2026 Local Elections Thread

[nw1]

Reform won Shanklin Central by one vote. Reform - 356, Conservatives - 355.

Bad luck. Doesn't sound like a hotbed of liberal or left-wing thought though, in any case...

 

[Ant1966]

Bad luck. Doesn't sound like a hotbed of liberal or left-wing thought though, in any case...

As the old joke goes: "If you want to know what the Isle of Wight was like in the 1970s"...

 

[Thirteen]

You’re right, but in that case they will need to get out of the ludicrous position of wittering on about “latte-drinking London elites” etc etc.

The Tory Party has always been the party of the broad middle class; the established lot, the upwardly mobile, and those who aspire to join them. Yet their leader sneers at “the sort of people who want to save the church roof” (actual quote) and they subscribe to the “Somewheres vs Anywheres” nonsense that virtue can only be found in declining places and anywhere with a Waitrose is some kind of Sodom and Gomorrah undermining the national character.

They also need to be more aspirational, they lost the last three Mayoral elections because they were talking down London and why would Londoners vote for a candidate who hates their city? Reform is doing that although I think Laila Cunningham's recent comments make me think she is worried that her party's stance as well as the claims of London boroughs wanting to leaving Greater London by Farage backfired on them in places like Bexley and Bromley and will cost them dearly in the Mayoral election.

 

[The Ham]

I think you are missing something there. Between Brexit and the tightening of the rules, about four million people were admitted to this country in the space of a few years. That is an unbelievable share of the population. I would have thought it was unique outside of mass migration of refugees into neighbouring countries. It casts no aspersions on the immigrants themselves to say that that is absolutely abnormal.

Many pundits are saying that Starmer has tried to appease voters on the right who will never vote Labour, but in doing so has only succeeded in alienating Labour’s left-wing base. They seem not to realise that this is the mirror image of Boris Johnson’s government. They were loathed by left-wing voters, who would never vote for them, but by admitting immigrants at such a scale alienated their supporters. This is why the Tory vote collapsed in 2024 and why Reform has emerged to challenge them, just as the Greens are now challenging Labour.

The thing with looking at large numbers it's often difficult to see what's really an issue.

For example, 4 million people in s few years sounds a lot, but it depends on other factors, for example if the net migration value is low (for example UK citizens moving away in large numbers) or a falling native population (due to an aging population resulting in fewer children and more deaths) then it's not always going to be a good number to show what's going on.

The table below breaks things down a bit, whilst recent growth has been much higher from immigration that's mostly been since Covid and so post Brexit (almost as if that's made it worse).

The other thing to note is the reducing rate at which the native population is growing and it's likely to keep on downwards, probably to negative rates for various of the UK regions between 2024 and 2032 (with England being the last and so keeping the national figure much higher).

The 5-Year Breakdown (Town of 10,000 in 2000, if it followed UK trends).

Period	End Population	Total Growth	From Immigration	From "Native" Growth*
1996–2000	10,000	+125	+45	+80
2000–2005	10,290	+290	+190	+100
2005–2010	10,695	+405	+210	+195
2010–2015	11,050	+355	+210	+145
2015–2020	11,325	+275	+205	+70
2020–2026	11,870	+545	+480	+65

 

[Uncle Buck]

The thing with looking at large numbers it's often difficult to see what's really an issue.

For example, 4 million people in s few years sounds a lot, but it depends on other factors, for example if the net migration value is low (for example UK citizens moving away in large numbers) or a falling native population (due to an aging population resulting in fewer children and more deaths) then it's not always going to be a good number to show what's going on.

The table below breaks things down a bit, whilst recent growth has been much higher from immigration that's mostly been since Covid and so post Brexit (almost as if that's made it worse).

The other thing to note is the reducing rate at which the native population is growing and it's likely to keep on downwards, probably to negative rates for various of the UK regions between 2024 and 2032 (with England being the last and so keeping the national figure much higher).

The 5-Year Breakdown (Town of 10,000 in 2000, if it followed UK trends).

Period	End Population	Total Growth	From Immigration	From "Native" Growth*
1996–2000	10,000	+125	+45	+80
2000–2005	10,290	+290	+190	+100
2005–2010	10,695	+405	+210	+195
2010–2015	11,050	+355	+210	+145
2015–2020	11,325	+275	+205	+70
2020–2026	11,870	+545	+480	+65

The reason four million people sounds like a large number is because it is a large number. If we estimate the population at 72 million that means that one person in every eighteen arrived here in the last five years.

I’m aware that the native population is not reproducing and that immigration is plugging that gap. I’m also aware that Brexit (which I voted against) is a major cause of this immigration, and especially, of where that immigration comes from (you immigrate to Britain from Poland aged eighteen, you are here for your twenties. You immigrate to Britain from India or Nigeria, you are never going back).

I maintain, however, that for four million foreigners, largely from very different cultures on the other side of the world, to settle in a country must be historically unprecedented, and cannot possibly be expected to take place without some sort of political convulsion. Again, this makes no judgment on those individuals themselves.

If there was a massive, divisive political and diplomatic upheaval (Brexit) whose main raison d’etre was control of immigration; if a politician (Boris Johnson) positioned himself as the tribune of said upheaval, and undertook bold, audacious moves in order to do so; and then proceeded to instigate this period of extreme immigration, is it any wonder that those who voted for it are alienated, completely sceptical of/hostile to mainstream politics, and driven to extremes?

 

[Thirteen]

People joke about the North Korea style voting bloc of Richmond but it's fascinating that the councillor with the most votes in London was an independent, Malcolm Grimston who is the reason why Wandsworth Council is under No Overall Control.

 

[thenorthern]

Some interesting things from minor parties from the election.

In Great Yarmouth the Great Yarmouth First Party which is affiliated to Rupert Lowe's Restore Britain won every seat in Great Yarmouth on Norfolk Council. Granted they only stood in a small number of seats but I think Rupert Lowe will be happy with that.

Your Party the Corbyn/Sultana party however didn't do very well and I don't think they had any councillors elected.

 

[AlterEgo]

Your Party the Corbyn/Sultana party however didn't do very well and I don't think they had any councillors elected.

There must be a good raisin for that?

 

[Horizon22]

London's council results were interesting, Havering going to Reform was a given although it does cover up a sobering reality that they've hit a hard ceiling in terms of winning over voters in the outer boroughs.

Council elections aren't an indicator of how Mayoral elections will go but if I were someone at Conservative HQ, I would be seeing a path to winning and it's not appealing to the Reform voter, it's the Lib Dem voter in South West London.

I think Reform have to be disappointed in their London results; I’m sure they were expecting better in Bexley and Bromley where the Tories held their own. Probably as it’s still London it’s people who are right wing, but not to be so socially reactionary as Reform tend to be which doesn’t play well with even the outer London demographic. Probably some local issues helped too like Reform making up nonsense about boroughs “seceding” from London.

 

[thenorthern]

I think Reform have to be disappointed in their London results; I’m sure they were expecting better in Bexley and Bromley where the Tories held their own. Probably as it’s still London it’s people who are right wing, but not to be so socially reactionary as Reform tend to be which doesn’t play well with even the outer London demographic. Probably some local issues helped too like Reform making up nonsense about boroughs “seceding” from London.

Reform were never going to do well in London mostly because they tend to do well is leave voting areas. Havering, Bexley, Barking and Dagenham, Hillingdon and Sutton were the only parts of London that voted leave.

It's the same in other areas, Sunderland voted leave by a large margin and now has a Reform council. Birmingham on the other hand only just voted leave by a tiny margin and is No Overall Control.

 

[The Ham]

The reason four million people sounds like a large number is because it is a large number. If we estimate the population at 72 million that means that one person in every eighteen arrived here in the last five years.

What's your source for 4 million?

If that's total immigration, that's a very different number to net migration, where there could be a lot of people who have come here previously who have then left again (whilst UK citizen net migration numbers are negative that still only means around 300,000 people from other countries arrived in the 12 months to June 2025, vs the circa 1 million in the years to June 2022 and June 2023 and some forecasts have 2026 noticeably lower than the 2025 number.

The number I can find for net migration in the last 5 years is 2.7 minion, that reduces it from 1 in 18 to 1 in 28.

Still a noticeable number but not nearly as significant (at a school class level it's 1 child rather than likely to be 2, or at that 10,000 town level it's 357 rather than 556).

Of course, with an aging population who's gong to do the work if we eradicate all new arrivals?

As a percentage of the total working age population the growth in the working age population as a percentage of the total population in that time is 0.55%.

Without that growth there would be a bigger tax requirement to pay for the extra pensioners.

For example the 2020 ratio was 3.4 people of working age to each of retirement age, now whilst that has gone up to 3.51, if the net migration number was 1.5 minion (so 2.4 million rather than 4 minion gross) then the ratio would have fallen and the cost per person of working age to support those of retirement age would already be rising.

As it is, it's expected to do so rather rapidly over the next few years as the rest of the baby boomer generation hit retirement and the number of children reaching working age is fairly static (and it's much much lower).

The estimate comparing those entering retirement vs those entering work over each of the next 5 years has it that between 50,000 and 150,000 more people retiring than entering the workforce. That's not just an extra 4 to 5 minion pensioners (800,000 to 900,000 a year), but that's fewer people entering the workforce (700,000 to 750,000 a year, at best 3.75 million) to pay for them.

"But it's only 0.25 million" - yes, but that's ignoring that we need roughly 3.5 people of working age for each, so actuality the shortfall is much higher.

The maths behind that, 4 minion new pensioners, even allowing for 3 million deaths for those over 65 that means to keep at 3.5 people of working age to support one of retirement age you'd need at best 1×3.5= 3.5 million new workers, and so it's only just about right and at worse 2×3.5= 7 million new workers. That's somewhere in the range of maybe a few too many to (likely) at least 1 million to 2 million too few.

Only we've got a problem, this is the current under 18 population pyramid and it's currently showing noticeable falls (note that deaths within the lower ages are more likely than those only with 18 months to get there and so the numbers reaching 18 might be worse than this shows):

Year	Cohort Reaching Age 18 (Current Age)	Current Size of 18yr Cohort	Cohort Reaching Retirement Age (Birth Year)	Est. Cohort Size at Retirement
2026	18 (Today)	~835,000	Age 66 (1960)	~795,000
2027	17 (Today)	~845,000	Age 66 (1961)	~810,000
2028	16 (Today)	~855,000	Age 67 (1961)	~810,000
2029	15 (Today)	~860,000	Age 67 (1962)	~825,000
2030	14 (Today)	~855,000	Age 67 (1963)	~855,000
2031	13 (Today)	~850,000	Age 67 (1964 - Peak)	~965,000
2032	12 (Today)	~845,000	Age 67 (1965)	~945,000
2033	11 (Today)	~835,000	Age 67 (1966)	~930,000
2034	10 (Today)	~825,000	Age 67 (1967)	~915,000
2035	9 (Today)	~815,000	Age 67 (1968)	~905,000
2036	8 (Today)	~805,000	Age 67 (1969)	~890,000
2037	7 (Today)	~785,000	Age 67 (1970)	~875,000
2038	6 (Today)	~775,000	Age 67 (1971)	~860,000
2039	5 (Today)	~765,000	Age 67 (1972)	~840,000
2040	4 (Today)	~750,000	Age 67 (1973)	~825,000
2041	3 (Today)	~735,000	Age 67 (1974)	~800,000
2042	2 (Today)	~720,000	Age 67 (1975)	~785,000
2043	1 (Today)	~705,000	Age 67 (1976)	~770,000
2044	0 (Today)	~685,000	Age 67/68 (1977)	~755,000

Just on the above the next 5 to 10 years might not be too bad, but after that we could see significant gaps between the totals, let alone factoring in that 3.5 ish ratio. Whilst rates of deaths will help, they are not likely to materially close the gap to significantly alter the fact that without immigration the ratio between working age and retirement age is going to change and mean either more taxes for those working or less money for these who are retired or likely more taxes for everyone (including those who are retired) AND less money for those who are retired AND less funding for health and social care (as anaging population needs more care than a younger one).

That's not a problem for those who plan to die in their sleep in the next 5 years (or move abroad), but should be of concern for everyone else.

 

[Thirteen]

I think Reform have to be disappointed in their London results; I’m sure they were expecting better in Bexley and Bromley where the Tories held their own. Probably as it’s still London it’s people who are right wing, but not to be so socially reactionary as Reform tend to be which doesn’t play well with even the outer London demographic. Probably some local issues helped too like Reform making up nonsense about boroughs “seceding” from London.

I bet they would have preferred Havering to be NOC rather than win outright because the council is a financial black hole and I suspect the talk of Havering leaving London is going to remain talk because the council cannot afford to spend money on a non binding referendum.

 

[D1511]

There must be a good raisin for that?

Well, I enjoyed that, if no-one else did

 

[styles]

Re: London, it'll be interesting to see how the 2028 Mayor election goes. Reform secured a mere 4% of the seats available in the local elections last week. I wonder how much momentum they can build in the next 2 years, and how that'll translate to votes taken away from the Conservatives. Khan continues to poll popularly despite the view of Labour nationally, but the Greens are hotting up.

If Khan does run again I suspect, with current sentiment, he'd win a fourth term, but 2 years is a long way away.

 

[Thirteen]

Re: London, it'll be interesting to see how the 2028 Mayor election goes. Reform secured a mere 4% of the seats available in the local elections last week. I wonder how much momentum they can build in the next 2 years, and how that'll translate to votes taken away from the Conservatives. Khan continues to poll popularly despite the view of Labour nationally, but the Greens are hotting up.

If Khan does run again I suspect, with current sentiment, he'd win a fourth term, but 2 years is a long way away.

I think he'll run again but it'll be his last term.

The Greens have an issue that they're got appeal in Inner London but their policies are unappealing in Outer London. Reform's biggest issue is that the Conservative bloc in Outer London boroughs won't vote for them which I think the key strategy for the Conservatives should be appealing to the Lib Dems as that bloc in SW London won't vote for Labour or Greens but they might vote for a moderate Tory.

Zoe Garbett did well to become the Hackney Mayor but she only came fourth in the last Mayoral election. A lot of the manifesto was unfeasible.

 

[SteveP29]

It doesn't help that no politician seems willing to say as much and/or articulate the implications of hard policy choices. (You can blame the voters, of course, and that may even be fair but someone has to tackle the insitutionalised "cakeism" in the UK's politics.)

Lobbyism, Landlordism and vested interests will put paid to any policy that tackles real (or perceived) injustice/ decline/ rejuvenation/ growth.
It could all be canned in my opinion, by preventing second jobs for MPs and no donations to parties at all (that also includes the Unions to Labour)

I think it is a little more nuanced than this - 'any non-white people' is hyperbole - concentrated quantities of white Eastern Europeans are quite some issue too.

This is not a problem unique to the UK, or unique to any particular colour/culture either.

Why do we have a 'political' party in the UK who's sole reason for existence is to stop immigration then?

 

[AlterEgo]

Why do we have a 'political' party in the UK who's sole reason for existence is to stop immigration then?

Part of it is the rate of demographic change which has been felt over the last 5-10 years.

 

[SteveP29]

Especially given the United Kingdom plays very little role in the war.

I take it you've missed the reports of US bombers arming and refuelling in the UK to bomb the crap out of Iran then?
I'd say that's a pretty substantial role in the war.

 

[Broucek]

Why do we have a 'political' party in the UK who's sole reason for existence is to stop immigration then?

Because the public wants (rightly or wrongly) lower immigration and the "respectable" parties won't deliver that. Which creates a gap in the market....

 

[weeklycommuter]

I take it you've missed the reports of US bombers arming and refuelling in the UK to bomb the crap out of Iran then?
I'd say that's a pretty substantial role in the war.

The formal position made clear by the UK Prime Minister is that the United States of America is allowed to use bases in England and Diego Garcia for military action to suppress Iranian drone and missile strikes but the armed forces of the United Kingdom are not involved in attacks on Iran, only defending allies and UK bases in Cyprus from drone and missile attacks by Iran. The reason given is this helps in the defence of allies and UK bases in Cyprus from drone and missile attacks by Iran.

Sir Keir Starmer is well aware of the balance of public opinion on this issue and is strongly emphasising that the armed forces of the United Kingdom are not involved in attacks on Iran and this conflict is "not our war".

Some politicians have of course asserted that allowing the United States of America to use bases in England and Diego Garcia for military action against Iran amounts to involvement in the war but the UK Government is emphasising that this is not the case. Most politicians and most of the public appear to accept the UK Government's position on this.

 

[BAFRA77]

There must be a good raisin for that?

Currant events kind of point to them being on the sidelines and forgotten

 

[Broucek]

Your Party the Corbyn/Sultana party however didn't do very well and I don't think they had any councillors elected.

For some reason I get her Facebook posts on my feed. She is hilariously un-selfaware

The comments are pretty savage...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Part of it is the rate of demographic change which has been felt over the last 5-10 years.

People keep saying this but people never seem to explain what they mean, and where they think it applies.

Reform has two newly-minted councils in the North East. Sunderland is 95% White British and 95% UK-born. South Tyneside is 93% White British and 95% UK-born. This is largely the same as it has always been, South Tyneside having had a small but notable Yemeni population since WWI.

The same applies across the board: Reform areas are overwhelming full of people who were born in the UK and who identify as White British.

So what are these demographic changes?

Being charitable, it is a fear of the unknown. People who haven't been to London for 25 years see a Muslim mayor and believe the nonsense about "Londonistan." As a Bradfordian, I hear the same from people who've been to Bradford once, 20 years ago: oh, you never see a white face in Bradford lol. Bradford is one of the most diverse places in the country yet, even in Bradford, 65% of people there are White British.

What's your source for 4 million?

The 4 million appears to be a total number of visas issued over all categories.

This figure is technically correct, but the figure does include 2.2 million tourist visas and 1.1 million ETAs. There were 955,000 visas issued for other reasons, such as work, study, or family and humanitarian reasons.

The government have the stats for 2024 here: https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...2024/how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-each-year

Of those 955,000 visas, just under half (c. 420,000) were study visas: people coming to the UK to study for a specific course (mostly Masters-level University courses) and then, under the terms of their visa, leaving again afterwards. Of the other half, about 370,000 were work visas.

Separately, 108,000 people claimed asylum in 2024. On top of those, there were about 50,000 irregular arrivals, of which about 45,000 were on small boats.

But people see the headline figure of 4 million visas and assume that this means there are 4 million people coming across on small boats. Of course, this level of misinformation suits a lot of people, so it never actually gets corrected.

 

[nr758123]

Re: London, it'll be interesting to see how the 2028 Mayor election goes. Reform secured a mere 4% of the seats available in the local elections last week. I wonder how much momentum they can build in the next 2 years, and how that'll translate to votes taken away from the Conservatives. Khan continues to poll popularly despite the view of Labour nationally, but the Greens are hotting up.

If Khan does run again I suspect, with current sentiment, he'd win a fourth term, but 2 years is a long way away.

That may depend on whether the Labour government reinstate the ranked voting system which used to apply to mayoral elections until the Tories decided to get rid of it.

 

[The Ham]

The 4 million appears to be a total number of visas issued over all categories.

Thanks, I thought that it might have been.

 

[Thirteen]

That may depend on whether the Labour government reinstate the ranked voting system which used to apply to mayoral elections until the Tories decided to get rid of it.

They've already said that SV is returning.

 

[thenorthern]

For some reason I get her Facebook posts on my feed. She is hilariously un-selfaware

The comments are pretty savage...

Given that she has been an MP for 7 years and given Corbyn has been an MP for 43 years. Plus he has run one of the two (at the time) major political parties. You would think they would have some experience of running a political party properly but aparently not.

There seems to be issues within the party over how it's lead, iif it's a socially liberal or socially conservative party with many muslim members unhappy about it's direction, it's stance on Scottish Independence and other issues. I remember Corbyn said they are big on international issues most notably Israel/Palestine which is great but as I have said previously international issues don't tend to win elections.

Given Corbyn's name recognition when Your Party was first announced polling suggested that 18% of people were open to voting for Your Party which is very high for a new political party. Now they are polling around 4% and in the local elections the party did very badly where it stood.

 

[Thirteen]

Given that she has been an MP for 7 years and given Corbyn has been an MP for 43 years. Plus he has run one of the two (at the time) major political parties. You would think they would have some experience of running a political party properly but aparently not.

There seems to be issues within the party over how it's lead, iif it's a socially liberal or socially conservative party with many muslim members unhappy about it's direction, it's stance on Scottish Independence and other issues. I remember Corbyn said they are big on international issues most notably Israel/Palestine which is great but as I have said previously international issues don't tend to win elections.

Given Corbyn's name recognition when Your Party was first announced polling suggested that 18% of people were open to voting for Your Party which is very high for a new political party. Now they are polling around 4% and in the local elections the party did very badly where it stood.

Sultana's biggest flaw is that she comes across as unlikeable.

 

[styles]

That may depend on whether the Labour government reinstate the ranked voting system which used to apply to mayoral elections until the Tories decided to get rid of it.

Was announced last year that supplementary vote is returning for mayor elections, so should be in place by then hopefully.

 

[Horizon22]

Given Corbyn's name recognition when Your Party was first announced polling suggested that 18% of people were open to voting for Your Party which is very high for a new political party. Now they are polling around 4% and in the local elections the party did very badly where it stood.

The Greens have successfully secured the support of the type of voter who would vote for Your Party. Not to mention they are an internal car-crash of a political party.