Last week saw dramatic local election results in England as Reform dominated the electoral map and Labour fell to one of the worst local election results in English history.
The main story of the night was the resounding success of Reform UK. Prior to the evening, Reform UK were defending just two council seats from 5,066 up for election. They finished the elections having won 1,453 of these seats. Meanwhile, Labour lost a staggering 1,492 seats. Traditionally, a ‘bad local election night’ for an incumbent Westminster government has been losing 500 seats. For Labour to lose 1,492 shows the scale of the problem.
Not only did Reform UK win a significant number of council seats, they also won control of more councils – including Essex – part of the Conservative heartlands and the county of Kemi Badenoch’s own seat. Reform UK now control nine county councils including Essex, Lancashire and Kent. They also control a number of urban councils, including Sunderland and Havering.
One council in Greater Manchester gives an indication of Reform’s dominance in the election. In Tameside, 19 seats were up for election last week. Reform won 18 of the 19. Whilst they did not win control of that council, the direction of travel is clear. Reform clearly broke into Labour and Conservative heartlands simultaneously.
Elsewhere, the Greens advanced in metropolitan areas, particularly in London, where they gained control of three councils.
The Liberal Democrats retained their strength in southern suburban and rural England. They gained control of both the newly created West and East Surrey Councils and also took control of Portsmouth City Council.
What are the implications of the results in England?
The traditional two-party system is dead
Britain’s foremost electoral expert, Sir John Curtice, said that the results show that ‘electoral politics in Britain has become highly fragmented’. Across England, there are now five parties achieving more than 15% of the vote. The traditional ‘big two’, Labour and Conservatives, achieved just 34% of the vote combined. The comparison to be made with previous comparator elections is stark:
- 2026 Local Elections – 34% of the combined vote
- 2025 Local Elections – 35% of the combined vote
- 2006 Local Elections – 65% of the combined vote
- 1996 Local Elections – 72% of the combined vote
- 1986 Local Elections – 71% of the combined vote
It is clear that the age of the dominance of the ‘big two’ in British politics may be over. Indeed, it may now be argued there is a genuine five-party system in the UK.
What is also apparent is that Britain is no longer simply splitting along a left-right axis. Instead, it is doing so along multiple lines including populist v establishment and urban v post-industrial.
First Past the Post was not designed for such fragmented politics
These elections show how unstable First Past the Post is in such a fragmented environment. FPTP was designed primarily for a two-party system. As a plurality system, it works best when voters feel they have a clear choice between two parties. With a fragmented system, votes are split across the spectrum, lowering the winning line in each constituency. This can result in a plethora of weak electoral mandates across the country.
In local elections, parties ideally want to win overall control of a council. They do this by having a majority, similarly to how a party normally forms a government after a general election. The fragmentation of results in the UK has led to more councils without a party with overall control. After these elections, 64 councils were left in No Overall Control. This is 22 more than before the elections.
It confirmed Reform UK as a potential Westminster government
As happens after local elections, pollsters routinely consider what the results might indicate if the vote had been a general election, rather than a local election. There are caveats to the data, most notably that local elections are, for some voters, a reflection of local issues. However, the models take these factors into account. The numbers indicate that the National Equivalent Vote was:
- Reform – 27%
- Conservatives – 20%
- Labour – 15%
- Green – 14%
- Liberal Democrats – 14%
It is estimated this could result in a general election in which Reform UK, whilst short of a majority, could form the next government:
- Reform UK – 284 seats
- Labour – 110 seats
- Conservatives – 96 seats
- Liberal Democrats – 80 seats
- SNP – 36 seats
- Green – 13 seats
- Plaid Cymru – 13 seats
Last week’s local election results follow from last year’s, where Reform UK won 30% of the vote. It strongly indicates that Reform UK are now a potential party of Westminster government. Indeed, Reform UK are now odds-on with most bookmakers to win the most seats at the next general election.
Traditional minor parties are now parties of governance
Traditionally, minor parties had only been able to influence politics across England from opposition. That has now demonstrably changed. More councils fell under the control of Reform UK. However, in addition, three councils in Greater London — Hackney, Lewisham and Waltham Forest — are now under Green control.
This has the effect of further legitimising these minor parties as an electoral option for voters. Their recent success will lead to more media visibility, more opportunity to develop policy and may make it more likely that they can extend their membership. This may enable them to become a durable electoral force.
A useful comparison can be made between UKIP and Reform UK. Whilst UKIP won considerable levels of votes in local and general elections, it never became a governing party. As such, it largely acted as a quasi-pressure group, hoping to force the Conservatives to change their policy.
The mandate gap for Labour
The elections confirm the ‘mandate gap’ the Westminster Labour government has. At the last general election, Labour won 63% of parliamentary seats with just 33.7% of the vote – which, taking turnout into account, was just 20% of all eligible voters. It seems to further suggest that Labour won the last election not because they truly appealed to voters, but because the electorate was tired of the Conservatives. On the left, there is dissatisfaction with the pace of change. Councils that Labour had controlled for decades, like Hackney, fell to the Greens. On the right, Labour lost working-class votes to Reform UK, particularly in post-industrial areas that voted for Brexit in 2016. For example, Sunderland and Gateshead in the North-East both fell to Reform UK.
The threat to the Conservatives
The election indicated the clear threat to the Conservatives, who lost control of Essex County Council to Reform UK. The Conservative Party is being squeezed on both wings. The One Nation tradition is being squeezed by the Liberal Democrats. The New Right is being squeezed by Reform UK. Historically, the Conservatives have been such a significant electoral force by uniting market liberals, social conservatives, suburban moderates and nationalist voters within one ‘big tent’ party. The 2026 results indicate that this coalition is now fracturing, with the party struggling to hold each of these voting blocs within a single political home.
Is Catherine West a ‘stalking horse’?
As soon as the results were announced, speculation went into overdrive as to who, if anyone, would challenge Keir Starmer for the leadership of the Labour Party. Starmer himself said that he would not walk away and ‘throw the country into chaos’. Cabinet Ministers seemed to be rallying around Starmer, most issuing supportive statements.
However, on Saturday night, a little-known Labour MP, Catherine West, made a remarkable announcement. Whilst giving a live interview on BBC Radio Four, she announced that if a Cabinet Minister did not challenge Starmer by Monday, she would seek to do so. Under Labour Party rules, someone wishing to challenge the leader must be supported by 20% of Labour MPs. This would mean West would need the support of 80 other MPs. This would trigger a leadership contest. Any subsequent challenger would then need the support of 5% of Constituency Labour Parties, or backing of at least three affiliates of the Labour Party (for example, trade unions).
It is a famous adage in politics that one who ‘wields the knife’ does not ‘wear the crown’. This means the first to move in a leadership race is rarely the winner. West likely does not see herself as Prime Ministerial material. It is clear that she is hoping that through this move, she will encourage someone else to challenge the Prime Minister. In this, she may be considered a ‘stalking horse’. This is a candidate who starts a leadership contest with no real hope (or intention) of winning themselves, but, in doing so, creates space for a more credible challenger. Sometimes, a stalking horse may do this directly on behalf of another viable candidate.
The most famous example of a ‘stalking horse’ was Sir Anthony Meyer in 1989. Meyer, a little-known backbencher, began a leadership challenge against Margaret Thatcher. The challenge followed serious difficulties for Thatcher, including the resignation of her Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, and problems rolling out the Poll Tax. Thatcher won the ballot comfortably by 314 to 33. However, 60 MPs overall did not support Thatcher, either supporting Meyer, spoiling their ballots or abstaining. This highlighted the division in the Conservative Party. The consequences of this played out a year later, when Thatcher was forced to step down in November 1990 following the resignation of Geoffrey Howe and the decision of many Cabinet Members to urge Thatcher to leave.
It seems unlikely that West will reach the 80 other MPs required to force a challenge. However, the closer she gets to that number, the more the pressure will grow on Starmer and, perhaps, the more likely it is that a potential challenger, like Wes Streeting or Angela Rayner, steps forward.