities with disinformation. Claims about emergency vehicle access, economic decline, or displacement of traffic are often exaggerated or outright false, yet they resonate emotionally because people are nervous about change. Meanwhile, the diffuse benefits—cleaner air, safer streets for children, reduced through-traffic, less noise pollution—are harder to mobilise around, even though the evidence supporting them is strong.

As a result communities become battlegrounds. Neighbours who previously coexisted peacefully find themselves on opposite sides of an artificially sharpened divide. Social media arguments replace constructive dialogue. The ballot doesn’t build consensus; it entrenches positions and creates winners and losers. Conflict instead of cohesion.

True leadership means making difficult decisions based on evidence, even when they’re initially unpopular. Of course it means consulting communities and listening to concerns: schemes can be adapted where legitimate issues arise—but ultimately it’s about taking responsibility for the outcome. Politicians who instead defer to referendums are passing the buck, hoping to avoid accountability by ‘listening to the people’.

If a scheme is genuinely worthwhile, the mayor and council should implement it, monitor its effects, and be prepared to modify or reverse it based on real-world outcomes. This is governance. Community ballots, by contrast, are a recipe for division. Elevating the loudest voices over the best evidence isn’t leadership, it’s the exact opposite.

Newham deserves better than politicians who mistake populism for democracy and ‘community ballots’ for governing.

How a new voting system could end Labour’s grip on Newham

2 Feb

Forhad for Mayor.

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.