The UK government has reversed course on plans to postpone local elections in 30 English council areas, a move prompted by a legal challenge from Reform UK. The U-turn, announced on , follows legal advice suggesting the original decision could have been unlawful.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) confirmed that all elections scheduled for May will now proceed as planned. “Following legal advice, the government has withdrawn its original decision to postpone 30 local elections in May,” a statement read. “Providing certainty to councils about their local elections is now the most crucial thing and all local elections will now go ahead in May 2026.”
The initial proposal to delay elections stemmed from plans to restructure local government, abolishing district councils and consolidating them into larger unitary authorities. Sixty-three local authorities were invited to apply for a delay, with 30 ultimately agreeing to postpone their polls to 2027. The government had argued that the delays were necessary to allow councils to focus on the restructuring process without the distraction of elections.
Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, hailed the government’s reversal as a “victory for democracy.” He indicated that the government would cover Reform UK’s legal costs, estimated at approximately £100,000. Farage also called for the resignation of local government secretary Steve Reed, accusing the government of attempting to “cancel democracy.”
The decision to abandon the postponement comes at a sensitive time for Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with his premiership already facing scrutiny over separate issues. The U-turn has drawn criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, described the situation as “predictable chaos from a useless government” and accused the administration of indecision.
The impact of the U-turn is expected to be most significant in the four county councils – Norfolk, Suffolk, East Sussex, and West Sussex – where all seats are up for election. Professor John Curtice, a political analyst at the University of Strathclyde, noted that these councils are key areas where Reform UK performed well in previous elections, suggesting the party could capitalize on the renewed electoral contest.
Labour strategists acknowledge the U-turn presents a challenge for the party. One strategist commented that Labour faced criticism for initially proposing the delays and now risks losing seats as a result of the elections proceeding. However, they also noted that the Conservatives are likely to face negative headlines as well.
The District Councils’ Network expressed frustration with the government’s handling of the situation, stating that voters would be “bewildered” by the “unrelenting changes to the electoral timetable.” The organization’s chair, councillor Richard Wright, emphasized that the government, rather than local councils, should be held accountable for the disruption to local democracy.
Analysis of the councils that initially accepted the postponement proposal revealed that the delays could have potentially helped Labour retain control of 10 councils and shielded over 200 Labour councillors from facing immediate re-election.
The Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) criticized the government for pursuing a strategy it described as a “capricious disregard for local democracy.” The LGIU also pointed to the logistical challenges now facing parties as they scramble to find candidates in areas where they had not anticipated needing them.
Tom Brake, chief executive of Unlock Democracy, welcomed the government’s decision, stating it was a “victory for democracy” and for the millions of voters who faced losing their right to vote in May. He also argued that ministers should not have the power to postpone or cancel elections without parliamentary approval.
