The government’s decision to delay mayoral elections cannot be justified on democratic or fairness grounds

The government yesterday made the unexpected announcement that the election of four new regional mayors planned for 2026 would be delayed until 2028.

Its justification is that local government reorganisation (LGR) in those regions needs to be fully implemented before mayors take office, and that the extra time for preparation and capacity-building will enable mayors to hit the ground running in 2028.

But this decision reflects poorly on the government, which itself set the timetable for devolution and local government reorganisation. It represents a major setback in a policy area in which the government had been making real progress.

The bar for suspending elections should be set very high – and has not been reached

In February 2025, the government announced that Greater Essex, Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, and Norfolk and Suffolk had been accepted onto the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP), with a commitment to hold inaugural mayoral elections in May 2026. Local government reorganisation would proceed on a slightly longer timeline – with a view to new unitary authorities coming into being in 2028.

The government has now torn up this plan. This is the second time the government has postponed elections in these areas, having delayed the May 2025 council elections. When announcing the earlier delay, one argument made by then deputy prime minister Angela Rayner was that holding mayoral and council elections on the same date would save taxpayers money. Today’s announcement – separating mayoral and county council elections – undermines that justification.

The government is now tying itself in knots attempting to justify its decision. The DPP was announced with an expectation that selected areas would be on “a fast-track to drive real change”. The programme was designed to accelerate LGR and mayoral devolution, with the establishment of mayoralties as the immediate priority. Running these agendas in parallel always posed a big implementation challenge, but it is one that local authorities have done their best to meet, investing substantial time, capacity and political capital to meet the government’s deadlines.

Yesterday’s announcement either leads to the conclusion that the government fundamentally misunderstood the scale of the task it had set itself, or that the decision may have been made for reasons of partisan advantage, given Labour seemed unlikely to win any of the four contests, and may have a better chance in 2028 when the electoral system will have been changed.

Delays to devolution are unfair to the places left behind

The government has repeatedly expressed its preference for mayoral devolution, making clear that "the most far-reaching and flexible powers” will be on offer only to areas with mayors. Key powers over planning, transport and housing, as well as access to long-term investment funds, are on offer only to mayoral regions. Places without a mayor therefore have less funding, less control of growth levers, no seat at the table with ministers, and lack a high-profile champion of place. The decision to delay mayoral elections in four areas set to get a mayor in 2026 reinforces this divide.

This decision has tangible short-term financial consequences for the four areas affected, which will collectively receive £215m less in investment funds between 2026/27 and 2027/28 than had mayoral devolution gone ahead as planned. The areas will receive one third of the expected amount in the next two financial years, although they will receive the full amount over the lifetime of the funds.

The announcement of delays in supposed “priority” areas indicates that the government is losing steam in its drive to “complete the map” of English devolution. Instead of establishing mayoral devolution across the country, the government now seems to envisage a slower process in areas not included in the priority programme. Such places may establish a non-mayoral “foundational strategic authority” with far fewer powers. This could leave many areas stuck in the slow lane without control of the benefits that mayoral devolution offers.

Watch our event on devolving growth

The delay to elections may undermine the drive for regional growth

Mayors have become central to the government’s growth agenda, providing a single point of contact for investors, setting a strategic vision for their region and holding the ability to convene business, universities and the public sector around shared priorities. Delaying the introduction of mayors therefore carries risks for local growth.

Certainty and leadership matter to investors. A directly elected mayor provides both – someone who can set a long-term economic strategy, drive regeneration, unlock planning decisions, tailor skills training to local employer needs, and act decisively when investment opportunities arise. In many parts of England mayors have brought coherence to investment landscapes; delaying their introduction will only make it harder for areas to co-ordinate growth decisions across regional priorities.

There will also be practical delays to local strategic planning. New combined authorities were set to produce local growth plans, spatial development strategies and other regional strategies to support growth in their areas. Pushing elections to 2028 means these foundational strategies will either be postponed or weakened. This only further undermines the certainty investors rely on.

The government should redouble its efforts to extend devolution to all parts of England

Delaying elections is a step that should only ever be taken in exceptional circumstances: as Angela Rayner said earlier this year, “the bar is high and rightly so”. The government has not made a convincing case for how disenfranchising voters for a second year in succession meets that threshold.

Labour took office on a manifesto pledge to “widen devolution to more areas, encouraging local authorities to come together and take on new powers.” This was a bold vision, on which the government has made welcome progress. After today’s disappointing announcement, the government should renew its enthusiasm for this important agenda that can help deliver better growth and reinvigorated local democracy across England.