Cancelling elections is an abuse of power, High Court to hear

Reform UK launches legal challenge to Starmer’s decision to deny 4.6 million people the vote Daily Telegraph 15/02/26 Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to cancel local elections is an abuse of power that threatens the foundations of British democracy, the High Court will hear. In a legal challenge to the decision to cancel some of May’s elections, lawyers acting for Reform UK will argue that Labour acted out of political interest to deny 4.6 million people the right to vote. In court documents seen by The Telegraph, they claim it is “patently irrational” to postpone elections in peacetime and that it “stands in contradiction to the basis of the country, namely democratic rights and the basis of individual rights”. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, is expected to appear at the High Court for both days of the hearing next Thursday and Friday. Writing for The Telegraph on Saturday, Mr Farage accuses Sir Keir Starmer of “running scared” from voters who are being denied a chance to send a message to Westminster, saying “that voice is being silenced”.

He says cancelled elections are the “stuff of banana republics” and that local polls are central to the “very heartbeat of grassroots democracy”, adding that they are “not some minor administrative inconvenience”. Mr Farage writes: “Doubtless this Government hoped this row would fade. They may calculate that constitutional propriety doesn’t stoke up public rage in the same way tax hikes or migration do. “But they underestimate the quiet British instinct for fairness. In cancelling local elections, they are setting a chilling precedent for the future of our democracy which will not go unnoticed.” The Government is reliant on section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000 for its decision to cancel 30 local elections that were scheduled to take place on May 7. This obscure clause gives Steve Reed, the Local Government Secretary, the power to change the years in which elections take place for any local authority. The purpose of this provision was to change the specific timing of election cycles without changing the scheme or frequency of elections. It was intended to increase the number of elections so as to promote local accountability. The legal challenge will argue Mr Reed has no concern about election cycles or schemes and has acted “entirely outside the framework” of section 87. Lawyers for Reform will also argue that council concerns about the capacity to hold elections while preparing for local government reorganisation should not be used to determine the right to vote. They contend that, using this metric, councils that are efficient and well-run will hold elections, but in areas where councils are wasteful and least efficient – and therefore arguably where accountability is most important – they are able to deny taxpayers the right to vote because of “capacity concerns" Concerns will also be raised about the lack of transparency over how councils have proved to the Government that they lack the capacity to hold elections. The Electoral Commission has previously claimed that there is a “clear conflict of interest” in asking councils to decide “how long it will be before they are answerable to voters”. In an interview with The Telegraph on Friday, Vijay Rangarajan, the commission’s chief executive, reiterated its criticism that “capacity constraint” was not a “sufficient reason” for postponing elections. He said: “We would hope that no government would go and say that somehow, elections are fungible with other parts of council money. It’s a fundamental point that they have to run elections on those timescales, and we would put the bar very high for postponement.” At the court hearing, the judge will be asked to consider: “Where is the rationality in a democracy to deny elections?” Reform’s lawyers are expected to say: “In an irrational world, of which examples might be world wars and coronavirus, there may be limited rationality to postpone elections, but in peacetime, free of world crisis, it is patently irrational. “It stands in contradiction to the basis of the country, namely democratic rights and the basis of individual rights within the country.” They will add: “There is no reason, other than politics, why reorganisation could not be planned without sacrificing elections; on the contrary, postponement or cancellation of elections in the circumstances of local government reorganisation is to remove accountability when it is most needed.” The Telegraph has launched a Campaign for Democracy, which calls for ministers to be stripped of their legal powers to cancel local elections without a full vote in Parliament. Opposition leaders have backed the campaign for a change in the law to prevent ministers from being able to cancel local votes “at the stroke of a pen”. The legal challenge is the latest headache for the beleaguered Prime Minister, who has endured the worst week of his premiership after the Mandelson scandal saw him lose his chief of staff and director of communications, and face calls to resign from Anas Sarwar, Labour’s Scottish leader. Labour is widely expected to perform poorly at this May’s elections, given its dire national poll ratings, and faces losing seats to Reform on the Right and the Greens on its Left. Allies of Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary and Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister, say both are preparing for a potential leadership challenge after the local elections, when Sir Keir could face fresh calls to resign. The Telegraph is aware of a string of councillors who are awaiting the outcome of Reform’s judicial review before deciding whether to step down in protest against the Government’s decision to cancel elections. Some voters have also withheld their council tax payments, arguing that there should be no taxation without the chance to elect representatives.