Do you care if your local Council cancels their/your local election in May?

[IwantToRetire]

Twenty-nine councils have requested a delay to their local elections which are due to take place in May. Of these, 21 are led by Labour, four are Conservative, two are Liberal, one is Green, and one is Independent.

It comes as Labour’s plans to scrap two-tier authorities and merge them into single unitary councils by 2028 are implemented.

The councils said a lack of resources needed to deliver local government reorganisation (LGR), and the cost of holding elections has led to the need for a delay.

The councils that have asked for a delay:

• Basildon Borough Council (Labour)
• Blackburn with Darwen Council (Labour)
• Burnley Borough Council (Burnley Independent Group)
• Cannock Chase District Council (Labour)
• Cheltenham Borough Council (Lib Dem)
• Chorley Borough Council (Labour)
• City of Lincoln Council (Labour)
• Crawley Borough Council (Labour)
• East Sussex County Council (Tory)
• Exeter City Council (Labour)
• Harlow District Council (Tory)
• Hastings Borough Council (Green)
• Hyndburn Borough Council (Labour)
• Ipswich Borough Council (Labour)
• Norwich City Council (Labour)
• Pendle Borough Council (Lib Dem)
• Peterborough City Council (Labour)
• Preston City Council (Labour)
• Redditch Borough Council (Labour)
• Rugby Borough Council (Labour)
• Stevenage Borough Council (Labour)
• Tamworth Borough Council (Labour)
• Thurrock Council (Labour)
• Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (Labour)
• West Lancashire Borough Council (Labour)
• West Sussex County Council (Tory)
• Worthing Borough Council (Labour)

Or maybe you think local councils / councillors aren't that relevant or important?

Full article https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/local-elections-delay-councils-list-reform-b2902417.html

But you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of.

Because, somehow you seem to have contact with Councils where councillors are working well, you are just dismissing everyone else.

And even it is only one council, thought clearly it is many more, that means one are of the UK where people are not able to be democratically represented, nor having someone with enough intergrity to stand up to what becomes in many councils the "canteen culture" which has been so destructive of impartial, customer focused policing.

Agree with you both. They should just go ahead.

Also realise that being on FWR has also made me more than a little cynical. eg Bristol in the past year!
https://www.mumsnet.com/search/advanced#/?query=Bristol+Council&type=thread_subject&from=2025-01-22&to=2026-01-22&topics=Feminism%253A%2520Sex%2520and%2520gender%2520discussions&page=1&sort=_search

And this today https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5479829-my-neglectful-council-is-fixated-on-pronouns-while-my-family-lives-in-disrepair

As a Councillor, I can't think of anywhere we clash except during covid when a lot of emergency provision was passed down to the parish councils because they knew the need on the ground. There was no disagreement, unusual circumstances being met the best way we could.

Just adding this here, and wonder if everyone knows about this.

My local council ie Councillors have just been forced to discuss a decision they made because someone used the petition function that all councils aren't meant to have (a bit like the Parliament Petition service).

Not sure but I think a local council petition has to have at least 1,000 signatures from people who can be verified as being local residents.

Other people can vote, ie to show what they think about the Council decision.

I wonder if maybe as local residents more of us should use option in relation to women's sex based rights, etc..

ie unlike wasting time on Change or whatever which people can ignore as some virtual world nonsense, here they are obliged to take notice.

Once the government chooses it's preferred Local Government Reorganisation option, my Council will be full steam ahead in merging with several other local Councils. The issues will be very complex - potentially merging 8 or 9 different teams across 2 different areas.

Running an election would involve over £100K of expenses to elect Councillors who would only sit for a year, then have to be re-elected in a second election a year later to the new body.

It's a perfect political attack for Labour's opponents - if they cancel, they're cancelling democracy. If elections go ahead, it's a stupid and shocking waste of taxpayers money.

Yet, if the proposed reforms are done, every political party afterwards will reap the benefits of simpler, more efficient public services.

The Conservatives never proposed this in their 14 years in office, despite complaining about wasting money.

I respectfully disagree. I actually tuned in to a livestreamed Committee meeting at 7pm because although we assumed the proposal would be approved by Councillors, if they didn't, it would all have to stop and 2 months of work and planning across multiple teams go in the bin.

Thankfully it passed!

Councillors can have a huge impact.

Refusing the elections from going ahead means we get stuck with useless counsellors for up to 7 years in some cases. It is not just 1 additional year but 2 in some cases. If Labour lose the next election Reform UK could cancel planned changes anyway.

I think this is in fact the core.

As has been said on this thread, the elections are when all else fails, the time local people can make their views known by their vote.

erm? Not sure how your comment is related. Sorry!

Obviously if you put it in those terms, but what if you genuinely thought all the work and time and money was not a priority.

Councillors rubber stamping something through is exactly the problem I have concerns about.

Apologies, it was both responses I was wanting to discuss.

It is sometimes seen as rubber stamping but it is part of how it works. The Councillors are the bosses and set the priorities - Council staff use their professional knowledge to put their vision into practice as best they can.

Well that's what I thought, but based on very recent interaction with my local councillors they never say anything themselves, they just quote what Officers tell them is the correct answer.

Government abandons plans to delay 30 council elections
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70ne31d884o

Over and above this u turn, how many times has the Government now been told one of the decisions breaks the law?!

Just seen this too. Another u turn. of course elections shouldn't just be cancelled. They'll probably be a disaster for Labour

I dont see how with all these clever spin doctors advising them they keep making these blunders.

Even if they thought it was a good financial arguement to cancel some of the local elections, they must surely have been aware that many, many people would think they are doing it to avoid too many losses.

How could they have thought it was a good look for Labour?

Agreed. Like mushrooms. Kept in the dark and fed shit.

Thanks - was thinking of contacting my councillors agains (although 1 now expelled from Labour Party) and think this would be a great start to what I then have to say!

I called them ventriloquist dummies after one pointless enquiry.

I don’t think there are any good financial arguments for cancelling elections.

Starmerhas announced he is going to U turn, and the elections will not be cancelled. But, if the boundary changes mean new elections, shortly afterwards, the people who will pay are the taxpayers, whose money would be better spent on the desperately needed areas of social care, end of life care, hospice care, potholes, and so on, rather than indulging in extra elections.

Are the cost of local elections taken out of each Councils budget for the year?

Is there no central Government financial support?

So two or three years of decisions about hospice care, pothole, social care made by people with no democratic mandate, who the electorate disagree with and who should have been voted out in favour of councillors who have committed to making the decisions the electorate want?

"This is the right decision.
"A one-year delay to allow new councils to be re-organised is one thing. Two years was always too much."

Kemi is spot on there.

I cant understand how the legal side of things was got so wrong.

I disagree with even a one year delay - who knows what decisions might be needed to be made in that time or what commitments councillors may make that tie future councils when they have no democratic mandate to do so?

I am also horrified by the proposition that democracy costs too much.