Labour’s local election U-turn will not undo yet another own goal

Editorial: Restoring the democratic right of 4 million people is the correct decision, but it cannot erase the impression of a flailing government lacking both consistency and some of the most basic political instincts

A good day for democracy, then. The government’s decision to go ahead after all with elections in some 30 local authorities is the right one, even if it does seem motivated by an imminent ruling that their previous postponement was actually illegal.

As many as 4 million people will now have the opportunity to exercise their customary democratic rights in May. This latest U-turn smacks of incompetence rather than venality. But that hardly excuses it. The prime minister is, after all, a lawyer. Indeed, he is a human rights lawyer, and should be conscious of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which protects “free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”.

Even if historical precedents exist for delaying parliamentary and local elections, and even if this round seems a waste of time and money for soon-to-be-defunct bodies, the democratic principle is imperative. In a few cases, elections have even been postponed for two years running. In all these largely county areas, there was resentment about voters being deprived of the opportunity to have their say – including on the evolution of arrangements for the new councils (although too late to stop the mergers and the abolition of ancient county names and boundaries).

Keir Starmer’s administration has now had to row back on another bit of democratic jiggery-pokery (PA)

It should never have been allowed to come to this, and it is another example of the government lacking some of the most basic political instincts. Hot on the heels of having its landmark ban of Palestine Action struck down by the High Court as “unlawful”, Sir Keir Starmer’s administration has now had to row back on another bit of democratic jiggery-pokery. To lose one court case in a matter of days could be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness – especially when you are a former director of public prosecutions.

In short, it just felt wrong to delay elections for mere administrative convenience and to save money. The fact that many suspected it was being done for party political advantage at a time when the Labour Party is suffering unprecedented unpopularity only adds to the sense of unease over the original decision to scrap the elections. No doubt, in some cases at least, the frustrations of electors will be vented in the form of an even more emphatic protest against the government.

Even if some Labour councillors were to be spared defenestration this year, their fall from power would not be delayed for long. Arguably, it would have always been better to “kitchen sink” the Labour losses this year, which will certainly be substantial and extend to the parliaments in Holyrood and Cardiff Bay, so that 2027 could be portrayed as the “year of recovery”. Maybe.

Sir Keir cannot be expected to take a personal interest in the fate of every district councillor, but he was well aware of the scale of the proposed reforms in local government and the millions of voters due to be disenfranchised, if only temporarily. He should have sensed that delaying these elections was unacceptable on ethical and political grounds, as well as legally dubious.

It looks as if he was nutmegged on this one, allowing Nigel Farage to win an unlikely moral victory. Writing on X, the Reform UK leader said: “We took this Labour government to court and won. In collusion with the Tories, Keir Starmer tried to stop 4.5 million people voting on May 7th. Only Reform UK fights for democracy.”

Poor judgement again, it would appear, from the team in No 10. With Labour at what looks to be a nadir, and the Conservatives not yet back even to where they were when they lost the general election, the Farageistes will no doubt repeat the remarkable success they achieved in the municipalities last year.

To some extent, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and Plaid will also profit from the weakness of the traditional “big” parties. But in the case of Reform, its victories will be distinctly double-edged. Experience thus far suggests that local Reform administrations generally aren’t case studies in effective governance. They put the council tax up as much as their counterparts, and the “Doge UK” experiment has been a risible failure, never to be mentioned again.

In other words, Reform’s electoral success is not converting into administrative efficiency, and is actually doing the party more harm than good. It will, however, be cold comfort to Sir Keir and his colleagues, who will face an even worse humiliation than feared from freshly re-empowered voters on 7 May. The old saying goes that you can run, but you can’t hide – except that on this occasion, Labour hasn’t even managed to run. Who’d want to take over such a mess?