Elections are central pillars of democracy. Citizens have the inalienable right to elect councillors, holding them to account if they fail to act in their interests. So, it is concerning to see so many local elections being postponed across England this year. The deferral of elections stems from the reorganisation of local authorities into a series of unitary ones, starting from 2027. These changes aim to improve local democracy: representing citizens better and improving the efficiency of local services. The postponement of elections is ironic in that it undermines the very democracy which local government reorganisation is seeking to improve. A local authority shouldn’t act without consent; there is, at the end of the day, a social contract to protect.
The Liberal Democrats’ stance is that local elections remain imperative, despite the re-organisation of local government. Ed Davey has stressed that ‘the law should be changed so that ministers cannot simply delay elections at the stroke of a pen’. For a Labour government that is trailing in the polls, the May elections are hardly a promising thought; for the Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, it is a different story. Davey warns that ‘Both Labour and the Conservatives are running scared of the electorate, allowing councillors to serve terms of up to seven years without a democratic mandate’. Whilst it would undoubtedly benefit the Liberal Democrats to have elections in May, it would be cynical to view this too heavily through the lens of party politics. Davey is right to highlight that a mandate is vital; politicians mustn’t decide if they stay in power – they have to earn it. If Labour and the Conservatives were to cede ground to their rivals, it would result from their records in office (albeit with voters’ decisions in local elections being driven heavily by national politics rather than local councils).
In fairness to the Labour government, their default position has been for the elections to go ahead. This January, Oxford City Council was ambiguous about whether it wanted to postpone the elections, but the Labour government hasn’t strongarmed the council into doing so. The practicalities of holding elections have been the main focus – rather than party politics. This isn’t a dodgy deal or a political cabal.
There are some genuine concerns about holding elections this May. They would be a drain on finances when money needs to be spent on restructuring local government, and any councillors elected this year would not have full terms of office before power transfers to new authorities. Nonetheless, elections are markers in the sand; their convenience is immaterial. They are essential, regardless of the financial burden. Granted, local elections were delayed by a year during the COVID-19 pandemic, but that was out of necessity – there was a public emergency. No such obstacle exists in the case of the May elections: it is a political choice and a dangerous one. Could a lot of this not be avoided by synchronising the shift to new local authorities with the current timetable of elections?
Worse still, if there were delays to the restructuring of government, we would be on a slippery slope with little way back. Although it might seem practical in the short term, saving costs and conserving time and resources for the overhaul of devolution, delaying elections would set a troubling precedent for the future of elections in the UK.
At a time when democracy feels increasingly under threat, it would be a grave mistake to make.