Mayoral elections in priority areas should be held in May 2027 at the very latest

Last week, communities and local government secretary Steve Reed made the unexpected announcement that the government would delay the inaugural regional mayor elections in Greater Essex, Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, and Norfolk and Suffolk from 2026 to 2028. 

This decision came in for criticism from various quarters, including from the Institute for Government. We argued that the delay was bad for democracy, unfair to the regions affected and likely to undermine the government’s push for regional growth.

This remains our view on the headline question of whether these polls should be delayed at all. But even on the government's own terms, if there must be a postponement, then the case for shifting these polls to 2027 is far stronger than delaying them until 2028.

A delay to May 2027 would align mayoral and local elections – saving money and maximising engagement

The first reason is that May 2027 is when shadow elections will be held for unitary authorities across these places, once ministers decide on the boundaries for the new councils.

Holding mayoral and unitary elections on the same day would save money, which was a stated rationale for previous local election delays. In addition, it would create a single democratic moment when voters will elect all members of the new local and regional institutions. The leaders of the new unitary authorities could then work with the mayor from day one to set a strategic direction for devolved functions at the regional level, such as transport and skills, before taking over delivery of local public services such as social care, libraries and waste collection from April 2028, when the existing county and district councils are wound up.

May 2027 is also when two other mayoral elections in regions on the priority programme will take place – in Cheshire and Cumbria – so this could become the watershed moment at which the government takes a decisive step toward its stated objective of delivering “universal coverage” of devolution across England – extending the model to a further 8.8 million people. With a bit of effort, mayoralties could simultaneously be established in places such as Kent, Surrey, Wessex and Lancashire too.

Delaying to 2028 would lead to a loss of momentum

The government also argues that the delay will provide useful extra time to prepare for devolution. Getting ready for May 2026 would no doubt have been a challenge, albeit not an insurmountable one – other regions have moved at similar speed in the past. East Midlands Combined County Authority, for instance, was formed in February 2024, just three months before the inaugural mayoral election in the region. 

An extra 12 months might make it easier for the new combined authorities to ensure sufficient staff capacity, systems and plans are in place ahead of polling day, so the new mayors can hit the ground running. But stretching the process out a full extra year beyond that, through to 2028, would likely be counterproductive, as the momentum and energy behind devolution would start to dissipate both locally and in central government, where minds will already be turning to the looming general election that must happen by July 2029.

Changing the electoral system makes sense – but this too can be done by 2027

A final, though unstated, reason why Labour likely favours a delay is that this provides the time in which to change the electoral system for mayors back to the supplementary vote (SV) that was used until 2023. This system is expected to be a bit more Labour friendly, but partisan considerations aside, there are sound democratic reasons to prefer SV over first-past-the-post for mayoral elections. The system incentivises candidates to build a coalition of support across party lines, giving them a stronger mandate to drive progress on housing, transport and growth plans. 

However, even if this is a legitimate reason to delay the elections, the system will have been changed via the English Devolution Bill long in advance of May 2027. So again, there is no valid reason for an extra 12 months of delay, during which the regions in question will lose out on the extra powers, funding and profile that comes with mayoral devolution. 

Our view remains unchanged. The government has not made a convincing case for postponement and the elections should go ahead as planned in May 2026. But if there is to be a delay, then two years is fully unjustifiable for all the reasons set out above, The government should therefore reconsider and commit to holding these four mayoral elections – in places rightly identified as priorities for devolution – no later than May 2027.