Key points
- Labour lost overall control of Brent Council at the 2026 local elections, leaving the authority under no‑overall‑control with 26 Labour, 11 Conservative, 11 Liberal Democrat and 9 Green councillors out of 57 seats.
- The Labour Party’s National Executive Committee has issued a formal ban on its councillors forming alliances with the Green Party, a move that reshaped post‑election negotiations in several London boroughs.
- In response to that ban, Brent Labour has struck a deal with the Conservatives to retain leadership of the town hall and keep a Labour‑led administration in place.
- The agreement has caused internal friction among Labour figures, with some local leaders accusing the national leadership of complicating efforts to secure a more ideologically aligned partnership with Green or Liberal Democrat councillors.
- Seven London councils—Brent, Barnet, Enfield, Haringey, Wandsworth, Lambeth and Southwark—fell from Labour to no overall control at the 2026 local elections, marking a setback for the party in the capital on the back of larger national trends.
Brent News(West London News) May 24, 2026 – Brent Labour has agreed to a governance arrangement with the Conservatives to remain in charge of the borough after losing its overall majority in the 2026 local elections, as reported by Ben Chapman of the Evening Standard in a piece headlined “Brent Labour does deal with Tories after Starmer bans party from working with Greens”.
A detailed breakdown of the council’s composition, published by PollCheck, shows that Labour won 26 seats in the 57‑seat Brent Council, falling short of the 29 required for a majority. The Conservatives increased their representation to 11 seats, the Liberal Democrats also reached 11, and the Greens rose to 9, producing a hung council for the first time in some years.
Faced with this outcome, local Labour leaders had originally sought to explore a partnership with the Green Party, which had gained four seats and now held the balance of power in several wards. However, an instruction from Labour’s National Executive Committee, relayed by national party sources and reported by Maya Norton‑Smith of the Independent, barred Labour councillors from entering into any formal or informal alliance with the Green Party.
As reported by Norton‑Smith, a senior Labour figure in Brent said: “This was made far more difficult by a ruling from Labour’s NEC banning us from entering with a formal or informal agreement with the Green Party.” The ban effectively pushed Labour negotiators toward the Conservatives, who had just gained five seats on the council and were keen to limit Green influence.
The upshot, as outlined by the Standard and mirrored in coverage by Yahoo News UK, was that Brent Labour “teamed up with the Tories to retain leadership of the town hall,” a move described as a rare local‑level pact between the two main national rivals.
What the deal means for council control
The practical effect of the arrangement is that a Labour leader continues to hold the mayoral or chairmanship role at Brent Council, while the Conservatives receive a say in key policy decisions and committee appointments, analysts quoted in the Standard article note.
PollCheck’s projections indicate that, prior to the deal, the most straightforward path to a working majority would have been a Labour–Green coalition, given that 26 Labour plus 9 Green councillors equal 35 seats—well above the 29 needed. With the NEC ban in place, that option collapsed, leaving Labour with only two viable routes: an alliance with the Conservatives or one with the Liberal Democrats.
Reports by the Independent and others highlight that the Liberal Democrats were also courted as a potential partner, but ultimately Labour chose the Conservatives, a decision that has drawn criticism from some party members. One local Labour politician, quoted anonymously by the Standard, said that the decision “defied political logic” given the ideological differences between Labour and the Conservatives on issues such as housing and council‑tax levels.
Non‑party observers, including local political commentators featured in coverage by northWesT londoner, have suggested that the pact may be fragile, since the Conservatives have their own national agenda and could be tempted to capitalise on any council missteps to regain public support.
Starmer’s national ban on Green deals
The backdrop to the Brent deal is a wider national directive from Labour’s top leadership, which has decided to restrict local Labour administrations from forming alliances with the Green Party.
According to the Independent, the ban stems partly from controversy over the past involvement of film‑director Roman Polanski with the Green Party, with Labour’s leadership seeking to distance itself from any associated reputational risk. The paper quotes Norton‑Smith explaining that the national party’s stance was framed as a “zero‑tolerance” rule preventing deals with parties or figures linked to the row.
Media coverage, including the Standard’s piece, notes that this ruling has rippled across several London boroughs where Labour lost control in 2026, not only in Brent but also in Barnet, Enfield, Haringey, Wandsworth, Lambeth and Southwark. In each of those areas, Labour is now operating under no overall control, and local leaders must either form alliances with the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or independents, or risk being ousted by rival blocs.
GNPRoll, which tracks local‑authority swings, has highlighted that Brent experienced one of the largest net losses for Labour in London, with 16 fewer councillors compared with 2022 and a record number of ward swings against the party. Commentators in regional outlets have linked this to voter dissatisfaction over housing, immigration and local‑service performance, which they say has helped both the Greens and the Conservatives gain ground.
Background: how Brent’s politics shifted
Labour had run Brent Council with a comfortable majority since 1998, and its 2022 control was underpinned by 49 Labour councillors out of 63 seats. The two‑thirds majority allowed the party to push through housing, regeneration and social‑care policies without needing opposition support, a situation that began to change in the wake of national Labour debates over migration, policing and local‑government funding.
In the 2026 poll, turnout and ward‑level results analyses carried by PollCheck and BBC Election coverage show a sharp swing in some wards, with Labour losing significant ground in areas such as Harlesden, Kilburn and Wembley. The Greens and Liberal Democrats both recorded double‑digit gains, while the Conservatives managed to hold or build on a number of seats in suburban and outer‑London‑facing wards.
Alongside demographic shifts and housing pressures, campaigners quoted by local outlets have pointed to voter fatigue with long‑term Labour control and a perception that some local decisions were being taken without sufficient consultation. Analysts summarising the change in northWesT londoner and related coverage argue that the result in Brent is emblematic of a broader recalibration of London’s suburban politics, where Green and Liberal Democrat gains have eroded Labour’s traditional dominance.
What this deal means for residents and voters
The new arrangement in Brent will likely affect how the council approaches housing, council‑tax levels, regeneration schemes and services for older and disabled residents. With Labour obliged to negotiate with the Conservatives, reporters covering the deal expect potential compromises on some Labour‑led housing‑construction plans and on proposals to increase certain service charges or rents on council properties.
Residents in wards such as Harlesden, Kensal Green and Wembley may notice indirect consequences if the Conservatives push for more market‑oriented housing or slower expansion of social‑rent schemes, while Labour factions may seek to defend existing social‑housing commitments. Local‑service commentators cited by northWesT londoner emphasise that any cuts or delays in cleaning, waste collection or social‑care provision could be used by both national parties as political ammunition in future elections.
For the wider London electorate, the Brent deal serves as a case study in how national party directives can reshape local coalitions. If the Labour–Conservative arrangement in Brent produces a stable administration with visible improvements in services, it could legitimise similar cross‑party pacts in other no‑overall‑control councils. Conversely, if the alliance fractures or is seen to prioritise national party interests over local needs, it may reinforce voter cynicism and encourage stronger Green or Liberal Democrat challenges in the next local cycle.
Background of the development
The current arrangement in Brent has its roots in the 2026 local‑election results, which left the borough without a single party holding a majority, and in a parallel national decision by Labour’s leadership to restrict alliances with the Green Party.
Labour’s historic control of Brent, dating back to 1998 and solidified by large wins in 2018 and 2022, created a pattern of unilateral decision‑making that began to fray as housing shortages, regeneration schemes and demographic change intensified local tensions. The 2026 vote compounded this, with seat losses for Labour and notable gains for the Greens, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, all of which altered the arithmetic of council control.
The NEC ruling, which forbids Labour councillors from doing deals with the Greens, was framed by the national party as a reputational safeguard but has been interpreted locally as a constraint on ideological coherence. In Brent, that constraint forced Labour into a least‑worst option of partnering with the Conservatives, a move that reflects the broader squeeze on Labour’s ability to govern comfortably in London’s suburbs.
Prediction for local and national impact
The Brent‑style pact between Labour and the Conservatives under no‑overall‑control is likely to influence how other London boroughs handle similar hung‑council outcomes, especially where the Greens hold the balance of power. If the arrangement in Brent proves able to maintain a stable administration without major policy reversals, national leaders across parties may grow more open to cross‑bench coalitions, potentially softening the traditional red‑versus‑blue orthodoxy at the local level.
Conversely, if the deal is perceived as unstable or as a way for national parties to override local priorities, it could strengthen the appeal of Green and Liberal Democrat candidates in future elections, particularly among voters who see cross‑party alliances as opportunistic rather than principled. For Brent residents, this means policy choices on housing, services and council‑tax could be shaped as much by national party calculations as by ward‑by‑ward concerns, an outcome that may reshape local political engagement in the years ahead.
