Being forced to abandon plans to delay local elections in England with fewer than three months’ notice is not just another policy U-turn by the government. It brings to a head issues of aptitude and judgment. The rationale seemed sound: avoid electing councillors to bodies that would be abolished under Labour’s reorganisation of local government. The political problem was that 21 of the 30 councils were Labour-led. That created a perception – fair or not – of democratic manipulation.
The elections should have gone ahead. The Electoral Commission last December warned of “unprecedented” uncertainty around them. The commission was clear: “Scheduled elections should as a rule go ahead as planned, and only be postponed in exceptional circumstances.” Changing course late in the day puts their smooth running at risk and piles pressure on staff. In defending their decision last month before retreating on Monday, ministers look unprepared and out of their depth. Even worse, Labour reverse-ferreted after a legal challenge from Nigel Farage. He has taken to the airwaves to crow.
Sir Keir Starmer has U-turned so often that even his own side is starting to doubt his authority. Labour’s plans to postpone elections were made to look like a stitch-up to keep it in control of councils. Whether justified or not, such a perception was fertile ground for Reform. The opposition that really ought to worry the prime minister is in his party’s ranks. Labour MPs fear a damaging narrative taking hold. This is a well-founded concern. One sober thinktank said ministers were playing “fast and loose” with democracy.
Councillors will worry not only that they face elections they thought were postponed, but that they now look evasive. In Labour’s defence, it could be said that the original policy – simplifying two-tier councils with districts and counties into unitary authorities – was a necessary administrative reform. But delaying elections before pushing through the shake up was politically naive. Experts had urged caution, and the Institute for Government warned last year that if polls were delayed, some councillors would end up serving six-year terms.
Labour needs to replace the idea that it was cancelling elections with the idea that the party’s plans are about fixing a broken system. It is important to recognise that only in Surrey will the May elections see councillors in 2026 take up positions in two new unitary councils: East Surrey and West Surrey, which replace the existing county and 11 district councils. As part of the deal, the bankrupt Woking council gets a £500m bailout. Surrey will be a test case for whether the new council structure works more efficiently than the old ones.
The election U-turn does not unwind Labour’s programme. More than 20 areas in England have submitted over 70 plans for new unitary authorities. A surge in Reform UK votes could rattle Labour enough to pause the process. That would be the wrong decision. The case for caution over Labour’s push isn’t Faragist posturing but democratic shortfall: with fewer councillors and bigger authorities, council decisions inevitably move further from the people they affect. Local government reorganisation, however, is not an emotive issue for most voters. Election timing controversies rarely have long half-lives. What Sir Keir needs is a more social democratic, and frankly competent, answer to flatlining living standards and failing public services than he has offered up so far.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
