Local elections U-turn is welcome – but this saga has been a government fiasco

The decision to delay elections in 30 areas undergoing local government reorganisation was flawed, and it is right for the government to change its course of action.  

Elections should only ever be delayed in exceptional circumstances, and the government’s decision to delay elections where it would prevent wasteful duplication and "release essential capacity for local government reorganisation” did not meet this threshold – particularly given that local government reorganisation is not an external shock, but a process being led by the government itself. Deferring elections would have denied the vote to millions of people and in some cases could have resulted in some politicians being in post for seven years.

While elections have been delayed for local government reorganisation in the past, the manner and timing of the government’s announcements about these delays was chaotic. Ministers repeatedly failed to rule out cancelling elections, before reassuring parliament that elections were going ahead, only to then invite areas in 63 areas to delay elections just over a month later – notably on “take out the trash day”. 

The original decision to delay and its reversal have had repercussions for central and local government  

Significant time and energy have already been spent across Whitehall and local government responding to election delays that will now not take place. Parliamentary time was spent debating the controversial decision, while councils were required to prepare formal submissions explaining why elections in their area should be pushed back. In the 30 areas where delays were agreed, officers have been planning for a revised electoral timetable that has now been abandoned.  

The U-turn also compresses the timetable for those now responsible for delivering elections on their original schedule. Officers must restart their operational planning, at a time when resource is already being spent on the LGR process. Political parties will also face their own pressures, as they will have to select candidates and assemble campaign operations at short notice.  

The government must learn from this fiasco  

Although the government has broad powers to delay local elections, concerns were raised even last month in parliament. Reform UK had also launched a judicial review. Reversing this decision just days before appearing in court, and attributing it to “recent legal advice”, raises serious questions about whether the problem lay with the original legal advice or the original ministerial decision. The government needed a watertight legal position to justify its stance in December, not in February. It now needs to reflect on how it arrived at this point – it should not have taken two months to reach this decision – and ensure that similar mistakes are not repeated.

Government will have to redouble efforts to deliver elections and LGR  

The decision to delay and then un-delay elections reflects a broader challenge for the government's LGR agenda. These areas are undergoing a period of profound change and face severe capacity constraints. It is therefore right for the government to recognise this and release new funding (£63m) to assist areas undergoing this change.

But funding will only go so far. Successful reorganisation requires stability and clarity. This U-turn makes an already complex process harder for councils to navigate and diverts energy away from necessary long-term planning and towards managing preventable disruption.  

There must be  strong public communications surrounding the elections – ensuring voters are aware they are on, that they need to register to vote. Crucially, the government must also refocus attention in these areas on the longer‑term goal: creating reorganised local government structures capable of delivering better public services.