The government has confirmed mayoral elections in Sussex and Brighton will be delayed by two years until 2028.
Critics have suggested the move looks suspicious amid speculation about a potential challenge to Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership following defeat at the local elections, with Reform UK accusing Labour of a “blatant attempt to stop big wins” for the party.
This morning, minister for devolution Miatta Fahnbulleh MP announced Sussex would get an annual £38 million investment fund to spend on areas such as transport and planning.
She said: “This money will help transform communities for the better as part of our Plan for Change.
“It will help new mayors achieve what their areas’ want most, from building more of the 1.5 million homes this government has promised to improving the green spaces that locals love – this is how devolution improves lives across the country.”
Meanwhile, children’s minister Josh MacAlister insisted the decision was because of “technical” changes being made to deliver a “devolution revolution”.
He said the Government did not want to “rush” plans to reorganise local authorities.
“This is not about delaying democracy in any way and the accusation from opposition parties on it is, frankly, ludicrous,” he told ITV’s Good Morning Britain.
When it was put to him that Reform leader Nigel Farage described the move as the action of “despots, not democrats”, Mr MacAlister told Sky News: “Well, I say, Nigel, pull the other one.
“I represent a constituency in Cumbria. We’re going to have a mayoral election in Cumbria. The reason we’re going ahead in 2027, it’s all very technical, but the reason we’re going ahead in 2027 is that we have unitary local authorities that have already been reorganised.
“The other parts of the country that are having a postponement have still got districts and county levels to be reorganised a year in a row…
“The last government had 14 years to do devolution properly and got barely anywhere with it, so we’re speeding this up in a major way, pushing power down to communities.
“Doing that means elected mayors, yes, but also getting money into these areas for new economic regeneration.”
Asked whether he could see how it looked suspicious amid Labour’s slump in the polls, the children’s minister said: “There are elections taking place next year.
“Local authorities, where they’re still in two tiers and they haven’t reorganised that basic foundation of being a unitary council – it would be a rush to push for that now, rather than get it right.
“But we’re not delaying the money that’s going into those communities.”
Zia Yusuf, Reform’s head of policy, said: “This is a blatant attempt to stop big Reform wins next May. It’s an act of a desperate Government who are clinging on to power by any means necessary.”
Tory shadow housing secretary Sir James Cleverly said: “This is a scandalous attempt to subvert democracy by a Labour Government whose credibility and popularity are already in tatters.
“The Conservatives firmly oppose this decision to delay the mayoral elections, especially when candidates have been selected and campaigning is well under way.”
Liberal Democrat local government spokeswoman Zoe Franklin said: “Democracy delayed is democracy denied. We are fighting to end this blatant stitch-up between Labour and the Conservatives over local elections.”
Elections in nine council areas, East Sussex, West Sussex, Essex, Thurrock, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Norfolk, Suffolk and Surrey, were already postponed from this year to 2026 amid the reorganisation of local government in England.
Reform UK enjoyed success in the local elections in May this year, winning more than 600 seats and taking control of 10 councils stretching from Kent to Co Durham. The party also toppled a 14,000-strong Labour majority in a parliamentary by-election.
When even the Lib Dems turn on Labour you know something stinks.
The whole thing is just chaos and I agree it stinks.
Not only have councils ploughed loads of time and public money into preparing plans for regional changes that nobody I know asked for or wanted, but when we are just months away from electing a mayor, Labour pull the plug. It can’t be a coincidence they decide this when YouGov say Ker Starmer’s net favourability rating stands at -54, his lowest recorded to date and that even most Labour voters now see Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves negatively.
The only real question to me is how long they will try and cling onto power before they are ousted.
Shocking. Since they only rule by our consent, what if we insist?
It kind of makes sense but it also looks bad. Sussex needs to reorganise its other LAs to fit the Mayor and that move will take longer than expected (It includes potentially extending B&H boundaries.)
Reform could easily win Sussex. But they shouldn’t rush too fast either: they haven’t proved successful yet in running a bath, let alone a local council or Mayorlty. And it’s best to wait for another academic year to pass so that the next crop of Reform Council Leaders can get their A-levels and be fully prepared for important civic office.
Any delay to something most people don’t want is welcome. How can a Mayor of Sussex be democratically accountable to residents of varying settlements with different needs and desires such as rural hamlet in the nether regions of East or West Sussex or an expanding Crawley or Brighton and Hove beggars belief.
Taking your logic to its conclusion, how is a minister in Westminster who has never set foot in Sussex any more democratically accountable to us? Representation always involves balancing very different communities, and a mayoralty is far closer to local realities than national government ever will be.
You’re right to highlight the diversity of Sussex, but that actually strengthens the case for a mayoralty rather than against it. Devolution brings decisions closer to the people affected by them instead of leaving them to distant ministers who juggle the needs of 50 million others.
The problem here isn’t just the delay, it’s the communication. Reorganising two-tier authorities properly does take time; especially when we look at every region that’s gone through this already had plenty of time. But when the government doesn’t explain the technical case well, it leaves a vacuum that gets filled with suspicion.
It’s the right move to delay this, so that the election can be held under the supplementary vote system under which voters can express a first and a second choice.
This was the system used for mayoral elections until Johnson’s government changed it to first-past-the-post. This would have meant under a 6 way split you could have a candidate elected mayor with the support of about a fifth of the voters.
If we are going to have a mayor (I’m still doubtul about the whole concept) it is important that they enjoy a reasonably broad consensus of support.
It’s a really good point there, Clive. Supplementary vote is a far more democratic method compared to FPTP.
This is a compete assault on democracy by our incompetent government, we will be stuck with the hopeless council until 2028. it’ll probably be delayed again and the Labour Party will be voted out of government by 2029 anyway, what a mess.
This has nothing to do with the council elections, Dan.
While I don’t agree with a Sussex Mayor, it seems unfair to pull the plug on these elections – Starmer’s silly idea in the first place – based on Starmer’s panic about his party’s ratings. He should at least refund candidates and councils all the money they have wasted on this aborted project so far.
Don’t worry everyone Reform are trying to get a judicial review of this undemocratic manoeuvre by the failing government.
That’s just a performative gesture. Reform announce judicial reviews every time they dislike a decision, but very few ever materialise and the ones that do rarely get past the first legal hurdle. JR can’t overturn legislation or investigate political motives, so it ends up being more show than substance. If anything, a JR here would simply confirm that the timetable change is lawful, which would be an awkward reminder that Reform’s headline-grabbing legal threats don’t translate into serious political competence.
Maybe but at least it is a small something to mark this very undemocratic move by the least popular government for a very long while.
Like I said, it would be a gesture that proves it is democratic. Popularity is how we ended up with Truss and Boris; maybe we should be basing our choices on something better than popularity?