Keir Starmer is facing a tough 2026 (Image: Getty)
Keir Starmer faces “very, very large” losses in next year’s local elections and these results could be “decisive” for his future as Prime Minister, a leading pollster has predicted.
Lord Hayward warned of a drubbing in Labour’s heartlands in England, defeat in the Welsh Senedd and a “battering in the Scottish Parliament”.
But Sir Keir’s future could be thrown into fresh doubt as the party is on course for “very, very large” losses to Reform UK, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, and, in east London, pro-Gaza Independent candidates.
Council elections are due to take place on May 7 in all 32 London boroughs, as well as in Birmingham, Greater Manchester, Tyneside, and across the Home Counties. Devolved elections are also taking place in Scotland and Wales.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Lord Hayward, a Conservative peer, said: “A few months ago, it looked as if May 7 would be decisive for the leaderships of both Labour and Conservatives. As we move into 2026, it now looks as if the May elections could decide the fate of Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, but it is less clear that that will be the case for Kemi Badenoch.”
He claimed there will be a “cacophony of winners”, adding the Conservatives are also likely to lose seats overall. They could pick up seats in London.
Lord Hayward said Reform – starting from a low base – was likely to make the most gains.
Lord Hayward suggested Labour was on course for “one hell of a battering” in Scotland, while the SNP, Reform and the Greens could do well.
In Wales, Plaid Cymru and Reform are also expected to perform strongly.
Keir Starmer’s Future Thrown Into Chaos With Election ‘Battering’ Predicted
Keir Starmer’s political future came under intense scrutiny in the months leading up to the 2026 local and devolved elections, as polling and political analysis pointed towards potentially heavy losses for Labour. The warnings created a difficult atmosphere for the party, with questions not only about Labour’s electoral prospects but also about whether Starmer could continue leading the party into the next general election.
The situation was particularly significant because Labour had entered government after winning a large parliamentary majority at the 2024 general election. Yet by spring 2026, the political environment had changed considerably. Reform UK and the Green Party were making gains in different parts of the country, while Labour faced criticism from voters on issues including taxation, public services, the economy and immigration.
Ahead of the May elections, several projections suggested that Labour could suffer unusually large losses. The Guardian reported that Labour was facing the possibility of a historically poor performance in the local and devolved contests, with polling indicating that Reform UK, the Greens and nationalist parties could make substantial gains.
For Starmer, the elections therefore became more than a collection of local contests. They were widely viewed as an important political test of Labour’s support and of his leadership.
Warnings of a difficult election
The scale of the warnings varied between different polling organisations, but the broad concern was clear: Labour’s 2024 general-election victory had not automatically translated into sustained popularity.
ITV News reported before the May elections that Labour activists were preparing for the possibility of losing at least 1,000 councillors. There was also concern about Labour’s prospects in Scotland and Wales.
Such predictions naturally generated speculation about what would happen if the results were particularly damaging.
However, a distinction was important. Polling projections were not election results, and local elections do not necessarily translate directly into general-election outcomes. Local voting can be influenced by local candidates, council performance, turnout and regional political issues.
Nevertheless, the political consequences of a poor result could be significant because MPs and party members often use local elections as an indication of the public mood.
Pressure from inside Labour
The question of Starmer’s leadership was already being discussed within Labour before the elections. In May, YouGov found that Labour members had mixed views about the party leadership. While 66% of surveyed Labour members said Starmer was doing a good job as prime minister, 61% said they wanted him to stand down before the next general election.
The contrast between Labour members and the wider public was also notable in that survey. It demonstrated that opinions inside the governing party could differ substantially from those outside it.
Potential successors were also being discussed, including Andy Burnham, Wes Streeting and others. Yet speculation about leadership did not necessarily mean that a formal challenge was imminent.
The practical problem for Labour MPs was that replacing a sitting leader could create further instability. Some MPs could conclude that a change was necessary, while others could argue that changing leaders would distract the government from its programme.
Reform UK changes the political landscape
One of the most important developments was the growth of Reform UK as a serious competitor for voters who had previously supported other parties.
Nigel Farage’s party had made significant progress in local politics, while the Conservatives were also attempting to recover support. At the same time, the Greens were competing for voters who had previously backed Labour.
This created a more fragmented political environment than the traditional Conservative-Labour contest.
The challenge for Labour was therefore not simply to defend itself against one rival. It had to retain voters on its traditional left while also maintaining support among voters who had moved towards the centre or centre-right.
This fragmentation was visible in polling conducted later in 2026. Although the political situation subsequently changed substantially, it demonstrated how volatile the electoral landscape had become.
What the projections actually showed
Some of the most dramatic forecasts before and during the political turmoil should be treated carefully because different models produced very different outcomes.
More in Common’s final MRP conducted during June 2026, for example, projected a difficult parliamentary map for Labour under Starmer’s final period as leader. Its model projected Labour to lose a large proportion of the seats it had won in 2024.
But later modelling produced a different picture after Andy Burnham became prime minister.
YouGov’s September 2026 MRP, based on nearly 17,000 respondents surveyed between 23 August and 18 September, projected Labour as the largest party if a general election were held immediately, with 241 seats. That would still represent a substantial reduction from Labour’s 411 seats in 2024, but it was considerably better than the 144-seat projection YouGov had produced a year earlier under Starmer.
These changing numbers demonstrate why election forecasts must not be treated as fixed predictions. They are snapshots based on particular assumptions, fieldwork periods and statistical models.
Starmer’s political dilemma
For Starmer, the central dilemma was how to respond to the growing political pressure without appearing to abandon the government’s agenda.
A poor local-election performance could lead MPs to ask whether Labour’s national message was working. But abandoning established policies could also create new problems.
Governments frequently face a difficult balance between responding to short-term polling movements and pursuing longer-term policy objectives.
For Labour, the challenge was particularly complicated because many of the issues dominating political debate were difficult to resolve quickly. Public services, living costs, taxation, immigration and economic growth all involved competing priorities.
The party therefore needed to demonstrate progress while managing expectations about what could realistically be achieved during a parliamentary term.
Why the phrase “election battering” became significant
Descriptions such as “battering” or “political disaster” became common in newspaper coverage because of the scale of the losses some models were projecting.
However, these terms were political interpretations rather than precise statistical descriptions.
The actual significance of an election result depends on the number of seats lost, the geographical distribution of those losses, changes in vote share and the broader political circumstances.
A party can lose a large number of local councillors without necessarily suffering an equivalent defeat at a general election. Conversely, a relatively modest change in vote share can have a substantial effect under Britain’s electoral system when concentrated in marginal constituencies.
That distinction is especially important when discussing Labour’s future.
A changing political story
The subsequent political developments showed just how quickly the situation could change.
Starmer ultimately did not remain prime minister throughout 2026. Andy Burnham later entered Downing Street, fundamentally changing the context in which Labour’s polling was interpreted.
By September, Ipsos polling showed Labour four points ahead of Reform UK, with Labour on 27% and Reform on 23% in voting intention. The same survey also found that seven in ten respondents remained dissatisfied with how the government was running the country.
Another September poll produced a different seat projection, with Labour on 241 seats and Reform UK on 123, again demonstrating how different methodologies can produce substantially different parliamentary estimates.
The political landscape was therefore far more fluid than headlines about an inevitable “battering” might suggest.
The wider lesson for Labour
The episode illustrated the difficulty of interpreting mid-term political pressure.
Election forecasts can reveal vulnerabilities, but they cannot determine what voters will eventually do at a future general election. Leadership approval can change, parties can alter their strategies, political events can reshape public opinion, and tactical voting can affect constituency outcomes.
Research published by the Guardian in September also highlighted the potential importance of tactical voting, showing how constituency-level behaviour could significantly alter projections. The research itself cautioned that such modelling was not an exact forecast.
For Labour, the period surrounding the 2026 elections therefore represented a major test of political resilience. For Starmer personally, it became even more consequential because questions about electoral performance became connected to questions about leadership.
Ultimately, the story was not simply about whether Labour would win or lose a particular set of elections. It was about how a governing party responds when its electoral coalition begins to fragment, how leadership authority is maintained under pressure, and how quickly Britain’s increasingly competitive multi-party politics can change the calculations inside Westminster.
The forecasts provided warnings, but the subsequent political developments showed that forecasts themselves could change dramatically. For voters, MPs and political observers alike, the period demonstrated that Britain’s electoral landscape could no longer be understood solely through the traditional Conservative-versus-Labour framework.