Late last week, council leaders and directly elected mayors in 62 affected council areas received an unexpected letter from Local Government Minister Alison McGovern. The contents of that letter were nothing short of extraordinary: an offer to cancel the upcoming local elections in their areas — if they so choose.
This sudden and unprecedented proposal carries a very clear and troubling message. Labour and the Conservatives have suffered significant losses to Reform UK and the Liberal Democrats throughout this year. Both major parties are now deeply concerned about the prospect of further defeats in May. Let us not forget that in the 2025 local elections, Labour were only 19 seats off finishing fifth, and the Conservatives lost seats to the Liberal Democrats and to Reform at an impressive rate.
Faced with the risk of humiliation at the ballot box, they appear to be seeking a way to shield themselves from accountability by scrapping elections altogether in 62 council areas. In short, this move looks like an attempt to save their own skins.
Ordinarily, granting local government greater decision-making power is something to be welcomed. However, this particular form of temporary devolution is deeply problematic. It places the power to cancel elections directly into the hands of those who stand to benefit politically from doing so. That is not just questionable — it is unconscionable in any functioning democracy.
As Liberal Democrats, we have no cause to be scared of the threat posed by Reform. In head-to-head contests, we more than hold our own. But the implications go even further. By making this offer, Labour creates a convenient narrative: “Look, other parties wanted to cancel elections too.” This gives them cover to deflect criticism and avoid responsibility for what is, in reality, an attempt to run from the growing challenge posed by the Liberal Democrats and Reform UK.
This is not a minor administrative decision; it is a national outrage that strikes at the heart of democratic accountability. It demands a strong, united response — not only from our party at the national level but also from our councillors on the ground. We must make it absolutely clear: elections must go ahead in May. Anything less would be a betrayal of the democratic principles we all stand for.
This proposal sets a dangerous precedent. If councils can simply opt out of elections when the political climate turns unfavourable, what does that say about the integrity of our democratic system? Voters deserve the right to hold their representatives accountable, especially during times of political turbulence. Cancelling elections undermines trust in government and erodes the very foundation of local democracy. It signals that those in power are willing to bend the rules to protect their own interests rather than face the judgment of the electorate. We must stand firm: democracy is not optional, and accountability cannot be postponed – to do so would be a disservice to voters who should get to choose who leads their community through the next few years of local government reorganisation.
* Callum Robertson is a teacher and member of the Federal Board. He is a Watford Borough Councillor.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Tom Bailey
Daniel Walker
Matt (Bristol)
Hywel
8 Comments
“As Liberal Democrats, we have no cause to be scared of the threat posed by Reform. In head-to-head contests, we more than hold our own”
Outside the comfort zone of leafy suburbia & the metropolitan lanyard classes – the greens and Libs poll very poorly…
It’s almost a defintion. if the contest is head to head (and we are one head) then we are holding our own. Having said that, a surprising number of byelections have left us head to head with Reform and not just in the leafy areas.
This bizarre “offer” is in some respects down to not having a written constitution. We should also remember that the Conservatives in office got away with emasculating the Electoral Commission. Meanwhile this is a rare example of Reform expressing a legitimate grievance. I wonder if they are still in favour of PR…
As Geoff reminds us, the Conservatives got away with emasculating the Electoral Commission. They also got away with introducing a measure of voter suppression which could kindly be described as a solution in search of a problem. The Starmer Government, having complained about these measures when in opposition, now seem perfectly happy with them.
And while the Government’s talk is of empowering communities, the “Devolution” which the forthcoming local government reform proposes is, to quite a large extent, devolution in the wrong direction. Instead of a district council, we face a much larger and more remote unitary authority, a particular issue in sparsely populated rural areas where electoral divisions are going to be huge.
Electoral stuff isn’t something that excites the average voter, true; but we ought to be making a lot more fuss about all of this.
Is it democratic that an individual political party cn derail elections when they feel like it?
100% agree with this article cancelling elections is something you would expect from what I used to call third world countries and so called one party states.
The interesting question will be to see how many Liberal Democrat run, controlled or influenced councils take the bait and support Labour in cancelling these elections.
It was a bad idea last year, it is still a bad idea this year.
Good to see a clear and unequivical message from Portsmouth Lib Dem Leader Steve Pitt saying the elections there will go ahead in 2026.
12.30 BBC news “Government waters down farm inheritance tax plan. Government proposals to tax inherited farmland have been watered down, with the planned threshold increasing from £1m to £2.5m.”