The 2026 elections were not simply a bad night for the governing Labour Party. They were a rejection of the two-party order that has dominated British politics for decades. In England’s local elections, both Labour and the Conservatives suffered heavy losses, while Reform UK became the main political story. Based on the latest reported results, Reform won more than 1,400 council seats and gained control of around 14 councils. Labour fell heavily, losing well over 1,000 seats and control of dozens of councils. The Conservatives also suffered losses, while the Greens made a significant advance and the Liberal Democrats gained more modestly.
The picture outside England was just as damaging for Labour. In Wales, Plaid Cymru became the largest party in the Senedd, ending Labour’s century-long dominance of Welsh politics, while Reform also performed strongly. In Scotland, the SNP remained the dominant party, but Labour again underperformed, finishing level with Reform on seats according to reported results.
Before the election, some observers thought Labour’s losses might mainly benefit the Greens and Liberal Democrats. That view became stronger after the Green Party’s March 2026 by-election victory, which suggested that many voters were angry not because Labour was too soft on immigration, but because it had moved too far away from liberal, green and pro-worker politics. That reading was only partly right. The Greens did perform very well in some urban and progressive areas, and they increased their number of councillors substantially. But it was a Reform breakthrough. Labour lost ground in different directions, but Reform was the party that turned public anger into the clearest electoral result.
The public had reasons to punish both Labour and the Conservatives. For years, both main parties have often responded to Britain’s real problems — low growth, high taxes, the cost of living, housing shortages, weak public services, pressure on the NHS and failing local government — by talking more and more about immigration. Instead of producing visible improvements in daily life, they have too often blamed outsiders. Reform may not have offered detailed or fully costed solutions to all these problems, but it translated frustration into a simple and forceful message: Britain is badly run, taxes are too high, borders are not controlled, and Westminster does not listen.
This is where Reform has been politically effective. Many voters feel that they are paying high taxes without receiving decent public services in return. Reform has repeatedly argued that taxpayers’ money is wasted on asylum hotels, bureaucracy, net zero policies, foreign aid, equality and diversity initiatives, and what it calls an overgrown state. The most powerful symbol in this argument has been small boat crossings and asylum hotels. Reform has used this issue relentlessly, and Labour has allowed itself to be pulled onto Reform’s ground.
Yet the budgetary reality is more complicated than Reform’s rhetoric suggests. Asylum spending is politically visible and emotionally played. But it is not one of the largest pressures on the UK public finances. Total asylum support costs around £4.7 billion — roughly 0.3% of total public spending, with hotel accommodation accounting for the largest share. That does not mean the system is well managed, but Reform has made it feel central to Britain’s economic problems, even
There is also an important migration fact that Labour has failed to communicate effectively. The latest estimates put net migration at 204,000 in the year ending June 2025, down from 649,000 a year earlier. That is a major fall. However, Labour has not successfully turned this into a public argument that the system is becoming more controlled. In that sense, Labour fell into Reform’s trap. Rather than saying, “We have reduced net migration and now we will manage the system more fairly and effectively,” Labour often sounded as if it agreed with Reform’s diagnosis while offering a less convincing version of Reform’s remedy.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has been central to that shift. She has described the immigration system as broken and argued for tougher asylum rules. This has already been a source of tension inside Labour. Before the election, some Labour MPs warned that adopting harsh language on refugees and migrants would not defeat Reform but strengthen it. Mahmood’s immigration plans also triggered criticism from Labour backbenchers, with one MP saying parts of the approach mimicked Donald Trump and could lead to serious injustice.
This is the core of Labour’s problem. It lost because it managed to disappoint two different electorates at once. Some voters wanted tougher border control and did not trust Labour to deliver it. Others wanted a more humane, recognisably progressive Labour Party and felt betrayed by its move towards the language of the right. For the first group, Labour sounded like a weak imitation of Reform. For the second group, it sounded like a party abandoning its own values. In both cases, Labour paid a price.
Senior Labour voices are now arguing that the public does not simply want more anti-immigration rhetoric. They want a government that can improve daily life: better wages, affordable housing, safer communities, shorter NHS waiting lists and public services that actually work. On this reading, Labour’s mistake was not that it failed to sound enough like Reform. Its mistake was that it allowed Reform to set the agenda. Instead of offering a confident, practical and progressive answer to Britain’s problems, Labour tried to answer Reform on Reform’s terms. That made Reform look like the original and Labour like the copy.
Labour also lost ground in some areas with large Muslim communities, including parts of Birmingham and London. This matters, because Labour’s position on Gaza, civil liberties, immigration and minority communities has damaged its relationship with some voters who previously saw the party as their natural home. However, the Muslim vote alone does not explain the national result. In some areas, Muslim voters appear to have moved towards independents, Greens or other anti-Labour candidates. It is also possible that a small number of socially conservative Muslim voters supported Reform, although there is not yet enough evidence to say this was a major national pattern. Birmingham is a good example: Labour lost control after 14 years, while Reform, Greens and pro-Gaza independents all gained ground.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said he will not “walk away” from the challenges facing the country. His immediate response has been that the public wants change and that his determination to deliver that change has increased. But Labour is divided. Some MPs believe the defeat is personal to Starmer and that popular local councillors were punished because voters rejected the national leadership. Others argue that the country has no time for another internal Labour war and that the party must deliver change quickly under the current leader.
The next phase will depend on two things: how strong the pressure within Labour on Starmer becomes, and whether any serious leadership alternative emerges. For now, an immediate change of prime minister looks unlikely. But politically, Labour has entered a dangerous period. If it responds by chasing Reform even further on immigration, it may lose more voters to the Greens, Liberal Democrats and even to Reform itself. If it ignores public anxiety about border control, cost and public services, Reform will keep growing.
Starmer is expected to announce new change steps next week, with immigration likely to be central. A key test will be whether he recommits to the tough immigration package first set out in November 2025, which was criticised even within Labour and later pushed back towards autumn 2026. If he now moves quickly to legislate those measures, it will suggest that his lesson from the election is to answer Reform by moving further onto Reform’s ground.
These elections do not prove that Britain has simply become a far-right country. They show that many voters no longer believe either of the two main parties can make their lives better. Reform has benefited from that anger by offering simple answers to complicated problems. Labour’s task is not to become a softer version of Reform. It is to prove that democratic, practical and humane politics can still deliver results. If it cannot do that, the 2026 elections may be remembered not as a protest vote, but as the beginning of a deeper realignment in British politics.
.svg.avif){kind=small}
