The Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) debacle took a new and unexpected turn today with the news that four of the new combined authorities scheduled to hold elections next May have suddenly been postponed for two years!
The LGR timetable has been chaotic from the outset. Ministers moved quickly at first, but the legislation still hasn’t made its way through Parliament, and the extra time created by postponing the May elections appears to have been squandered. Priority programme areas are only now entering consultation on potential unitary options.
Indeed, the prevailing view across the sector was that, despite the government’s continued denials, next year’s county elections were at obvious risk of being postponed again, given that new authorities would require fresh elections only 12 months later.
The real surprise this morning is therefore not that elections have been delayed, but which elections have been pushed back.
So, what is driving this? The line being briefed from government is that local government “needs more time to prepare”. This will raise eyebrows across the sector. Councils have repeatedly shown they can deliver elections to tight, centrally imposed timetables, and I cannot recall anyone locally calling for a delay.
This leads to the conclusion that the problem sits at the centre and that the justification is political rather than practical. So what might really be behind this decision? For what it is worth, here are my thoughts on why the government has chosen to delay democracy yet again.
1. Avoid first past the post Mayors: Under the previous Conservative government, the law was changed from alternative vote to first past the post. The government wants to change this back to alternative vote, but this requires the English Devolution bill to pass and currently that’s not going to happen in time for the change to take effect for the May elections.
Whys that important? Well, you just have to look at the WECA elections this year where Labour won with just 25% of the vote. The political risk therefore is that Reform sweeps the board as voters continue to split their votes 3 to 4 ways! The view one assumes is that an alternate vote model might stop Reform in their tracks – and certainly the Caerphilly by-elections shows that Reform are vulnerable to tactical voting to stop them getting in (which is far easier in the alternate vote model).
2. Mayors as Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC): In classic (lack) of joined up thinking, the government announced the abolition of PCCs and their replacement with Mayors where in place. Problem is that this is going to happen in 2028, but the mayors set to replace them in the 4 new areas are being elected 12 months before. So, potentially you have two elected individuals with a Policing mandate on the field at the same time! Also do the rules on PCC candidature (i.e. no criminal record) apply to the new Mayors? And again, do they really want PCC’s elected with a 25% mandate?
In all likelihood, it was a combination of these factors that finally tipped the government’s hand and led to the decision to postpone the elections for two years. It speaks volumes that ministers are now facing criticism for a situation that was entirely avoidable. Had they properly planned the LGR timeline, and had they coordinated with other departments such as the Home Office, which was clearly preparing this change for some time, they would not be in this position today.
Of course, the responsibility for avoiding this rests squarely with No.10. And it is hard to escape the sense that something is deeply amiss at the heart of government.