The predictions are of seismic change and unprecedented turmoil. The keywords: fragmentation; patchwork; loss of control. But, whisper it very quietly. This may not go nearly as badly for Labour as people are saying.
Of course, it will be quite bad. As in bad for the dozens of those individual Labour councillors – many long-time servants to the cause and dedicated community activists – who will suddenly have more time on their hands.
As in bad when you look at the headline numbers of councillors lost and that minus figure in the box next to the red Labour emblem on TV screen ticks steadily higher.
But in London it’s very possible that it will not be really, really bad for Labour.
In fact, it could well be a story about something that is different, as well as just bad. Something that may prove to be fine for Labour as well as for the health of the capital’s local communities. An opportunity for renewal for Labour. A boost for local democracy and accountability. More on all that in a moment.
The first thing to remember is that Labour has a very dominant hold on the capital’s town halls at the moment – more than 1,000 out of 1,817 councillors spread across the capital and with a stake in the game in all but one or two boroughs. Their opponents are nowhere by comparison. From this absurd apex – and two years into a Labour government – fairly substantial losses were almost a given.
But it is also now clear that Labour is so far ahead that it can afford to haemorrhage large numbers of councillors and still get up before the referee’s count, still be the boss in the ring. It is reasonable to assume Labour could drop 15 to 20 percentage points and still be winning.
This is partly because of the inchoate nature of the enemies ranged against them. One insurgent here, another over there. Rushes and charges at the Labour citadel. Lots of energy and lots of things being chucked at the ramparts – but neither of the new tribes on the block yet ready to deliver the knockout blow. Of course, that may come later though there will be doubts.
It is also because of the condition of the traditional enemies. This will not and cannot be just about the tribulations of Labour, without it also being about the starkly rapid decline and poor recovery in opposition of the Conservatives in London, and a flat-lining of the Liberal Democrats who are still some way off bouncing back from the self-harm of coalition government a decade ago.
That some are suggesting that Labour could hold at least one of the “jewels” – Barnet, Wandsworth and Westminster – which they took from the Tories in 2022, tells you why this is complicated.
Even this week’s ostensibly, for Labour, gloomy poll by YouGov for Sky News (see photo) – using a technique taking responses from big numbers of people across London then extrapolating for local conditions and indices – had as its most likely the scenario Labour would lose control of six of its 21 councils but remain in charge in 15.
That would be a far superior outcome to that of the 2006 post-Iraq Tony Blair local elections in the capital, which saw Labour lose eight and ended running just seven. Of course, that this is happening just two years into a Labour government with a record majority is pretty extraordinary – but Armageddon it may not prove to be.
The fact is, Labour will lose some councils to the Greens. The Tories will lose some to Reform. Yes, it is interesting that we will have morphed to a multi-party situation. But will it be sustained and lead to a genuine loosening of Labour’s stranglehold long-term? That is far from a given.
The pollsters know their own limitations and do not claim to be able to capture the hyper-local dynamics operating in different boroughs. Reflecting how independent candidates will do is a particular problem. And that is what provides the biggest clue to Labour’s potential emergence from these elections less battered than imagined. Their opponents may be much weaker and fragmented in these areas than the surveys can reflect.
There are two or three predictions in the YouGov poll that prompted wider thoughts about just how resilient, entrenched and hard-to-budge Labour has become. It is suggested that in Haringey and Barking & Dagenham, Labour will not get the highest vote share and implicitly could lose majority control.
Genuinely it is only pollsters who have told me that Labour is in serious danger of being ousted in these places. Those on the ground accept there will be losses, mainly to the Greens in Haringey, and to Reform in Barking & Dagenham, but they say the picture from the air does not reflect the doorstep.
In Barking & Dagenham, the reality is of a more cohesive and harmonious inter-communal borough than the pollsters’ methods are picking up. In Haringey, there has been a growth of the young professional and student population looking for a cheaper place to live, but that is also the demographic least likely to vote in local elections.
This is the fundamental point: the Greens and Reform are respectively creating a bit of a vibe in these areas, but it is not likely to be enough. And even if it is and wins materialise, this would, in any case, serve to underline another harsh reality that the reaches of the Greens and Reform are confined to distinctive geographic and demographic areas – the Greens in parts of metropolitan inner London, Reform on the Essex and Kent borders, with both still falling some way short of holding universal appeal. Labour may take some comfort from that in the long run.
The other obvious point to make is that in inner London opposition to Labour could splinter. So, in places like Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark, Camden and Islington, Labour might retain the whip hand, emerging as the largest party as the Greens and Lib Dems win in different parts of those boroughs but not quite enough seats between them.
Given the likely tally and location of Labour’s losses, the real story of the night is likely to be the return of something currently missing from many town halls: genuine opposition. For too long, a good number of Labour-run councils have been literally or almost one-party fiefdoms. Now it looks like proper local politics could be back, offering the possibility of scrutiny, accountability and revived debate in council chambers.
Greater numbers entitle opposition groups to more resources and research help, and enable them to share out the workload. It enhances their ability to dissect those granular committee papers, spot when officers are trying to pull a fast one and call out the rationale of the ruling administration. It should lead to better decisions for local communities.
So let’s not fret over the possibility of instability in some parts of the capital, as parties negotiate in No Overall Control councils over who is going to be in charge, and haggle over who chairs which committee. Let’s not worry about the chaos and uncertainty, but anticipate a welcome return to plurality in local democracy. All we would need on top of that is a revived local press to go with it.
Tim Donovan is the former political editor of BBC London and now a trustee of Centre for London. Follow him at LinkedIn. To understand in depth and hyper-local detail how the story of the 2026 borough elections might unfold, see London Decides, the definite guide compiled by On London editor Dave Hill and elections expert Lewis Baston in collaboration with Lowick Hedry.
OnLondon.co.uk is funded by sales of publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To start receiving it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s personal Substack. Thanks.