Formal Opposition to Postponing the Election

Citizens’ Democratic Rights at Risk: Proposals to Postpone Local Elections – Council Decision Deadline 10th January

Author : Madeleine Hunt (General Secretary)

Recent revelations about the government enabling councils to postpone local elections have sparked widespread concern. This move effectively undermines citizens’ democratic rights, bypassing the voices of residents. As a party dedicated to safeguarding democracy and accountability, the Heritage Party strongly opposes such actions.

We urge the public to challenge their councils not only on this critical issue but also on other decisions that appear to lack proper consultation with the residents they are meant to serve. Together, we can ensure that transparency and democratic principles are upheld at every level of governance.

This is quite an urgent matter, as councils must make their decision by the 10th of January.

This letter lays out our objections. We strongly encourage all concerned citizens to stand with us in opposing this unconstitutional action by downloading a copy of the letter and sending it to your local council and representatives.

Dear [Council Leader’s Name],

For the sake of transparency and inclusivity, I kindly request that this letter be shared with all councillors. To ensure it reaches its intended recipients, I have also sent a copy directly to the council’s Democratic Services and Clerk.

I am writing to you as a concerned resident and a member of the Heritage Party to express my serious concerns regarding the proposed postponement of the local elections scheduled for May 2025, as well as the broader implications of the devolution agenda currently being pursued.

Absence of Public Consultation

The devolution agenda represents a significant restructuring of local governance, with far-reaching implications for residents, businesses, and the democratic process. Yet, there has been no meaningful consultation with the public to seek their views or obtain their consent for such transformative changes.

Under Article 10 of the Aarhus Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, public authorities are required to ensure that citizens are informed and have an opportunity to participate in decision-making on matters that affect their lives and communities. The lack of consultation on devolution and its impact clearly contravenes this principle.

Furthermore, the Local Government Act 2000 emphasizes the importance of transparency and public involvement in decisions affecting local governance. The absence of clear communication and consultation undermines these democratic principles and raises significant questions about accountability.

Councillor Understanding of Devolution

It has become evident from public statements and interactions that many councillors themselves do not fully understand the implications of the devolution framework being proposed. For instance:

Statements by Councillors: Some councillors have publicly expressed confusion or limited knowledge of the reorganisation process and the powers that would be transferred under devolution. This lack of understanding not only impairs their ability to represent their constituents but also raises concerns about the robustness of decision-making.
Contradictory Messaging from Government: The government has acknowledged in public forums, including statements by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Local Government Minister Jim McMahon, that reorganisation proposals may include the establishment of unitary councils, with a focus on addressing “failures” or perceived inefficiencies. However, these sweeping changes lack clear, evidence-based justification or explanation of benefits to residents.

Legal and Democratic Concerns Regarding Election Postponement

The decision to delay elections, even temporarily, undermines the fundamental principle of democratic accountability. Elections are the cornerstone of public trust and provide the electorate with the opportunity to express their support or opposition to policies and representatives.

The government has framed this as a decision for councils themselves, placing the responsibility squarely on local authorities. This creates significant legal and ethical risks for councils that choose to postpone elections:

Legal Precedent: There is no statutory requirement to delay elections for devolution, and any such decision could be challenged based on denying citizens their democratic rights under the Representation of the People Act 1983.

Accountability: Councillors must recognize that agreeing to postpone elections without overwhelming justification places them at risk of future legal scrutiny and public backlash.

Specific Requests

Considering these concerns, I urge the council to:

Provide a Public Explanation: Issue a clear, detailed explanation for any plans to postpone elections, including the legal basis and measurable benefits.
Conduct Public Consultation: Commit to holding a public consultation on devolution and reorganisation to ensure that residents’ voices are heard and their consent obtained.
Enhance Transparency: Publish all related documents, including any agreements with central government, evidence of public benefits, and detailed analyses of the implications for council operations and residents.

A Call for Responsibility

Councillors must understand that their primary duty is to their constituents, not to central government directives or vague promises of reorganisation benefits. Agreeing to delay elections or proceed with devolution without public consent and full transparency would erode public trust and damage the democratic fabric of our community.

I urge the council to uphold its obligation to democratic integrity and ensure that any decision to postpone elections adheres strictly to legal requirements, which permit such measures only under exceptional and emergency circumstances, rather than to accommodate external agendas.