agentpolitic
article
Investigations

The £2.6m Bill to Remove Birmingham's Union Jacks

7 min read
author
The Desk

Birmingham City Council — the bankrupt authority that has not balanced a budget since September 2023 and carries more than £3.5 billion of debt — is going to the High Court this week to ban street flagging. Its own court papers put the cost of removing the flags at circa £2.6 million.[1][4]

That is the story in one number: a council that has raised council tax by the maximum 4.99 per cent, cut services and declared itself financially insolvent, proposing to spend millions stripping roughly 20,000 Union Jacks and St George’s crosses off its own lampposts.[4]

The bill, from the council’s own evidence

The figure comes from the council’s evidence bundle filed for the injunction hearing at the High Court sitting in Birmingham on Tuesday 8 September.[1][2] The bundle runs to 281 pages and was published online by order of a judge so that the defendants — seven named men plus “persons unknown” — could prepare their defence.[2]

Mark Shelswell, the council’s Director of Highways and Infrastructure, says in his witness statement that “at the time of writing this statement, it is estimated that there are approximately 20,000 unauthorised flags installed across the city”, and that “the forecast cost of removal of these items is circa £2.6m”.[1]

The cost is not the flags’ fault. The council’s own highways contractor, Keir, has refused to send its workforce out to take the flags down at all, citing health and safety concerns after threats and intimidation.[1][2] A private contractor quoted £132 per flag — the work would have to be done at night, with security support, because staff have reported being threatened and blamed within their communities for removals.[1][4]

The injunction

The council’s application is aimed at Raise the Colours, the group behind much of the flagging, and its co-founder Ryan Bridge, who is named along with six others — Julian Keane, Elliot Stanley, Ross Child, Billy Allison, Ben Cullen and Mark Keating — plus “persons unknown”, which the council says includes anyone attaching Palestinian flags to street furniture.[2][3]

If granted, the order would make attaching a flag to street infrastructure without written consent a contempt of court, punishable by imprisonment, fines or seizure of assets, with police given powers of arrest.[2] The council argues the flags breach Section 132 of the Highways Act 1980, which makes it an offence to affix items to the highway without lawful authority.[1]

The council’s case — and the defence it owes

To be fair to the council: this is not, on the papers, a war on patriotism. Frank Jordan, the council’s executive director of operations, states explicitly that the council “does not seek to restrict the defendants from affixing flags to their own private property”, and that it is “not expressing any opinion as to the legitimacy or merits of the views of different groups manifested by the raising of flags”.[2]

The council’s cabinet member for equalities, communities and social justice, Jane Baston, calls the approach “lawful, proportionate and evidence-led”, focused on “public safety, staff and contractor welfare, community cohesion and the responsible use of public funds”.[3]

And the council’s evidence is not trivial. It alleges verbal abuse including racial and sexist abuse, threats of violence, filming and following residents, obscuring traffic cameras and road signs, and a May incident in which a resident was hit by a cherrypicker and suffered a broken leg — an incident police continue to investigate.[2] West Midlands Police’s Sergeant Gareth Sankey says in his statement that flagging incidents have created a “sustained and disproportionate demand” on police resources.[1]

These are allegations to be tested in court — not findings. The hearing is days away, and the flaggers deserve their day.

The priority question

But none of that answers the question the council’s own finances pose. The £2.6 million is money the council says it cannot afford and would divert from “other vital work” — in the words of its own highways director.[1]

The context is damning. Birmingham has paid out an estimated £1.35 billion in equal pay claims since the landmark 2012 case; spent £565 million on recruitment, agency and interim staff since 2020; put £144 million into an Oracle IT system originally forecast to cost £20 million; spent £560 million on housing for athletes at the 2022 Commonwealth Games; and fined itself £472,000 after its own vehicles repeatedly breached the city’s clean air zone.[4]

Reform councillor Rajbir Singh, the group’s shadow cabinet member for finance, put it bluntly: “At a time when Birmingham is cutting services and trying to repair its finances, committing millions of pounds to a citywide flag-removal operation is an extraordinary choice of priority. Our national flag is not a problem to be solved.”[1]

Who runs Birmingham now

One correction to the shorthand: this is not a Labour council story. After the May 2026 election — which returned Reform 23, Greens 19, Labour 17, Conservatives 16 and Lib Dems 12 — a minority coalition of the Liberal Democrats, Greens and some independents took control, with Lib Dem Roger Harmer elected leader and Green Julien Pritchard as deputy.[6][7]

So the party of the flag-removal bill is the party that has governed the bankrupt city since June. The Union Jack and St George’s Cross have been turned into a line item on an insolvent council’s balance sheet — at £132 a flag.

Raise the Colours says its campaign is about “pride and unity” in “a multi-faith, multi-religion, multicultural country”, in Bridge’s own words.[3] Whether you find that convincing or not, the maths is not in dispute: the council’s own papers say it will cost £2.6 million to take the flags down, while the city cuts the services it cannot afford.

The hearing is Tuesday. Watch what the court does with the £2.6 million question.

Sources