Yves here. I am sure we’ll have many more reports and hot takes on the UK election results in Links tomorrow. I thought it still made sense to put up this piece by Richard Murphy, which discusses some of the early outcomes, to allow UK and other interested readers to weigh in. Regardless of who feasts on the carcass, this is an epic and well deserved defeat for Labour, and will lead to the overdue departure of “never here” Kier Starmer.
By Richard Murphy, Emeritus Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Funding the Future
England’s local election results are revealing a dramatic political shift. Reform is making major gains across poorer regions, coastal towns, and former Labour heartlands, whilst London and larger cities are resisting the trend.
In this video, I look at what these results tell us about poverty, inequality, neoliberal failure, Labour’s collapse outside London, Conservative decline, Liberal Democrat resilience, and the Greens’ disappointing performance.
I also ask whether Britain’s traditional two-party system is now breaking apart for good, and what this means for the future of English politics.
The early results suggest a country splitting politically, geographically, and economically, and unless inequality is tackled, Reform’s growth may continue.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
It’s just after 7:00 in the morning on the 8th of May 2026, and a new England is emerging as a result of this morning’s local council results, those that are already declared, that is.
We’ve only got one-third of the results in at present, that or near abouts, and the consequences are clear. Let’s ignore Scotland and Wales for the moment. There are no election results from there as yet. Let’s just talk about England and the major political trends that are already visible this morning.
Reform is advancing strongly across England, but it has to be said, that is only outside London, and it is also only outside our larger towns and cities. In poorer regions and coastal areas, many people are swinging to Farage’s Reform Party, and that is particularly true in the northeast and the northwest of the country.
In the northeast, Reform won all the available seats in Hartlepool. In the northwest, in places like Chorley and Tameside, there have been big wins for Reform at cost to Labour, and that is also being seen in other areas in Manchester as well, where there have been big swings once more.
Reform is now winning many seats, but so far, few councils. Only Newcastle-under-Lyme has so far become a Reform council as a consequence of these elections, and it was one of the rare ones outside London where all seats were up for election. The new council is dominated by Reform, and the losses were to Labour, who lost all but two of their seats, and to the Conservatives as well.
This was a general trend across the areas where Reform won heavily. They won at the expense of both of these parties. But let’s be clear, they are struggling in urban areas. London is resisting Reform very clearly. They’ve won almost no seats that I can see there as yet in the about five results so far declared, and in places like Oxford, and Reading, and Lincoln, they are showing small swings and, in fact, are making no significant gains.
England is splitting politically and geographically.
The fact is that Labour is having a terrible night overall. It’s losing more seats than it’s winning, and losses outside London are particularly severe. They’re not so bad in London. But Manchester is doing badly for Labour, and that’s particularly significant because that is the power base for both Andy Burnham and Angela Rayner, who are major challengers to Keir Starmer in any leadership race, and that leaves them politically exposed, just as much as Keir Starmer is. The fact that Labour is going to be in a terribly confused situation now is something that we can be sure of. There is no good outcome from this night for them. The narrative of confusion is going to continue.
The Conservatives are also collapsing, but rather more quietly than Labour, but they started these elections in a worse position than Labour did.
Their losses are heavy, but not as proportionately as bad as Labour’s, and they’ve also had some wins. They’ve won seats from Labour in Harlow, in Essex. They’ve won Westminster Council, taking it back from Labour, and they have pulled themselves into a position of no overall control in Wandsworth in London. These are notable successes for them. Kemi Badenoch will no doubt be shouting about them, but she can’t pretend otherwise; this is also a disastrous night for the Conservative Party. The two-party hegemony of power between Labour and the Tories that has ruled Britain for years is over. These two parties are both heading to be toast, and I think that’s the fair description of them.
The Liberal Democrats are proving resilient. Their overall voting share is down; I should stress that point, but they are winning seats, and in some places the results are quite extraordinary.
In Richmond-upon-Thames in London, they won all the council seats, every single one of them. They almost replicated that in Sutton, in South London, taking fifty-one out of fifty-five seats and protest vote is obviously helping the Liberal Democrats’ support in some areas, but let’s also be clear, in those areas where they have a long track record in local government, people are supporting them. They have got something going for them, and that is not what Labour and the Conservatives can be saying. That is the Liberal Democrats’ strength at this moment. They are not down and out; the other two are.
The Greens have undoubtedly had a disappointing night so far. There can’t be any other description than that. They are winning seats, but they are coming second in so many of them that they are not getting the breakthrough they need. That is clear. But the point that I’m going to make is this: the media attacks on Zack Polanski have worked. The attempt to cast him as the next Jeremy Corbyn is clearly having an impact, but at the same time, the Greens have to also get their act together.
They need to make clear what their message is, and I don’t think that is the case. Look at Tameside in Manchester. They didn’t win there, and that borough covers part of the Gorton and Denton seat that they just won in a parliamentary by-election. The failure to translate that into a local result is very worrying for them.
So where are we? Poverty is driving the Reform vote. That’s the message that we have from this morning. Neoliberalism is clearly failing, and those who are suffering are registering a protest vote. The fact that they are doing so by registering a vote for the only party in the UK that is dedicated to making the poorer people in this country very much worse off is one of the perverse outcomes of this election.
It is completely bizarre that the people who will suffer from cuts to services, cuts to healthcare, cuts to support for special educational needs, cuts for support to councils, cuts for support to social care, all of those things are going to be delivered by Reform, and all of those things are going to have the greatest impacts in places like Hartlepool, Chorley, and Newcastle-under-Lyme, places where they are winning.
This is the perverse outcome of the night, but Farage is winning, and the fact is, other parties have got to get their acts together to prove that they can deliver for those places, or we are facing a fascist onslaught. Let’s not pretend otherwise, and it is going to be very horrible indeed.
This is the fact that we’re having to face. We are at a very dangerous political moment in this country. England is splitting along economic lines. First-past-the-post is distorting representation very heavily in some areas, and unless inequality is addressed, Reform will keep growing.
That’s what I think. What do you think? There are more results to come. This situation will change as the day progresses. Let us have your opinion. We’re not putting a poll down below because we don’t think that is fair, as yet, but we will do potentially later in the day. Like this video if that’s what you do. Please share it, and if you want to support our work, we would, as ever, be very grateful.
45 comments
Comments are closed.
Craig Murray on Scottish elections
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2026/05/the-2026-scottish-elections/
Thanks.
Was about to post myself.
Not a UK resident so I could be off base here but this line struck me as similar to some of the BS we here from Democrats refusing to understand why people don’t vote for them:
“The fact that they are doing so by registering a vote for the only party in the UK that is dedicated to making the poorer people in this country very much worse off is one of the perverse outcomes of this election.”
Since the Blairite turn and the rapid degeneration of Labour really sped up with the attacks on Corbyn, Labour in power has been slashing services, promoting privatization, and putting the needs of finance capital over the people. So it seems a bit absurd to say that people voting against Labour are voting against their interests even if Reform is worse. If one wants to question why more of those votes aren’t going to the Greens, whose social democratic platform offers a return to a more militant left-ish posture that Labour once held, that may be a fair question. I think we all know the unity of the British press in attacking the left, especially anyone critical of imperialism and Zionism, plays a major role. But the idea that Reform are the only neoliberal party when Labour have been Red Tories for years seems like some questionable analysis.
Pasokification spreads relentlessly.
Not a UK resident either, but given the average turnout for local elections in UK (~30%) it’s not as much of a “registering a vote” of protest, but Labour voters just not bothering while those of the (more) fascists persuasion have bothered.
If you get a kick in the head no matter who you vote, why would you vote? Only those who think they’re worse off because the poor haven’t been kicked in the head enough are voting – not necessarily realizing that they do count as poor when the kicking commences.
The Democrats may very well understand why people in the USA don’t vote for them.
As long as Democrats have monetizable political clout they will treat their loyal voters as secondary concerns.
Democtats understand lobbyists just fine.
Removal of money and influence could cause the Democrats to suddenly understand the voters.
Never thought I would live to see the day that the UK’s two main parties – Labour and the Conservatives – are both at risk of being reduced to political irrelevancy. And yet here we are. Both parties pandered to the elites while betraying their own political base and both are now in their death throes. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
“unless inequality is tackled, Reform’s growth may continue.”
No, it’s Open Border Immigration that’s causing this.
British people don’t like seeing their country turned into a 3rd world dumping ground.
Well, the 3rd world has been Britain’s dumping ground for centuries, so there’s some poetic justice, there.
It’s almost as if all those people coming to Britain has a lot to do with… inequality.
Britain is causing inequality in far-flung counties today? Do tell.
America is causing inequality and the UK is its poodle.
Britain has feasted on people all around the world, well, since forever. While britain is always happy to have a seat at the table, as in Gaza, its glory days are largely over, and they’ll have to be content with feasting on one another.
The roots of this go very deep and have had lasting effects. You can start here, with Caroline Elkins’s Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire, and then if you want a more specific example, her previous book, Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. The British were no worse than the French, Portuguese, and the Dutch. The Germans and Italians were just as bad, but comparative amateurs. Americans are current world champion imperialists, but like all the others we consider ourselves to be bringers of light and truth to the benighted.
… the 3rd world has been Britain’s dumping ground for centuries, so there’s some poetic justice, there .
——————————————-
You seem to be conflating “the British people” with “Britain”.
In any case, it’s noteworthy how pleased neo-liberal elites are to be the recipients of such “poetic justice”, even if “the British people” are less enthusiastic about it.
Oh it’s karma? Then I guess British people who don’t want their island to be invaded by millions of people incompatible with their culture who are destroying the social fabric of the country, will just have to sit at home and do nothing.
Oh wait. That’s not how the real world works.
Politics is about acting in your own self interests and the interests of the people you care about.
English people do not owe a single thing to third worlders. Nothing. Any country that, for example, does not have running water in 2026, exists in that state because the people within the country are incapable of forming self governing bodies that can take advantage of the information diffusion and vast resources offered by the modern world to get on board with the 21st century.
Somalia is hell on earth because it’s full of Somalians, in other words.
Oh, so if Palestinians have no running water, it’s their own fault? Nothing to do with the U.S. and UK weaponry supplied to the Israelis to carry out genocide?
While I’m not down with “3rd world dumping ground” phrase, I’d agree that Britain’s net in-migration has been rising in recent years (scroll down for chart), and that’s been a factor in directing economic dissatisfaction toward Reform rather than the Greens. That’s probably a factor in the U.S. as well with respect to MAGA.
And as Richard says, the Greens are self-destructive. If you’re as paranoid/cynical about Western politics as I am, you have to wonder if the Greens aren’t a CIA concoction, especially in the EU. How is it “green” to be constantly warmongering? A real “green party” would be talking about degrowth, hiking taxation on the rich any way it can be done constitutionally, and rapidly increasing social goods, not how to stifle the free speech of anyone skeptical of Project Ukraine. How is that European? But it sure carries the stench of Langley.
In my corner of the EU the Greens are less-than-affectionately called the Department of Parks of the Conservative party. It’s basically for people who “rebel” against their parents but still detest socialists and/or who are concerned about the pollution and climate change but on the level where hand-waving and hot air is sufficient remedy.
Back when I did hang around some of them, I was surprised to find Greens were also a swarming nest of neoliberals when their own party had disappeared.
The British Green Party (BGP) and German Green Party (GGP) appear to differ radically on the issue of Israel/Palestine:
BGP: Formally recognized Israel as an “apartheid” state and its actions in Gaza as “genocide”.
GGP: Consistently rejected the use of those terms.
BGP: Supports the BDS movement.
GGP: Opposes BDS; calls for the defunding of BDS-linked groups.
BGP: Intense internal debate on the legitimacy of Zionism. A motion to declare that “Zionism is racism” has been proposed, but the vote on it delayed. Zack Polanski has said he is “certainly not a Zionist” and that he would support the motion if “Zionism” was defined by Israel’s current policies.
GGP: Does not question the legitimacy of Zionism. The GGP has supported the IHRA definition of antisemitism, as well as stripping public funding from any group that “questions the right of Israel to exist or calls for a boycott of Israel”.
BGP: Supports a complete and immediate embargo on arms for Israel and an end to intelligence sharing.
GGP: Supports only a partial arms embargo (case by case review). Supports intelligence sharing with Israel, arguing that it is a “two-way relationship” in which Germany needs Israeli intelligence to combat terrorism threats within its own borders.
(The above statements are the results of a brief internet search. I welcome any corrections.)
Yeah, I don’t think that the various Eurogreen strands, especially the German variant, map onto the British Green Party very well — especially its current version under Polanski.
Richard Murphy’s comments on the Green Party were highly premature. In fact, as more votes have been tallied the Greens have done extremely well and their successes have been widespread. The traducing of Polanski has seemingly failed.
Open borders? Really? Britain has gone back to its pre-1905 policy of not requiring a passport to enter the country? I find that hard to believe but if you say so, it must be true. I mean, you’re not just going to repeat made up sht you heard down the boozer, especially with your own Irish/Scandanavian background. Who knows, you might meet the royal family, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson (all foreigners too) in the self-deporting queue on your way back home. 😉
Just passing through to say that the “Greens = antisemitic” story from the last week looks to have had some effect.
The centre is dead. Anything left of center is disallowed. Reform get handed the keys. Predictable and stupid.
Sample of Media frenzy against Greens:
The Greens have shockingly proved that anti-Semitism is a vote-winner (Telegraph)
Extracts:
Polanski’s party has become a seedbed for the political ambitions of every jihadist, Islamist and progressive fanatic in Britain…
…so driven by hatred of the Jewish bogeyman that they cast their vote with all the conviction, fervour and curled lips of those who backed Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts….
…an imaginary “genocide” on another continent has been the number-one campaigning point for that deplorable insurgent party….
…In the fertile ground of social media insanity and community balkanisation, the Greens have become a seedbed for the political ambitions of every jihadist, Islamist and progressive fanatic in Britain. Our politics have been disgraced by the rise of a Leftist-sectarian alliance of convenience, one that is riddled with anti-Semitism…
The Torygraph is a repulsive outfit if ever there was one.
What is center? When I see “center” in Politico (an awful outlet IMO) I understand profoundly Neoliberal.
“Centrist” – beamed down from the Corporate Borg to bravely fight for corporate welfare and monopolists while imposing a polite austerity on the productive forces of society. Not having had much intercourse with Earthlings, they lack an ability to produce a lot of hard takes on cultural issues, making them pale and relatively bloodless and marketable through MSM as something bland and sensible like corn flakes.
I have been marveling at the absurdity of British politics ever since Boris Johnson took the reins. His cynical and hypocritical tap dances during COVID were worthy of the theatrics of none other than Berlusconi or maybe even Fellini.
And then along comes Starmer, who rivaled the antics of Johnson while actually seeming to take himself seriously! Not to be outdone, the eugenics-marinated Conservatives choose Kemi Badenoch as their leader, a black, female politician who is “still working out exactly where she stands – and how far she’s prepared to go.”
For some strange reason, Badenoch reminds me of Kamala Harris. British politics have often moved in tandem with US politics: Thatcher-Reagan, Blair-Clinton, and Cameron-Obama.
Perhaps the faux chaos in the aftermath of the latest British election is a sign of what’s to come in the US after the midterms and Trump’s passing (figurative or literal.)
But fear not, the ship of state will neither be deterred nor its course altered. In Britain there is still MI6, the City and other power brokers to assure that neoliberalism and militarism maintain the magnificence of the Kingdom and Commonwealth. Hail Britannia!
Plus ça change…
I expect this, and I also expect that Reform will collapse as quickly as they have arisen as a result. The problem is the system, and the system is not for turning. For all their neo-rightism, Reform are not going to upset the neoliberal apple carts, and the cuts described here and the further emiseration of the population is inevitable. Until the UK political system delivers on reforming itself first, and the UK economy thereafter, there won’t be any ‘Reform’ parties or outcomes, just new shades of blue and red on the main party logos.
In the meantime, the UK voters will get to pay for another energy crisis and IMF bailout.
This is a good summary of how things are.
I couldn’t be bothered to go out and vote today as I saw no point. All “parties” fielding identical sets of fools thinking they will make a difference or same sets of grifters aiming to wet their beaks on the neoliberal globalist through. The powers that be are about to reverse Brexit soon, and grace us with some continental nazism.
Our political system needs Bastille first. Yes sure, I am placing a bet on polymarket.
Maybe they oughta read “What’s the matter with Kansas?” to understand how and why people vote against self-interest.
I think this is less of an economic story than a political one – one specifically tied to the English FPTP system.
England is undoubtedly suffering economically, but by objective measures is not in a historically bad place. It is still for the most part a wealthy country, and its debt load is denominated in its own (overvalued) currency. Unemployment is relatively low, it is still a draw for many immigrants worldwide (including many highly educated ones), and much of England still provides a high standard of living for the average wage earner. But perceptions matter, and the gradual erosion of relative living standards over the past few decades is getting more noticeable, in particular for the relatively well educated and those in traditionally ‘safe’ sectors. I lived in England at various points in the 1980’s and 1990’s and in many respects it was in a much worse situation then (especially the late 80’s). But I sensed at the time a greater sense of optimism than now, maybe because at least people could see an alternative.
The two major parties in England have been in decline for at least 4 decades, with each election representing a lower percentage of the vote (more or less). The institutional rot within both parties has been all too obvious. In a more dynamic system where differing systems and dynamics allows replacement parties to rise (as has happened in the Celtic fringes with the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein), people still have something of a choice. But for many reasons – and I think its mostly down to the FPTP system along with a media environment which is extremely hostile to anyone breaking the duopoly – no alternative has been able to either establish a geographical base (FPTP systems are biased in favour of geographical concentrations) or to make the breakthrough to 20-30% of the electorate which you need in order to win serious numbers of seats. There are a number of reasons for this – one I think is related to the ‘Union’ itself which results in internal fissures meaning that there are too many potential reasons for alliances to fall apart. The left, for example, can’t make its mind up on what to think about Northern Ireland, Scottish or Welsh nationalism, let alone immigration or Brexit or the relationship of London to the rest of the country. The obvious ‘alternative’ in the Centre is the Liberals, who themselves are hopelessly split internally between a social and economic libertarianism.
So what that leaves England with (Scotland and Wales being somewhat different) is a rotting two and a half party system which does not allow any other broad based party to rise. The result is inevitable – a horrible beast like Reform which can attract disenchanted and low information voters and which doesn’t care if it lets them down. Reform itself is less a far right organisation than an open house for every grifter, crackpot and oddball have a go at getting themselves on the TV (this used to be the job of the Lib Dems). In some respects, England is lucky that it doesn’t have a ‘real’ far right party led by people who know what they are doing, as the situation would be ripe for one to grab control. As an Irish person, I can only look forward to the hilarity of watching Nigel Farage become Prime Minister. But as with Trump, once the amusement dies off, everyone will be left picking up the pieces, and the result won’t be pretty.
Yes. For the last century, Britain has had a two-and-a-half party system combined with FPTP. This worked to the extent that when either Labour or the Tories became unpopular, votes went, not necessarily to the major opponent, but more usually to the Liberals and later the Nationalists as well, bringing the other major party into government. This began to break down as third-party voting actually produced significant number of seats at local and national level, turning the system into a two-and-two-thirds one. Effectively, given the combination, this is likely to make the country ungovernable, as is already the case in France. So long as majority opinion in the UK (and elsewhere) is socially conservative and economically radical, and the major parties are socially radical and economically conservative, an increasing number of votes, if they are cast, will just go to one of the “other” parties.
Nothing economically conservative going on in global hyper-finance. Look at the private debt globally. Everybody just looks at the public spending as the only place for misallocation.
Nothing economically conservative about the global data center bandwagon.
Nothing economically conservative about settler-colonial projects and wars.
I think this is the important and subtler critique of FPTP than that is commonly made: you don’t necessarily create a two (or two and a half) party system under FTPT. It does, however, raise dramatically the cost of knocking out existing dominant parties, who already enjoy big institutional-legal advantages anyways (eg the difficulties in organizing third parties in US, independent of their viability under FPTP–whoch, I think, is actually not that bad under certain circumstances–precisely when third parties tend to arise, incidentally.
Thank you.
Perhaps I can throw in a couple of extra random observations.
Reform is doing particularly well in areas that have ‘deindustrialised’, largely in the 1980s. Thatcher casts a long shadow.
Reform is different to the traditional political parties in the UK because whereas the others are membership-based organisations it is a private company controlled by Nigel Farage and one other. Given its dependence on Farage, it is essentially a one-man band at present, almost entirely financed by billionaires.
Farage’s main strength is his ability to exploit English prejudices, especially against foreigners. He is also of course the current darling of the British media which is almost entirely right-wing (ring-leader : Rupert Murdoch).
The process you describe in UK politics (I believe accurately) is following very closely the thesis outlined in Jonathan Hopkin’s Anti-System Politics: The Crisis of Market Liberalism in Rich Democracies
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41551679-anti-system-politics
I respectfully disagree.
This is the inevitable consequence of the UK depleting its oil reserves, which, combined with its insanely short-sighted policies of never preparing for such a future (present), makes this result inevitable.
It doesn’t even matter who runs or governs the place anymore–the parties are simply playing the political equivalent of musical chairs or hot potato with the rotting remnants of a carcass. Barring a newfound ability and opportunity to rob another country, a miraculous new major discovery, or an even more miraculous discovery of replacement cheap, plentiful energy source, the next two decades for the UK is going to be brutal beyond all possible imagination–doubly so because the political structure at some point decided to ensure it placed itself on the worst terms possible with every single oil exporter.
Every revolution is about power.
UK local election results are a lagging political indicator of social fragmentation driven by economic polarisation. Neoliberalism with rightist tendencies (aka Thatcherism) delivered freedom of transnational capital and emergence of new FIRE-sector elite. Neoliberalism with leftist tendencies (aka Blairism) delivered freedom of transnational labour and emergence of new gig-sector underclass. Neither was politically functional for more than a generation.
Farage offers nostalgic dream of return to neoliberalism with rightist tendencies, like Boris did. And just like Boris, he will govern as neoliberal with leftist tendencies if elected. This will just create one more hideous round of political disillusionment.
It’s doubtful British state has much of a political future even with election of bona fide fascist (who?). It’s already ending direct rule in many parts of country and allowing various mafias to govern (not just in Bradford but also in City of London).
David Betz reckons UK headed towards low-intensity civil war. Probably won’t come to that. Instead, just increasingly cynical acceptance of exclusion, brutality and neglect. Brazilianisation is already here – it’s just unevenly distributed.
After seeing what Reform is doing to Labour, a competently run DNC would be running around with their hair on fire right about now. I guess not having a clue comes with (short-term) benefits.
Speaking as a Welsh person who lives outside Wales (and doesn’t get a vote) I’ve never been so pleased by the existence of Plaid Cymru.
The Welsh people have lost all faith in Labour and the Lib Dems (and never had much faith in the Tories). If Plaid didn’t exist Reform would win by a landslide in Wales.
I remember Ken Livingston and the GLC. It was utterly unbelievable how Blair enforced the privatisation of the tube. A total and utter disaster for anybody but the people making a killing from what once was a common good. Next were the quangos all over the UK. Same playbook. Socialize losses and privatize profits. Today London’s public transport system is easily the most expensive one in all of Europe. This disaster was repeated with the quangos all over the UK. The economic disaster was cloaked by identity politics. This has now come to a predictable end. No use blaming the rubes for voting reform.
Lucy Parsons
*****
Here, there and everywhere.
Analysing all these UK local government results and converting similar outcomes for a general election in 2029, we will be looking at a coalition government of some sort. I could see Labour/Lib Dem/Green/SNP/Plaid Cymru as the likely leading coalition option if these centre/centre left parties were to agree. A sort of “Grand Coalition” against the forces of the Right/Far Right. Reform and the Tories will require a larger swing than they got in these elections to have any chance of trying to convince the Lib Dems to join them in a “Right/Centre” coalition. The Lib Dems will well remember their last coalition with the Right and how that turned out for them. So, no panic if your a progressive voter from these results, there is still very much a progressive winning option available.
neoliberalism is the handmaiden to fascism.