Friday, December 19, 2025
Keir Starmer's democratic deficit
They are in the process of restricting the right of people to demonstrate, proscribing protest groups like Palestine Action, proposing a crackdown on what demonstrators can chant, ramping up the use of facial recognition, introducing compulsory ID cards, and doing away with jury trials.
Now, as the BBC reports, elections in some local councils are facing further delays, amid an escalating blame game over Labour's planned overhaul of local government in England.
The BBC website says that ministers have indicated they will agree to postpone elections due next May until 2027, if authorities request it by mid-January. Polls in nine such areas have already been postponed once, having originally been scheduled for May 2025:
The government plans to get rid of the two-tier system of district and county councils, creating a swathe of new authorities that will be responsible for delivering all local services in their areas from 2028.
Ministers have now asked all 63 councils affected by the reorganisation that are due to hold elections in May to say whether they require a delay.
In a statement, Local Government Minister Alison McGovern said "multiple" authorities had asked for a postponement, after expressing concerns about their ability to run "resource-intensive" elections alongside the transition.
Others had questioned the cost to taxpayers of holding elections for councils that are due to be abolished, she added.
Speaking in the Commons, she added that those seeking a suspension were only a "minority" of affected councils, without offering further details.
The announcement of further potential delays, made on the last day before Parliament's Christmas break, comes just two days after Local Government Secretary Steve Reed told MPs scheduled elections "will go ahead".
Conservative shadow local government minister Paul Holmes said local leaders should not be blamed for further delays, adding that Labour's reorganisation had been "rushed and deeply flawed".
He accused Labour of "pausing the democratic process to serve their own political interests".
Whilst there is a precedent for cancelling elections to councils that are about to be replaced, the slow progress of the reorganisation has seen Labour face accusations it is acting undemocratically.
Local polls in nine areas, including Suffolk, East and West Sussex, and Essex, have already been put back once, having originally been scheduled for May 2025.
If elections are delayed again in any of these areas, it will mean some councillors will have sat for seven years without facing local voters.
Elections for new mayors in Greater Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, Hampshire and the Solent, and Sussex and Brighton have also ready been delayed two years until until May 2028, it was confirmed earlier this month.
The question is, have they delayed these elections as stated, because of administrative reasons or because they are running scared of losing thousands more seats? I was a member of a transitional authority in 1995, and there were no problems in accommodating elections as part of the reorganisation process.
Why are Labour always taking the policy route favoured by dictators rather than that preferred by democrats?
Now, as the BBC reports, elections in some local councils are facing further delays, amid an escalating blame game over Labour's planned overhaul of local government in England.
The BBC website says that ministers have indicated they will agree to postpone elections due next May until 2027, if authorities request it by mid-January. Polls in nine such areas have already been postponed once, having originally been scheduled for May 2025:
The government plans to get rid of the two-tier system of district and county councils, creating a swathe of new authorities that will be responsible for delivering all local services in their areas from 2028.
Ministers have now asked all 63 councils affected by the reorganisation that are due to hold elections in May to say whether they require a delay.
In a statement, Local Government Minister Alison McGovern said "multiple" authorities had asked for a postponement, after expressing concerns about their ability to run "resource-intensive" elections alongside the transition.
Others had questioned the cost to taxpayers of holding elections for councils that are due to be abolished, she added.
Speaking in the Commons, she added that those seeking a suspension were only a "minority" of affected councils, without offering further details.
The announcement of further potential delays, made on the last day before Parliament's Christmas break, comes just two days after Local Government Secretary Steve Reed told MPs scheduled elections "will go ahead".
Conservative shadow local government minister Paul Holmes said local leaders should not be blamed for further delays, adding that Labour's reorganisation had been "rushed and deeply flawed".
He accused Labour of "pausing the democratic process to serve their own political interests".
Whilst there is a precedent for cancelling elections to councils that are about to be replaced, the slow progress of the reorganisation has seen Labour face accusations it is acting undemocratically.
Local polls in nine areas, including Suffolk, East and West Sussex, and Essex, have already been put back once, having originally been scheduled for May 2025.
If elections are delayed again in any of these areas, it will mean some councillors will have sat for seven years without facing local voters.
Elections for new mayors in Greater Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, Hampshire and the Solent, and Sussex and Brighton have also ready been delayed two years until until May 2028, it was confirmed earlier this month.
The question is, have they delayed these elections as stated, because of administrative reasons or because they are running scared of losing thousands more seats? I was a member of a transitional authority in 1995, and there were no problems in accommodating elections as part of the reorganisation process.
Why are Labour always taking the policy route favoured by dictators rather than that preferred by democrats?
