Voting for Sussex and Brighton’s first mayor is likely to be through the first past the post system, although city councillors would like to see a different approach.
Currently, the proposals are for the first election through the first past the post system, but a change to the supplementary vote, as previously used for the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner elections, after 2027.
At Brighton and Hove City Council’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Labour councillor Ty Goddard declared his preference for the supplementary vote system.
During the meeting on Thursday 31 July, Councillor Goddard noted how other mayoral elections had “yo-yoed” from supplementary vote to first part the post.
He said: “Isn’t it a shame that the May 2026 elections, if those go ahead and everything is passed, that this is going to be on a first-past-the-post basis.
It would suggest to me supplementary vote has much more of a democratic basis for the kind of authority both with the capital A and the small a that’s going to be needed by that mayoral person.
“Is there any way that we could have supplementary vote in May 2026.”
Council leader Bella Sankey said she had lobbied the government for the supplementary vote system and hopes the position will change and be in place for May 2026.
Councillor Sankey said: “In an area of this size, this number of people, 1.7 million, trying to deliver a voting system that brings about the greatest amount of possible consensus, so not everyone is getting their first choice, but people are not unhappy with the outcome, I think is something we should be striving for.
“I am pleased the government has shifted its position. If at all possible, it would be best to get our authority on the right setting from the get-go and try to find a way to have that voting system in place for next May.”
Green councillor Ollie Sykes asked about the political make-up of the proposed new strategic mayoral authority.
The Sussex-wide body will include the leaders and deputy leaders of Brighton and Hove City Council, and East and West Sussex county councils, as well as up to seven non-voting commissioners who will lead on specific areas such as transport.
Should local government reorganisation move forward, then the leaders of the unitary councils will make up the strategic mayoral authority.
Councillor Sykes said: “One can envisage a situation where there may be a difference in the political make-up of those respective bodies.
“Given the duties, powers, areas of competence, how do we envisage managing that tension is there potential for that to undermine the purpose and effectiveness of devolution as a whole?”
Labour councillor John Hewitt, cabinet advisor for devolution and local government reorganisation, gave Tees Valley as an example as Ben Houchen is the Conservative mayor for the region, working with Labour members of the strategic authority.
On the Sussex and Brighton Strategic Authority, Councillor Hewitt said: “The make up could be a mayor of one political party and a cabinet, the members of the strategic authority could be a wide range, especially if we were to have five unitary authorities making up that authority, that would be ten plus the mayors.”
“I don’t think that would undermine any decision-making, it would be a real opportunity for all those parties to work collaboratively together. They would all want what’s best for their region.”
In the autumn, a full council meeting will debate the powers and funding of the new authority ahead of a cabinet decision.
The Conservatives announced their candidate on Thursday, 31 July, the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne, whose current role will be absorbed into the mayoral authority.
No other political party has announced a candidate.
Candidates require a nomination paper signed by 100 local voters, including at least 10 from each constituent council. They must live within the area, and give a deposit of £5,000.
This is a joke, and not a very funny one. It means that the winning candidate could have the support of a fifth of the voters, or perhaps even less.
If you are going to vest one individual with this amount of power (not a good idea anyway) the least you can do is ensure that they are backed by a reasonable consensus.
The best way to do this would be to have a fully preferential system where voters number the candidates in their preferred order. The supplementary vote only offers a first and second choice.
Labour got in with less votes than Corbyn did last time. Think it was about 35%. First past the post usually means you don’t get what the majority of voters want. It will be funny if Reform gets in:)
The Tories changed the law from the supplementary vote to first past the post.
Labour are reversing that but the law to do that won’t be in place in time for any Mayoral elections held next year
Guarantees a Tory or Reform victory
I don’t see Reform having a realistic chance; the voting system doesn’t favour them, and they don’t have a local base to work from. It’s more likely to be disruptive than anything, and that also makes the Con’s chances get a bit shakier, especially since this will also be the first one since their annihilation from government. Reform was beaten by the Greens 3 to 1 during their honeymoon period, making them more likely than Reform.
It makes for quite an interesting battleground.
In a process that Labour claim will give people more local control they’re handing over power to a politician who has been unaccountable for a decade.
Katy Bourne gets elected everytime as PCC because she’s the Tory candidate in a Tory county.
When has she ever responded or taken responsibility for any local issues ? Answered questions from local media ?
She’s certainly maintained a low profile when it comes to facing difficult questions from local communities or media, and I’d challenge anyone to name a single public forum where she’s taken unscripted questions from residents outside a pre-choreographed setting.
For me, the risk isn’t just unaccountability. It’s entrenchment. Devolution should be about empowering communities. But that depends entirely on who we elect, and whether they’re genuinely prepared to listen, engage, and be held to account.
Have Conservatives proven they can do this over their 14-year tenure?