Council leaders representing 18 authorities in England want to postpone elections this year. (Image: Getty)
Eighteen council leaders have asked the Government to postpone elections this year, which critics have claimed is a denial of democracy.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer wants to abolish two-tier council areas to devolve more power from Westminster.
With 21 county councils and 10 unitary authorities, due to hold elections in May, some have sought to delay them to allow time to develop proposals on reorganisation.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said on Wednesday (January 15) it received requests from 16 counties and two unitary authorities that involved “postponing their election from 2025 to 2026”.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
They are Derbyshire, Devon, East Sussex, West Sussex, Essex, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Oxfordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Thurrock, Warwickshire and Worcestershire.
Get the latest politics news straight to your phone Join us on WhatsApp
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
He told the Express: “It’s an act of pure cowardice. It’s a denial of democracy. The whole thing’s a disgrace. These are Conservative councils latching onto Labour’s radical plans for local government, and they know they’re really, really going to get a tough time from Reform.”
The leader of Reform UK has accused the Conservatives of cowardice, as the party runs the majority of councils asking for postponed elections in May.
In its first voting intention survey since the 2024 general election, published on Monday, YouGov showed a close contest for the top spot between Labour (26%) and Reform UK (25%), with the Conservatives in third place (22%).
Local government minister Jim McMahon told the Commons: “Where local elections are postponed, we’ll work with local areas to move elections to a new, shadow unitary council as soon as possible. This is a very high bar, and rightly so.”
He added: “For the avoidance of doubt, this is a list of requests, it’s not the final list that will be approved. We will consider carefully these requests and only postpone elections where there is a clear commitment to delivering both reorganisation and devolution to the ambitious timetable set out.”
Nigel Farage has said the move marks a ‘denial of democracy’. (Image: Getty)
Shadow Communities Minister David Simmonds said it was “not surprising” many councils requested a delay given the costs of arranging elections. He said: “There remains significant uncertainty about where and if those elections will be delayed.
“And with deadlines looming for key points in the organisation in those elections, that uncertainty risks some wasted costs for council taxpayers.”
Liberal Democrat local government spokeswoman Vikki Slade said there was “no doubt” the local government needed “significant reform”. However, she voiced concerns the Government’s plans would result in a “top-down diktat from Whitehall”.
She said MPs and district councillors from some areas, including Devon, Surrey and the Midlands, have told her that submissions appear to have been made without their district councils being “involved or consulted”.
Ms Slade, who remains a councillor in the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council area after previously leading the authority, said all elections due in May 2025 should “go ahead” as the reorganisation plans “will take more than a year”.
Her Liberal Democrat colleague Mike Martin, the MP for Tunbridge Wells, claimed “turkeys don’t vote for Christmas”, about a possible election dent in the Tories‘ majority – 59 out of 81 county council seats – across Kent.
Full List of Councils Accused of ‘Denying Democracy’ by Asking to Postpone May Elections
A fierce political row erupted in England after dozens of local authorities considered delaying their May 2026 elections, prompting accusations that voters were being denied their democratic rights. The dispute placed local-government reform, political accountability and the role of elected councillors under an intense national spotlight.
The controversy was particularly sensitive because some of the councils involved were Labour-led, while opposition parties accused the government of allowing administrative reorganisation to take priority over voters’ right to choose their representatives.
However, there is an important development that must be understood: the government ultimately withdrew its decision to postpone the elections following legal advice, and the affected elections were restored to the May 2026 timetable. The original dispute is therefore a story about proposed postponements and the political backlash they triggered, not a continuing cancellation of those elections. <Cite refs={[“turn531067search2″,”turn531067search3”]}/>
Why were councils considering postponing elections?
The controversy arose from the government’s plans to reorganise local government in England. Under the proposed changes, existing county, district and borough councils in affected areas were expected to be replaced by new unitary authorities, bringing different local services under a single council structure.
Ministers argued that the reorganisation required substantial preparation and that postponing certain elections could free up administrative capacity and resources. Councils would need to prepare for structural changes while continuing to deliver everyday services and meet their legal responsibilities.
The government consulted councils whose elections were scheduled for May 2026. Its January announcement said it had received more than 350 representations from councils, organisations, parliamentarians and members of the public. Some authorities supported postponement, while others argued that elections should proceed as scheduled. <Cite refs={[“turn531067search0″,”turn531067search3”]}/>
For supporters of postponement, the argument centred on practical pressures. Organising elections requires staff, funding and planning, and local-government restructuring was already placing demands on councils.
Critics, however, questioned whether administrative convenience was sufficient justification for extending councillors’ terms without a fresh vote. Elections are not simply another council service that can be rearranged whenever workloads become difficult. They are a central mechanism through which residents can remove representatives, reward successful administrations and influence local priorities.
That conflict between administrative capacity and democratic accountability became the heart of the dispute.
The full list of councils that sought postponement
The government’s explanatory memorandum for the legislation identified 31 councils that sought postponement, although some had competing representations from within the council. Two additional councils made submissions without a clear request either way.
The 31 councils were:
- Adur District Council
- Basildon Borough Council
- Blackburn with Darwen Council
- Burnley Borough Council
- Cannock Chase District Council
- Cheltenham Borough Council
- Chorley Borough Council
- City of Lincoln Council
- Crawley Borough Council
- East Sussex County Council
- Exeter City Council
- Harlow District Council
- Hastings Borough Council
- Hyndburn Borough Council
- Ipswich Borough Council
- Norfolk County Council
- Norwich City Council
- Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council
- Pendle Borough Council
- Peterborough City Council
- Preston City Council
- Redditch Borough Council
- Rugby Borough Council
- Stevenage Borough Council
- Suffolk County Council
- Tamworth Borough Council
- Thurrock Council
- Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
- West Lancashire Borough Council
- West Sussex County Council
- Worthing Borough Council
The official documentation distinguished between councils that made a clear request to postpone and those where alternative views were also submitted. It also identified Essex County Council and Southampton City Council as having made representations without a clear request either way. <Cite refs={[“turn531067search3”]}/>
Importantly, appearing on this list does not mean every councillor or resident supported a postponement. In several authorities, opposing representations were received from within the council itself. The distinction matters when interpreting claims that an entire community or council unanimously supported delaying an election.
Labour faced particular scrutiny
The political consequences were significant because Labour controlled or led administrations in many of the councils seeking a delay.
A Sky News analysis published on 16 January 2026 reported that 29 councils had confirmed to the broadcaster that they had written to the government seeking a postponement. Of those 29, 21 were Labour-led, four Conservative-led, two Liberal Democrat-led, one Green-led and one independent-led. <Cite refs={[“turn531067search1”]}/>
These figures related to the councils that had confirmed their requests to Sky News at that point; they should not be confused with the later official breakdown of 31 councils seeking postponement.
Opposition politicians argued that delaying elections would deprive residents of a timely opportunity to pass judgement on their local representatives. For parties seeking to challenge Labour, the controversy offered an opportunity to question whether ministers were sufficiently committed to democratic accountability when it conflicted with their administrative plans.
Labour’s position, however, needs to be considered alongside the government’s stated rationale. Ministers had argued that local-government restructuring was a major undertaking and that postponement could help councils manage the transition.
The central issue was whether the practical benefits justified the democratic cost. That question could not be answered simply by identifying which party controlled a council.
Why critics used the phrase ‘denying democracy’
The phrase captured the strength of opposition to the proposal, but it was a political characterisation rather than a legal finding that the councils had abolished democracy.
Under the proposed arrangements, existing councillors would have remained in office for longer rather than immediately facing voters. Critics argued that this weakened accountability because residents would have to wait beyond the normal electoral timetable to decide whether their representatives deserved another term.
That concern was especially relevant in areas facing significant changes to local services and council structures. Decisions about housing, transport, planning, social care and other local responsibilities can have substantial consequences for residents. Elections provide one of the principal ways to influence those decisions.
Supporters of postponement maintained that reorganising local government could require resources that councils would otherwise spend preparing for elections. Yet the existence of administrative pressure does not automatically resolve the question of whether postponement is justified.
The relevant considerations include the legal basis for the decision, the scale of the disruption, the expected duration of any delay, the alternatives available and the consequences for local accountability.
The dispute demonstrated why governments need to explain the reasoning behind changes to electoral arrangements in detail, rather than relying on broad claims about efficiency.
The government eventually reversed course
The story took a decisive turn in February 2026.
On 16 February, the government announced that it was withdrawing its original decision to postpone 30 local elections due to take place in May. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said the decision followed legal advice and that the necessary steps would be taken to revoke the relevant secondary legislation. All the affected elections were to proceed in May 2026. <Cite refs={[“turn531067search2”]}/>
The government also announced up to £63 million in additional capacity funding to help councils in the 21 local-government reorganisation areas carry out the restructuring work. The announcement was intended to support the reorganisation process without relying on the proposed election postponements. <Cite refs={[“turn531067search2”]}/>
The reversal was politically important because it showed that the proposed timetable was not the final outcome. It also raised questions about how the government had assessed the legal and administrative case before making its initial decision.
For critics, the episode reinforced the argument that election delays should not be treated as a routine response to organisational difficulties. For the government, the challenge was to continue restructuring local government while ensuring that elections proceeded as required.
What the controversy means for local democracy
The episode offers lessons that extend beyond the councils involved.
First, residents need clarity. If a council is facing major structural change, the government should explain how the transition will affect local representation, public services and election dates. Uncertainty can undermine confidence even when officials believe they are acting for practical reasons.
Second, administrative planning needs to account for democratic obligations from the outset. Elections are a statutory responsibility, not an optional task that can simply be postponed whenever another project demands staff time.
Third, political claims must reflect the actual sequence of events. The councils did consider or request postponements, and the government initially moved to delay a number of elections. But that decision was subsequently withdrawn, and the elections were restored to the May timetable.
Finally, the debate should not obscure the wider purpose of local-government reform. Creating new unitary authorities may change how decisions are made and how services are organised, but any restructuring must maintain meaningful accountability to residents.
A warning about trust in politics
The row over the May elections exposed a tension at the heart of local government: elected authorities need the time and resources to manage complex reforms, but voters also need reliable opportunities to hold them accountable.
The official list of councils seeking postponement shows that the debate extended across numerous authorities and political administrations. The disagreements within some councils also demonstrate that the issue was not always a simple choice between one party and another.
The eventual reversal was a significant part of the story. Rather than leaving the proposed postponements in place, the government restored the elections after receiving legal advice and announced additional funding to support local-government reorganisation.
Nevertheless, the controversy left a broader question for ministers and councillors alike: how should public authorities balance major administrative changes with the principle that democratic mandates must be renewed through elections?
The answer requires transparency, careful legal scrutiny and a willingness to explain difficult decisions. Local government cannot operate effectively without administrative capacity, but that capacity must be built around democratic accountability—not treated as a substitute for it.