Keir Starmer faces day of reckoning as voters in one major UK city prepare to turn on him . hyn
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, Reform leader Nigel Farage, Labour leader Keir Starmer and Green (Image: PA/Express)
Local elections on May 7 will be a “day of reckoning” for Labour in Britain’s largest local authority, party insiders fear. Labour has run Birmingham since 2012 but its reign could come to an end after next month’s vote.
At stake is control of a £4.4 billion budget and services for more than a million people. But losing Birmingham would also be a massive blow to Sir Keir Starmer, and further alarm his MPs at Westminster.
A local Labour politician said: “Our chickens are coming home to roost. The result in places like this is what’s going to cause real panic, not Scotland or Wales.”
The party’s traditional coalition of voters is splitting in three different directions. Liberal-minded members of the city’s middle class are defecting to the Green Party, while working class voters are considering Reform.
Meanwhile, inner-city Muslim voters could desert the party for so-called “Gaza independents”, who have formed an alliance with firebrand ex-Labour MP George Galloway.
It’s a perfect storm. Sir Keir’s government is unpopular on a national level, while the council has been hit by a series of disasters locally.
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.
Victoria Square in Birmingham city centre, with the council house in the background (Image: Getty Images)
The authority issued what’s known as a Section 114 notice in 2023 – declaring itself effectively bankrupt – and former Local Government Secretary Michael Gove appointed commissioners to oversee improvements. Lord Gove has moved on to other things, but the Commissioners remain.
Residents have suffered a two-year bin strike, which saw black bags piling up in city streets. Refuse workers from neighbouring councils were brought in to clear up the mess.
And the local Labour group is in disarray. Former council leader Ian Ward was sacked by the national party, giving the authority a new leader effectively imposed by party bosses in London.
A study by analysts Bombe concluded May’s election could leave Labour with just 11 of the city’s 101 council seats, down from 50 (out of 99 seats) today.
Ozzy the bull in Birmingham’s New Street station (Image: PA)
Polling by JL Partners for the Daily Telegraph suggested Labour could win 28% of the vote – the same proportion as Reform, also forecast to win 28%. While the findings differ, they both suggest that the city could end up under no overall control.
Labour is warning of a “coalition of chaos” taking over. John Cotton, the current council leader and head of the city’s Labour group, said in a message to local voters: “There is a very simple choice at this election. Unity with a labour led council or division created by Independents and Reform who want to tear this city apart.”
Conservatives think this may be their big moment. They are currently the second-largest group in the authority and the council was Tory-led from 2004 to 2012. Unlike some of the UK’s other big cities, Birmingham has a strong Conservative tradition.
Robert Alden, leader of the Conservative group on the city council, said: “The only way this city is going to be ungovernable is if Labour stays in charge, because they have made a complete mess of it. We are gunning to try and take control.”
But Reform UK leader Nigel Farage is also hoping for a breakthrough and earlier this year he declared: “I will stick my neck out slightly and say that I think on May 7 we have a really good chance of winning”.
Local Reform candidates aren’t quite as gung ho but Jex Parkin, standing in the city’s Kingstanding ward, said: “We are the only party that can kick Labour out of the disastrous Birmingham City Council.”
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is the city’s most prominent politician (Image: Anadolu via Getty Images)
The great unknown is whether independent candidates will cause upsets similar to those in the 2024 general election, when lawyer Ayoub Khan, a former Lib Dem turned independent, defeated the sitting Labour MP in Birmingham Perry Barr. Independent candidate Akhmed Yakoob, also a lawyer, came a close second in Birmingham Ladywood, reducing Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s majority from 28,582 to just 3,421.
Mr Yakoob is not standing in May but has joined forces with property developer turned activist Shakeel Afsar to co-ordinate a campaign to get independents elected to the authority. Mr Afsar is known locally after leading protests in 2019 outside a city school over lessons some parents saw as promoting an LGBT lifestyle.
Their candidates, also backed by Mr Galloway’s Workers Party of Britain, could take seats from Labour in areas large Muslim populations. A key campaign issue is the war in Gaza, but other concerns include conflict in Kashmir – many Birmingham Muslims have Kashmiri links – and a general sense that Labour has taken ethnic minority voters for granted.
Speaking to the Birmingham Mail, Mr Afsar said: “We have indigenously put our weight behind Labour, and have been betrayed.”
In other parts of the city, Labour is more worried about the Green Party. The party in Birmingham remains dominated by old-fashioned environmentalists rather than the radical left-wingers associated with party leader Zack Polanski. However, they still stand to benefit from Mr Polanski’s charisma and media profile.
John Cotton is the current council leader (Image: Nick Wilkinson/Birmingham Live)
Liberal Democrats have been somewhat overlooked in this election, but party leader Sir Ed Davey visited the city and while he ruled out forming a coalition with Reform in the council house, he would not be drawn on other deals. And perhaps that was wise, as a potential outcome is a joint Conservative-Lib Dem administration.
But another possibility after next month’s vote is that there is no clear winner – and it simply proves impossible to form a stable coalition supported by a majority of councillors. Who would run Birmingham then?
The answer might be Tony McArdle, a man nobody elected. He’s the former Chief Executive of Lincolnshire County Council and the “Lead Commissioner” appointed by Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to try to impose order on Birmingham’s crisis-hit local authority. Some local politicians say the commissioners are running the show already.
Keir Starmer Faces Day of Reckoning as London Voters Prepare to Turn on Him
Keir Starmer faced a major political test in London as voters went to the polls in May 2026, with the capital emerging as one of the key battlegrounds in a set of elections that placed fresh pressure on the Labour government.
The dramatic phrase “day of reckoning” was used by political commentators before the results, reflecting expectations that Labour could suffer substantial losses after less than two years in government. London was particularly significant because Labour controlled the largest number of borough councils heading into the election, while the party faced challenges from the Greens, Reform UK, Conservatives and independent candidates.
The election was not a direct vote on who should occupy Downing Street. Londoners were choosing councillors, while voters in five boroughs were also electing mayors. Nevertheless, the results had the potential to become an important measure of public sentiment towards Starmer and his government.
Why London mattered so much
London has traditionally been one of Labour’s strongest areas of support.
Before the 2026 local elections, Labour controlled 21 of the capital’s 32 borough councils. The Conservatives controlled six, while the Liberal Democrats controlled three. Tower Hamlets was run by the independent Aspire party and Havering was under no overall control.
That meant Labour entered the contest with a large number of seats and councils to defend.
But the political environment had changed considerably since the 2024 general election.
The Greens had become increasingly competitive in parts of inner London, while Reform UK was attempting to expand its support beyond areas traditionally associated with Conservative voters. Independents and smaller parties were also capable of disrupting established voting patterns.
For Labour, the challenge was therefore not simply defending itself against one opposition party.
It was attempting to hold together a coalition of voters whose priorities could differ substantially.
A test of Starmer’s leadership
The local elections came at a particularly difficult time for Starmer.
Ahead of polling day, political observers were openly discussing whether a poor result could lead to renewed internal pressure on the prime minister.
The Standard described the Friday after polling as potentially a “day of reckoning”, arguing that the results could determine whether Labour faced an electoral setback or a much more serious political crisis. The newspaper also noted that the question was not simply Labour’s local-election performance but whether a revolt among Labour MPs could gain momentum.
That distinction is important.
A local election cannot itself remove a prime minister. Starmer’s position depended on his support within the Labour Party and Parliament as well as the wider political situation.
However, election results can change the political calculations of MPs.
If large numbers of councillors are lost, particularly in areas where Labour has historically performed strongly, MPs may face pressure from their local parties and voters. Poor results can therefore become a catalyst for internal arguments about leadership.
London’s political geography
The capital also presented Labour with a complicated electoral map.
The party’s support remained particularly strong in many inner-London areas, but the Greens had established themselves as a serious competitor in several constituencies.
At the same time, some outer-London areas contained voters who were more receptive to Conservative or Reform arguments.
This created the possibility of Labour being squeezed from different directions.
A voter concerned primarily about housing, public services or climate policy might be attracted to the Greens. Another voter frustrated about taxation, immigration or the direction of national government might consider Reform or the Conservatives.
That fragmentation made it harder for Labour to rely on its traditional electoral coalition.
The Greens’ challenge
The Green Party represented one of the most important challenges to Labour in parts of London.
Green support had increased in the capital over several election cycles, particularly among voters who wanted stronger action on environmental issues and public services.
The 2026 election therefore offered the Greens an opportunity to demonstrate whether their growing support could translate into control of additional councils and a larger number of councillors.
For Labour, losing support to the Greens could be particularly uncomfortable because both parties compete for substantial parts of the same electorate.
A Conservative or Reform breakthrough can be explained as a challenge from the political right. A Green breakthrough presents a different problem: it suggests that Labour can lose voters even among people who remain broadly opposed to Conservative politics.
Labour’s national problem
The London elections also reflected a wider question about Labour’s performance since entering government.
Starmer won the 2024 general election with a large parliamentary majority, but governing parties often experience difficult mid-term elections.
Voters have an opportunity to register dissatisfaction without choosing a new national government.
That makes local elections an important political pressure valve.
Issues such as council tax, housing, transport, crime, planning and local services matter directly to London voters. But national questions also inevitably influence how people vote.
The challenge for Labour was to persuade voters that the government’s national record justified continued support at local level.
Its opponents, meanwhile, could use local elections to argue that the electorate was becoming dissatisfied with the direction of government.
The leadership question
The most consequential question surrounding the election was whether a poor result would affect Starmer’s position.
Before the results were known, there was already speculation about possible leadership pressure. The Standard reported that some Labour MPs were prepared to consider challenging Starmer if the election produced sufficiently damaging results.
The issue subsequently became more serious.
Following the elections, Labour suffered major losses across the country, while Reform made significant gains. In London, Lambeth council, which Labour had dominated for two decades, fell into no overall control, with the Greens becoming the largest party. Several London Labour MPs publicly called for Starmer to resign.
These developments demonstrated why the election had been regarded as such an important test.
The results did not simply affect local councils. They became part of a wider argument within Labour about its national leadership.
But voters were not voting directly on Starmer
It is nevertheless important not to overstate what the election measured.
Local elections are not general elections.
A voter may choose a Green councillor because of local environmental policy while still supporting Labour nationally. Another voter may support Reform at a council election as a protest against the government without necessarily intending to support the party at a future general election.
Turnout can also differ significantly between local and general elections.
Consequently, local-election results provide evidence about political sentiment, but they cannot be treated as a precise forecast of a future general election.
That distinction becomes particularly important when interpreting dramatic headlines about a prime minister being “turned on” by voters.
The London-specific stakes
The stakes were particularly high because Starmer himself represented a London constituency.
He was the MP for Holborn and St Pancras, while several other senior Labour figures also represented London constituencies.
The Standard noted that the government had deep roots in the capital even while ministers were attempting to appeal to voters in northern and Midlands communities.
That created a political balancing act.
Labour needed to retain its traditional strength in major cities while also expanding its appeal among voters outside the metropolitan areas.
Policies designed to appeal to one group could potentially alienate another.
London was therefore more than just another collection of local councils. It represented a central part of Labour’s electoral coalition and an important test of whether the party could maintain its support in Britain’s largest city.
What the results ultimately showed
The eventual results gave Labour a difficult political message.
The party lost significant ground nationally, while Reform made substantial gains. In London, Labour also suffered setbacks, including the loss of its overall control of Lambeth. The Greens became the largest party there.
The results contributed to a period of intense political uncertainty inside Labour.
However, the subsequent political story also demonstrates why it is necessary to distinguish between a warning sign and a direct cause.
Starmer ultimately resigned as prime minister on 20 July 2026. The official government record confirms that his final speech as prime minister was delivered that day, and the government’s biography records his period in office as running from 5 July 2024 to 20 July 2026.
The May local elections were therefore an important part of the political pressure surrounding his leadership, but it would be inaccurate to suggest that London voters directly removed him from office.
A changing political landscape
The deeper significance of the London contest was the evidence it provided of Britain’s increasingly fragmented political system.
Labour remained a major force in London, but it faced competition from several directions.
The Greens were challenging the party in areas where Labour had historically enjoyed strong support. Reform was attempting to broaden its national appeal. Conservatives remained competitive in parts of outer London, while independent candidates could also succeed under the right circumstances.
This meant that Labour could no longer take every traditional stronghold for granted.
The political landscape had become more fluid, and local elections provided voters with an opportunity to demonstrate that established party loyalties were no longer necessarily permanent.
Conclusion
The phrase “day of reckoning” captured the atmosphere surrounding the 2026 London elections, but the reality was more complicated than the headline suggested.
London voters were choosing local representatives rather than directly deciding whether Starmer should remain prime minister. Yet the scale and distribution of Labour’s losses had national consequences, contributing to internal debate about the party’s leadership and political direction.
For Labour, the election demonstrated the difficulty of maintaining support among voters with increasingly diverse political priorities.
For the Greens, Reform and other challengers, it showed that opportunities existed to break into areas once regarded as relatively secure for the established parties.
And for Starmer, the London results became part of a much larger period of political pressure that ultimately preceded his departure from Downing Street in July 2026.
The central lesson was not simply that one group of voters had “turned on” one politician. It was that London’s electorate, like the wider British electorate, had become increasingly competitive and fragmented — making political loyalty much less predictable than it had been in previous elections.
