Veteran Bradford councillor Ralph Berry on some hard lessons from the local election results
The Bradford local elections, especially in Wibsey and Odsal, have prompted me to reflect on a ward I represented since 1991 as a Labour and Co-operative councillor. These were the first all-out elections since 2004, when the BNP won a seat. Bradford now faces a significant political shift that must be confronted, not ignored.
This result was not caused by any single issue, but by the cumulative effect of decisions, strategies and political approaches at both local and national levels.
This was the first local election I had lost in 35 years, and the first time Labour had lost Wibsey and Odsal under this Prime Minister. It is an outer-urban ward with a roughly 70–30 split between White and BME communities.
What Happened in Wibsey and Odsal
What happened in Wibsey and Odsal on election day, and why?
There was a nine per cent increase in the vote that went undetected by the inadequate systems and campaign processes on which Labour relies.
Although our team of three councillors—Fiaz Ilyas, Sabiya Khan and me—ran a positive, community-focused campaign, the result exposed a clear disconnect. We held more surgeries than any other ward, offered support almost every day of the year, and helped resolve issues from parking and derelict land to community projects and environmental concerns. Even so, the causes of defeat were both local and national.
National Political Factors
Labour’s gains in Bradford and other northern cities at the last general election were broad but not deep. They concealed concerns that were never properly addressed. On the doorstep, we repeatedly heard that the Prime Minister seemed distant and that politics had become too London-centric.
The decision to remove winter fuel support from older people became a symbol of this disconnect. The issue was not only the policy itself, but the sense that it was being done to people rather than with them. More broadly, Labour lacked a clear narrative that reflected how people actually live, especially in northern communities.
A recurring message was that the political agenda felt centred on London rather than places like Bradford. People also raised the two-child benefit cap and a wider failure to understand the realities of life across the city’s communities.
A phrase we heard repeatedly was: “The PM doesn’t understand us. I don’t get what he is saying. They just don’t seem to walk in our shoes.”
This contrasts sharply with the early years of Tony Blair’s government, when many people felt he connected with them directly. Today, many see a leader who may be doing worthwhile things, but in ways they neither understand nor feel part of. Politics too often feels imposed rather than shared.
Local Government, Austerity and Political Culture
We also have to consider local government. Fourteen years of austerity severely weakened Bradford’s capacity to act, hollowing out spending power, damaging its revenue base, and deepening the poverty and fragmentation that make local politics more volatile.
During the council’s fiscal crisis, local politics also became more enclosed and inward-looking. It increasingly reflected the restrictive culture now seen in parts of the Labour Party: less tolerant of pluralism and dissent, and more reliant on bureaucratic command and control. At the same time, there were genuine efforts to rebuild the funding base for local authorities and to move towards a fairer settlement. But for many people, the gap between what was said and what was done became harder to understand, and that, too, fed the disconnect behind this result.
Bradford’s local politics also played a major part in this result. It cannot be explained away solely through national issues. Several councillors left the Labour group during a period that demanded stronger political management, better welfare support and more open engagement around a deeply difficult fiscal recovery programme. Instead, Labour came to be seen by many as overly controlling and divided, with politics driven more by careers than by the wider good.
However difficult the context, we must accept that perception shapes political reality. Any rebuilding strategy has to begin there.
Listening, Trust and Public Ownership
After this defeat, Labour must go back out and listen, especially to communities that feel politics—locally and nationally—has become distant or disdainful. Politics is relational, but too often it has been reduced to something transactional, shaped by advisers and factional habits rather than genuine engagement.
In community work, I have learned that even the right decision can fail if the process is wrong. People have not been taken with us. Bradford has had real successes, from city-centre renewal to environmental improvements, but if people do not feel ownership of those achievements, the message will not land.
Too often, progress has been pursued in ways that did not carry people with it. In other cases, opponents were able to misrepresent issues such as the Clean Air Zone, while the genuine benefits—especially for children’s health and wellbeing—were not communicated effectively.
Underlying all of this is the limited agency of local government, still funded through the regressive council tax system inherited after the poll tax.
Campaigning, Communication and Political Change
Where do we go from here? There is a disconnect between how local government works and how it is understood, shaped by a simplified media culture and a political model in Bradford that often pits local grievances against the wider strategic decisions needed to build a stronger, more inclusive economy.
Labour’s own image has often seemed less inclusive than it intended. We have not fully understood the systems, messaging and targeting now shaping political opinion. During the campaign, I encountered aggressive and deeply divisive views about race, culture and religion that had clearly been sharpened by segmented messages circulating within particular communities.
Much of this messaging went unseen and unanswered. Labour’s data-driven campaign model focused too narrowly on known or assumed supporters and missed many voters who turned out in unusually high numbers at this election.
As a result, much of our campaign activity was less targeted than we believed. Despite strong local service and a committed campaign, we were outmanoeuvred by forces and strategies that Labour did not properly anticipate.
We cannot pretend this was all caused by events in London. Some of our problems were self-inflicted. The sensible response is reflective practice: to examine honestly what we could have done better and how we can represent people’s wishes more effectively.
Fragmentation, Reform and the Future
After the 2004 elections, we went out, listened and learned. We need to do that again now. The last 14 years have not produced sympathy for the left in Bradford; instead, they have left a fragmented politics in which many once-safe outer wards are pulling in different directions.
The old two-party system is not coming back. Our electoral system is badly suited to this new reality: it amplifies extremes and leaves little room for nuance. That is one reason I have long supported electoral reform.
If we want a cohesive society that reflects today’s political plurality, we have to change. Labour’s leadership has not yet shown enough urgency on this, despite growing support for Reform within the wider movement. If we want to shape the future, we will need a more partnership-based model of politics.
Many seats were lost because people reacted to local and national issues without a single coordinated outcome. To blame everything on the Prime Minister’s falling ratings would be to avoid the harder truth: local dynamics mattered too.
The rise of Independents was fuelled in part by anger over Labour’s slow and difficult response to Gaza and other international issues, alongside longer-standing demands for communities to represent themselves outside traditional party structures. At the same time, enough voters backed Greens or Independents to split the anti-Conservative vote and deny Labour majorities in key wards. This reflects both political anger and a wider disengagement from traditional party politics.
Most parties now struggle to find candidates and activists, while opposition campaigns can still mobilise support quickly. The result is a patchwork of identities, loyalties and grievances across a highly diverse district, reinforced by a political system that rewards division unless we actively choose to change it.
There is much more to say about both the achievements and the weaknesses of Labour’s social-democratic agenda, including the absence of a clear strategy to rebuild closer ties with Europe and generate growth and jobs in northern towns. Those questions deserve fuller reflection, but they cannot be avoided.
There is also more to say about growth, jobs, Europe, and the legitimate aspirations of younger people facing rising living costs and a diminished sense of future security. But none of that will change unless we start addressing it honestly.
Conclusion
I will continue doing what I can in Bradford, because I care deeply about the city and the communities in which I live and work.
This election showed that unless we change how we do politics, we risk squandering those hopes and possibilities.
It is time to be brave, rethink our politics, and rebuild municipal community power.