Brighton and Hove has long liked to think of itself as a city ahead of the national mood. Perhaps. As the 2027 council elections come into view, the harder question is whether Brighton and Hove’s politics still match the scale of the city’s problems.
Labour enters the contest as the majority party and with all the habits that come with it. This is a Labour cabinet that often looks less like a political administration than a management consultancy with suits and ties: maybe like bankers, technocrats and professional explainers, always ready with a process, a framework and a reason why the fault lies elsewhere.
National problem? Westminster’s fault. Local problem? Historical inheritance. Internal failure? Complex pressures. Labour, in office, has turned the evasion of responsibility into something close to an operating model.
Once you hold the levers of government, you no longer get to pose as the sensible alternative to somebody else’s mistakes. You are the establishment.
And establishments are not judged by the elegance of their excuses but by what they have actually done to improve residents’ lives.
Meanwhile, by last September, total borrowing had reached £445.3 million, up from £377 million in March 2023, and the council’s own treasury papers project that further external borrowing may be required.
Again and again, Labour’s cabinet has looked technocratic, hurried, cold and oddly unable to hear the people it claims to be consulting.
Take libraries. The council’s own consultation found overwhelming concern about closures and reductions. The summary noted that the “vast majority” of respondents viewed libraries as vital public spaces and warned that cutting funding for them would have serious consequences.
The final report acknowledged that most respondents did not support the proposed reductions. Even the council’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee advised the cabinet against proceeding at that point.
Yet the cabinet pressed ahead anyway: reduced hours at the main Jubilee and Hove libraries, closures at Hollingbury and Westdene, and a temporary reprieve for Rottingdean.
Consultation, in other words, was treated not as democratic feedback but as a bureaucratic obstacle to be filed and ignored.
The same pattern appeared in devolution and local government reorganisation. The public mood was plainly sceptical.
The council’s own engagement report recorded concern, distrust and a lack of positive support for any option on offer.
It also noted that many respondents doubted the council was fully delivering on its existing responsibilities, hardly a ringing endorsement for expanding its reach.
Yet the cabinet ploughed on. Residents raised doubts. Labour’s cabinet heard background noise.
Meanwhile, the real city persists beyond the cabinet papers: high rents, stretched services, uneven development, polluted air, rising costs and the creeping sense that ordinary people are being priced out of the city they keep alive.
These are not abstract pressures. They are residents’ lived experiences.
This is Labour’s weakness. At precisely the moment many residents want hope, it offers more bureaucracy.
At the moment, the city needs vision. Labour produces consultation documents and controlled disappointment. Brighton and Hove has had quite enough of cold technocrats who sound as if residents are a problem to be managed, not heard.
Instead of saying, “this is our choice,” they say, “the evidence led us here,” as though no one is responsible. This Labour cabinet confuses consultation with consent.
Residents speak, the report is written, and then the same decision goes ahead anyway. Residents don’t dislike expertise. They dislike being managed by people who sound cleverer than they sound human.
The question hanging over the next election is: Is this Labour cabinet actually listening to you?
Bruno De Oliveira is a Green councillor who represents Hollingdean and Fiveways on Brighton and Hove City Council.
The only Greeny locally who can actually land something on Labour. Not a bit fan of turncoats, but man, can’t he get under their skin? Watch out, Mr Kyle. He is coming for your seat.
Nah. The greens would never pick someone like him. Annoyingly though he make them look more credible locally but still a left looney
Councillor, do you think we shouldn’t be using an evidence-led approach, instead relying on the whims of the day? Let’s remind ourselves that kind of thinking caused Brexit, which has objectively been a disaster.
Well done, Benny. You shoehorned Brexit into your comment. Anyway, take a seat and make yourself a cup of tea. Here we go. Ready? An “evidence-led” or “evidence-based” approach to public policy is often criticised as being flawed because it inaccurately assumes that policy making is a purely rational, technical process rather than a political one. While evidence is crucial, relying on it entirely overlooks the necessity of values, stakeholder negotiation, and the messiness of implementation. Now, wash your mug and put yourself to bed.
Iced Tea on a day like today!
Simply termed…nuance! Which is exactly why using Brexit as an argument here works so well. Relying on the whims of the day and ignoring the lack of evidence, as the councillor is suggesting, resulted in an overwhelmingly objectively bad decision being made.
To bring it more local, that evidence-based thinking made Labour shy away from the second i360 proposal; which again, resulted in an objectively bad decision being made.
Ice tea… um… delicious. Did you have borrow for that? Anyway, you won’t get it. So moving on… “Nuance” is doing heroic work here, Benny Boy, covering for what is basically a bluff in a smart jacket. Brexit was not bad because people briefly stopped worshipping the process; it was bad because it was sold on lies by chancers and swallowed by enough useful idiots. As for the i360, calling Labour’s caution “objectively bad” is a lovely trick: asserting hindsight as fact, managing part of the delivery, then strutting off before proving it. As for the library point below, I would cite, if I may: “Relying on the whims of the day and ignoring the lack of evidence, as the councillor is suggesting, resulted in an overwhelmingly objectively bad decision being made.”
Erm…you introduced the concept of nuance here? Not sure why you’re trying to argue against it now.
You said Brexit was not bad because people briefly stopped worshipping the process; it was bad because it was sold on lies by chancers and swallowed by enough useful idiots. That’s because people stopped looking at the process and evidence, allowing it to be “sold on lies by chancers and swallowed by enough useful idiots.” – You’re inadvertently agreeing with my point that we should follow an evidence-led approach, instead of relying on the whims of the day, so those “chancers” are indeed challenged.
As for the i360, that is a misrepresentation. Labour decided the financial modelling represented a high risk, again, following the evidence base. And avoided voting for what ended up being an overwhelmingly objectively bad decision for Brighton; the impact we’re still dealing with, which had been made by the Greens, with a little help from some of the Cons.
Now we have a Turncoat Green Councillor, ironically, writing an article about why following an evidence-based approach is a bad idea.
His library comment is very much an incomplete picture, especially if he hasn’t spoken to Ceris Howard recently.
Easy on that Ice tea. Attacking a decent bloke who raised fairly important local issues like that just reinforces his points about cold and unable to listen. And just raises his profile cos he clearly gets under your skin.
Not at all. I’m simply saying he doesn’t have the full picture of this particular local issue, which is why he might feel that way. That’s not an attack on a person; I am just challenging the thought.