Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
FT editor Roula Khalaf selects her favorite stories in this weekly newspaper.
The UK government has abandoned plans to delay elections for 30 councils in England after receiving advice the move could be against the law, the latest blow to Sir Keir Starmer.
The U-turn reform announced on Monday by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government comes after the UK launched legal action against the Labor government last month.
“Following legal advice, the government has withdrawn its original decision to postpone 30 local elections to May,” the ministry said. “The most important thing now is to provide councils with certainty about their local elections and all local elections will now take place in May 2026.”
Downing Street had invited councils to delay their elections so that they could prioritize a wider restructuring of local government.
Both Labor and the Conservatives are set for major losses at the hands of other parties, including Reform and the Greens, in the elections on May 7.
Starmer’s premiership is being weakened by the backlash over revelations about the relationship between convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and Lord Peter Mandelson, whom Starmer appointed as US ambassador last year.
The Reform leader, Nigel Farage, said he was “delighted” by the government’s U-turn, and suggested that Local Government Secretary Steve Reid should resign.
“This is a victory for reform, but more importantly, it is a victory for democracy in this country,” he said during a press event in Romford on Monday.
Farage said, “Steve Reid has clearly acted illegally,” adding, “I feel like if a government minister does something illegal, they should really resign”.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said delaying the elections was “unnecessary” and said the government was right to skip them. “Anarchy can be anticipated from a dysfunctional government that cannot take basic decisions,” he said.
The District Council Network, which represents 169 local authorities, said voters would be “devastated” by the “continued change to the election timetable”.
The body’s chairman, Councilor Richard Wright, said, “It is the government, not councils who have acted in good faith, that must bear responsibility for this mess which impacts on people’s confidence in our cherished local democracy.”
The proposed delay arose from ministers’ plans to abolish district councils and consolidate them into unitary local authorities under regional mayors.
In December, ministers asked 63 councils whether they wanted to delay the elections to focus on restructuring, which could see their current form abolished, and about half accepted the proposal.
FT analysis of officials who accepted the proposal showed that a delay could have helped Labor capture 10 councils, allowing the party’s more than 200 councilors to avoid election for an extra year.
Concerns about Farage’s attacks were a major reason for many councils not delaying their elections, a senior local authority told the FT.
The populist party, which leads national opinion polls, earlier this year sought an interim court order to prevent the government from changing election dates in England from May 7.
Tom Brake, chief executive of campaign group Unlock Democracy, said: “This is a victory for democracy and for the millions of people who faced losing their vote this May. We welcome that the Government has reached this decision, but they need to change the law now so that future elections are not threatened in the same way.
“Ministers should not have the power to postpone or cancel an election even without a vote in Parliament.”
A spokesman for the Local Government Information Unit, a leading organisation, said the government had “lost a battle it should never have fought”.
“By insisting that this should be a local option, attempting to take the political risk of postponing elections in councils and now backing down under the threat of legal action, the government has shown a cynical disregard for local democracy,” the LGIU said.
“At the political level, many parties will now be scrambling to find candidates they didn’t think they needed.”
