Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (Image: PA)
Nigel Farage predicted that Sir Keir Starmer will be ousted by the end of next month if Labour faces a local elections bloodbath. The Reform UK leader said his party is on course for a bigger victory in the Red Wall at the May ballots than Boris Johnson in the 2019 general election when Labour’s traditional northern heartlands fell to the Tories.
He also highlighted how Reform is vying with Plaid Cymru for first place in Wales, where Labour is set to be ousted for the first time in history, while his insurgent party could come second in Scotland. Speaking at a Reform rally in Barnsley, Mr Farage said: “What Reform is about to do in the old Labour heartlands, let me promise you, this time it’s for real and Labour know it.
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.
“We are digging far deeper into the Red Wall vote than Boris Johnson and the Conservatives ever got in 2019.”
He added: “I think if Labour get obliterated in the Red Wall, in South Wales and in Scotland then he’ll be gone by the end of May.”
Mr Farage warned of economic chaos if Angela Rayner succeeds Sir Keir in No 10 and Labour lurches leftwards, which he admitted could help his insurgent party.
Asked about the Labour firebrand, the Clacton MP said: “Whatever people think of Angela Rayner there’s something at least that’s real about her.
“I just think her politics is just way out left and one of the most distressing things is the number of very bright young people leaving the country, we’re losing a great deal of talent.
“So even if Rayner is more real I think the economic damage of a Rayner premiership would probably in the long term help us enormously.”
Mr Farage also accused the Prime Minister of “riding roughshod over normal procedure” amid the furore over the appointment of Lord Peter Mandelson to the plum US ambassador role.
He added: “He’ll sack everybody around him, even if he’s the last man standing. He’ll never, ever take responsibility himself for anything that he’s done.”
It comes as Reform UK is expected to make major gains at the local elections on May 7.
Thousands of English council seats are up for grabs, while voters will also take to the polls for the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments.
Mr Farage described the crunch ballots as “the most significant set of elections that will happen between now and the next general election whenever that may be”.
He added: “Many think this government will survive until 2029. I am rather more sceptical especially given the state of the UK economy after a couple of quite catastrophic Rachel Reeves budgets.”
Nigel Farage’s Nightmare Prediction for Keir Starmer as He Named the Date PM Could Be Ousted
Nigel Farage made a striking prediction about Keir Starmer’s political future in the run-up to Britain’s 2026 local elections, naming the end of May as the point by which he believed the prime minister could be forced from office.
Speaking during Reform UK’s campaign for the May elections, Farage argued that a severe Labour defeat across England, Wales and Scotland would put Starmer’s leadership under such pressure that his position could become untenable. The prediction was presented as a direct political challenge to the Labour leader, but subsequent events provided a more complicated picture.
Farage’s forecast was made before voters went to the polls. By the time the results were counted, Labour had suffered substantial losses and Reform had made major gains. Yet Starmer remained prime minister and publicly rejected calls for his resignation.
The episode therefore offers an interesting case study in how political predictions, election results and leadership challenges interact in Westminster politics.
Farage names the end of May
Farage’s prediction was unusually specific.
At a Reform UK campaign event, he said that if Labour suffered the scale of defeat he anticipated, he would be surprised if Starmer were still prime minister at the end of May. The Guardian reported that Farage believed the elections could represent a “cataclysmic” result for Labour and potentially lead to Starmer being replaced as Labour leader.
The Reform leader focused particularly on areas that had historically formed part of Labour’s electoral base.
He pointed to the north-east, north-west, West Midlands and South Wales, arguing that Reform was making substantial progress in communities that had traditionally voted Labour.
His argument was straightforward: if Reform could make major advances in these areas, the result would not simply mean a disappointing set of local election results. It could become a direct challenge to the Labour leadership.
Farage subsequently used similar language when launching Reform’s local-election campaign in Sunderland. Sky News reported that he said voters in the north-east could deliver a decisive blow that would mean Starmer was out of office by the end of May.
The timing was therefore deliberate.
The elections were scheduled for 7 May, leaving several weeks between polling day and the end-of-May deadline Farage had identified.
Why the elections mattered so much
Local elections do not directly determine who occupies Downing Street.
Voters elect councillors rather than MPs, and a prime minister does not automatically lose office because his or her party performs badly in council elections.
However, local election results can have significant political consequences.
They can affect the standing of a party leader among MPs, influence media coverage, change perceptions of electoral momentum and encourage potential leadership challengers.
For Labour, the stakes were particularly high because the party had won a large parliamentary majority at the 2024 general election.
A poor local election performance would therefore be interpreted against the background of Labour’s national position.
Farage argued that a substantial Reform breakthrough would demonstrate that voters were moving away from Labour even in areas that had historically provided the party with strong support.
That was the basis for his prediction about Starmer’s future.
Reform’s gains were substantial
When the results arrived, Reform UK did indeed make significant gains.
By the morning after polling day, Reform had taken control of councils including Newcastle-under-Lyme, while the party was making major advances in northern England. The Guardian reported that Reform won 58 of the 75 seats contested in Sunderland, leaving Labour with just five councillors after starting the day with 48.
The wider figures were also substantial.
ITV reported that, by the morning of 9 May, Reform had gained 1,244 councillors and 114 councils, while Labour had lost 1,022 councillors and 31 councils. The Conservatives also lost seats, while the Greens and Liberal Democrats made gains.
These results provided considerable evidence for Farage’s claim that Reform had broken into areas that had traditionally been associated with Labour.
The geographical distribution was especially significant.
Reform made gains across northern England, including Sunderland, Wigan, Chorley and other areas where Labour had historically enjoyed substantial support.
The results therefore represented a major setback for Labour at local-government level.
But they did not produce the leadership change Farage had predicted.
Starmer refused to resign
On 8 May, after the first major results had emerged, Starmer said he would remain prime minister.
The Guardian reported that he acknowledged the results were difficult but insisted he was determined to continue in office. He said he took responsibility for the election performance while rejecting pressure to step down.
This was the critical moment for assessing Farage’s prediction.
The local elections had produced the kind of losses Farage had warned about, and some Labour MPs did publicly question Starmer’s leadership.
Yet there was no immediate change of prime minister.
Nor did the Labour Party immediately replace Starmer as leader.
Instead, the prime minister sought to demonstrate that the government could recover from the results and continue with its programme.
The distinction is important because Farage’s prediction depended on two events occurring together: a major Labour defeat and a subsequent leadership change.
The first occurred.
The second did not occur by the date Farage had identified.
Electoral defeat does not automatically mean a leadership change
The aftermath demonstrated an important feature of British politics.
A party leader can suffer a major electoral setback without immediately being removed.
The precise mechanism for replacing a governing party leader depends on the party’s internal rules, the willingness of MPs to challenge the leader and whether a credible alternative emerges.
The Guardian’s analysis after the May elections noted that calls for Starmer to set an exit date increased as results came in, but there was not yet evidence of a decisive leadership challenge capable of removing him.
That distinction is particularly important when interpreting Farage’s comments.
His prediction was political analysis and campaigning rhetoric, not a formal forecast based on a mechanism that automatically connected council losses to a change of prime minister.
Even a very poor election result could produce several possible responses inside a governing party.
MPs might demand a leadership contest.
They might decide to give the leader more time.
They might conclude that changing leaders would create greater instability.
Or they might wait for another election or parliamentary event before deciding.
The Reform breakthrough still mattered
The fact that Starmer remained prime minister did not make the election results politically insignificant for Farage.
Reform’s performance represented a substantial expansion of the party’s local-government presence.
The Guardian described the results as a major challenge to Labour, with Reform making gains across northern England and overturning long-standing Labour control in several places.
For Farage, this provided evidence supporting his broader argument that Britain’s traditional two-party political structure was weakening.
The Reform leader had repeatedly argued that voters were moving away from established parties.
The May results gave that argument considerable visibility.
Reform’s gains were not confined to one region or one type of constituency. The party made advances in former Labour heartlands as well as areas where Conservatives had previously been competitive.
That geographic spread was one of the most notable features of the election.
Labour faced pressure from multiple directions
Another important feature of the May elections was that Labour’s losses were not exclusively attributable to Reform.
The Green Party also made significant gains, particularly in parts of London and other urban areas.
ITV reported that the Greens gained 297 councillors and four councils, while the Liberal Democrats gained 151 councillors and three councils.
This meant Labour was being challenged from different directions.
Reform was competing for voters in many areas where immigration, taxation, public services and dissatisfaction with established political parties were important issues.
The Greens were making gains among voters looking for a different political direction on the left.
Consequently, Labour’s local-election losses reflected a fragmented electoral environment rather than a simple transfer of Labour voters to Reform.
That complexity is relevant when assessing Farage’s prediction.
The political significance of Sunderland
Sunderland became one of the clearest symbols of Reform’s breakthrough.
The party won 58 of the council’s 75 seats, while Labour was reduced to five. The council had been controlled by Labour since 1974.
For Reform, the result demonstrated that the party could win substantial support in an area with a long Labour tradition.
For Labour, the result illustrated the scale of the challenge facing the party in parts of northern England.
But a local council result should not automatically be interpreted as a direct measurement of support for changing the national government.
Turnout, local candidates, local issues and the structure of council elections can all influence results.
The same voters may behave differently at a general election.
What happened to Farage’s prediction?
The simplest way to assess Farage’s prediction is to separate the forecast into its component parts.
He predicted that Labour could suffer a very severe result.
That prediction was broadly consistent with the eventual scale of Labour’s local-government losses.
He predicted that Reform would make major gains in traditional Labour areas.
The results strongly supported that part of his argument.
He also predicted that Starmer would no longer be prime minister by the end of May.
That part did not happen.
Starmer remained in Downing Street after the election and publicly committed to continuing as prime minister.
The result therefore illustrates why political predictions should be assessed against each specific claim rather than treated as a single all-or-nothing statement.
Why the prediction nevertheless became politically important
Even though the leadership prediction was not fulfilled by the date Farage named, the statement had an important political purpose.
It framed the local elections as a referendum on Starmer’s leadership.
Rather than presenting the vote simply as a contest for councillors, Farage encouraged voters to view Reform support as a way of putting pressure on the prime minister.
Reform subsequently benefited from the visibility generated by its strong election performance.
The party was able to point to council gains as evidence that it was breaking into traditional Labour territory.
Farage’s comments also contributed to the wider discussion about Starmer’s leadership after the results.
A prediction that became a test of leadership
Farage’s “end of May” prediction is now best understood as a political forecast made before the 7 May elections.
The election results delivered substantial gains for Reform and significant losses for Labour. Reform gained more than 1,200 councillors according to the figures reported during the count, while Labour suffered losses across many of its traditional strongholds.
But the expected leadership change did not follow.
Starmer remained prime minister and said he would continue despite the results.
The episode nevertheless demonstrated the pressure that local elections can place on a governing party.
It also showed how quickly Reform had expanded its local electoral footprint.
For Farage, the May elections offered evidence for his argument that Reform could challenge established parties across England.
For Starmer, they represented a major political setback but not an automatic end to his leadership.
The longer-term significance of the results therefore depends on what followed: whether Labour could recover support, whether Reform could maintain its gains, and whether internal pressure on Starmer would eventually produce a leadership contest.
Farage’s deadline of the end of May passed without the predicted change in Downing Street. But the election results that prompted his prediction ensured that the question of Starmer’s political future remained a major subject of debate.