In a dramatic reversal that has sent shockwaves through local governments and the political establishment alike, the UK government has abandoned its controversial plan to delay 30 council elections originally scheduled for May 2026. The U-turn, announced on February 16, 2026, follows intense legal and political pressure, with the populist Reform UK party—led by Nigel Farage—claiming victory after launching a successful legal challenge.
The initial proposal, floated in December 2025, would have postponed elections in 30 areas, impacting more than 4.5 million voters. The government argued that the delays were necessary to facilitate a major reorganisation of local government, which would see the current two-tier system of district and county councils replaced by new unitary authorities. Local Government Secretary Steve Reed had approved the delays, citing concerns about the cost and complexity of running elections for authorities on the brink of abolition.
However, the move quickly drew fierce criticism from opposition parties and campaigners, who branded it undemocratic and a blow to local accountability. According to Sky News, the government’s reversal came after receiving fresh legal advice—sparked by Reform UK’s lawsuit—that the postponement could be unlawful. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) confirmed in a statement, “Following legal advice, the government has withdrawn its original decision to postpone 30 local elections in May. Providing certainty to councils about their local elections is now the most crucial thing and all local elections will now go ahead in May 2026.”
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, never one to shy away from the spotlight, was quick to claim credit. In a statement posted to X, he declared, “We took this Labour government to court and won. In collusion with the Tories, Keir Starmer tried to stop 4.6 million people voting on May 7th. Only Reform UK fights for democracy.” Farage also argued that if a government minister “does something illegal, they really ought to resign,” suggesting Steve Reed’s position should be in question.
The government’s abrupt change of course has real financial consequences. As part of the legal settlement, the government agreed to pay Reform UK’s legal costs, which are understood to be at least £100,000 and could reach six figures, according to sources cited by BBC News and Sky News.
For local councils, the news has been met with a mixture of relief and exasperation. Many now face a frantic scramble to organise elections in less than three months. Laura Lock, deputy chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, told BBC News that teams have “lost months of essential planning time” and now “face an uphill struggle to catch up to where they should be.” Richard Wright, chair of the District Councils’ Network, echoed these concerns, saying, “The councils affected face an unnecessary race against time to ensure elections proceed smoothly and fairly, with polling stations booked and electoral staff available.”
To help councils cope with the logistical and financial challenges, the government has announced a £63 million fund for the 21 areas most affected by the reorganisation, with promises of further practical support as needed. In a letter to council leaders, Steve Reed acknowledged the “genuine concerns about the pressure they are under as we seek to deliver the most ambitious reforms of local government in a generation.”
The political fallout from the episode has been swift and severe. Opposition leaders have seized on the U-turn as evidence of a government in disarray. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described the situation as “predictable chaos from a useless government that cannot make basic decisions,” adding, “This is a zombie government. U-turn after U-turn after U-turn. No plan or programme to deliver anything. Even the simple stuff that should be business as usual gets messed up.”
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey was equally scathing, calling the government’s reversal a “humiliating U-turn.” He said, “The Liberal Democrats have fought tooth and nail to stop this stitch-up and the Government has been forced into a humiliating U-turn. We cannot allow the government to cancel elections on a whim ever again.” Davey’s party has called for legal reforms to strip ministers of the power to cancel elections without clear justification.
Green Party leader Zack Polanski also weighed in, describing the attempt to delay elections as “part of a disturbing authoritarian trend of this caretaker prime minister.” Meanwhile, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has demanded that Steve Reed publish the evidence base for the original decision to delay the elections, threatening to use “every means at our disposal to get to the truth” if he fails to do so.
For Prime Minister Keir Starmer, this marks the 15th major policy U-turn since his government came to power in July 2024, a point not lost on his critics. When pressed by the BBC about the string of reversals, Starmer insisted, “Absolutely. I know exactly why I was elected in with a five-year mandate to change this country for the better, and that’s what I intend to do.” Still, the latest climbdown has only fueled accusations that the government is rudderless and overly reactive.
The decision to abandon the election delays also raises questions about the broader timetable for local government reorganisation. As Cllr Richard Wright put it, “If election cancellations were deemed necessary to free up capacity for local government reorganisation to succeed, councils will now be asking where this leaves the reorganisation timetable.” He added, “We need to have faith in the Government’s decision-making as we work on the biggest shake-up of councils in 50 years – but the Government is doing little to assure us that it has a strong grasp of the huge legal complexity involved.”
Of the 30 councils originally permitted to delay elections, 15 are Labour-controlled, four are led by the Conservatives, one by the Liberal Democrats, and 10 under no overall control. The affected councils include Adur District Council, Basildon Borough Council, Blackburn with Darwen Council, Burnley Borough Council, and many others across England. In total, 136 local elections were scheduled for May 2026, with 63 eligible for postponement due to the reorganisation, and 30 having actually been delayed before the government’s reversal.
Campaigners for voter rights, such as Elliot Keck of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, have expressed relief that the right to vote has been restored, but warned that “it should have never come this far.” Keck argued, “Millions of voters were not just facing cancelled elections, but also the double injustice of increased council tax despite a complete lack of a democratic mandate.” He called for new guidelines to ensure that any future election cancellations would require a freeze on council tax and other local charges.
With the clock ticking, councils now face a daunting task to ensure that polling stations are staffed, ballots are printed, and voters are informed in time for the May 7, 2026 elections. The episode has exposed not only the legal and logistical challenges of local government reform, but also deep divisions over how—and by whom—democratic decisions should be made in modern Britain.
As local authorities scramble to meet the new deadline, the government’s retreat stands as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between administrative efficiency and the fundamental right of citizens to choose their representatives. The coming months will test whether that balance can be restored—or whether the scars of this controversy will linger well beyond the polling booths.