Starmer abandons plans to cancel local elections

I am still waiting to find out if the postponement of the council elections was actually 'illegal'.

On whose authority are people making this claim? Can they cite the legislation which made it illegal?

Councils were given the choice of having elections now or deferring. The decision was theirs. Why aren't people attacking the councils which chose to defer? Do they think that councils were pressurised into making this decision?

So many questions need to be answered.

To be clear, the postponement of local elections was not illegal. The provision is in statute for the Secretary of State to do so, and the provision has been used on a number of occasions in the past by the governments of the day. It was the unprecedented scale of the postponements that caused people to question whether that provision should be removed.
electoral-reform.org.uk/government-right-to-reverse-the-decision-to-postpone-these-local-elections/

I tell you what! I have just seen the youngest councillor in the UK and he is a Reform councillor called George Finch. He is only 19 but what a breath of fresh air. He was positive and eloquent and has put off his Uni place to be a Councillor for Warwickshire. Very, very impressive and actually made Starmer look like a bumbling fool. Well impressed.

Really? Reform seem to recruit people who are little more than children. Hasn't even finished his education. No life to experience.

I have GCs around that age and they are very eloquent but taking on that responsibility is too much for a 19 year old.

The village next to me has another incredibly young Reform councillor, too. How can people of that age possibly deal with social issues. Then to the other side of me the Reform council has closed the state nursing homes.

^Really? Reform seem to recruit people who are little more than children. Hasn't even finished his education. No life to experience.
^

There was a Labour MP, 27, I think it was said[didnt look more than that], on TV who tried[a bit] to defend the cancelling of local elections.
I had wondered who would be wheeled out.

I do think there is a bit of a place for them.

And also, we are then being ageist ourselves.

AGAA4

Really? Reform seem to recruit people who are little more than children. Hasn't even finished his education. No life to experience.

I have GCs around that age and they are very eloquent but taking on that responsibility is too much for a 19 year old.

No life experience at 19?

Then again Labour want to let 16 year olds vote, what life experience have they had to make a decision on who/how the country is run?

Mhari black elected at 20. Nadia whittome - 23. They were Mps rather than councillors.
To be fair I am not sure am helping the argument, they were both in my view catastrophically bad

GrannyGravy13

Then again Labour want to let 16 year olds vote, what life experience have they had to make a decision on who/how the country is run?

More to the point, who will they be more likely to vote for? On GN I’ve read accounts about GC who are incredibly politically aware, or who are studying politics at UNI or like AGAA4’s DGC and my DGC who are eloquent and passionate about what interests them but will that make them vote for the party who gave them the vote?

To be clear, the postponement of local elections was not illegal

I have said a couple of times upthread, people need to wait until details come out about the Law aspect.

I dont understand why they are not already out.

Something has gone amiss somewhere.

I’m fairly sure this has happened before in the year preceding boundary changes. And I’m fairly sure that some posters on this thread have previously said that all parties are as bad as one another and they don’t trust anyone ànd never bother to vote.
I don’t think that extending the mandate of some current councillors for a further year at a time of changing electoral structures and boundaries is a very big deal. Storms in teacups.

fancythat

^To be clear, the postponement of local elections was not illegal^

I have said a couple of times upthread, people need to wait until details come out about the Law aspect.

I dont understand why they are not already out.

Something has gone amiss somewhere.

I think it’s quite straightforward fancythat. The challenge was about the scale of the postponements, and the justification for opening the offer to postpone for additional councils at the end of last year. It is about the interpretation of the law, not the actual law, and also about whether the law should exist at all, which is a different question. .

winterwhite

I’m fairly sure this has happened before in the year preceding boundary changes. And I’m fairly sure that some posters on this thread have previously said that all parties are as bad as one another and they don’t trust anyone ànd never bother to vote.
I don’t think that extending the mandate of some current councillors for a further year at a time of changing electoral structures and boundaries is a very big deal. Storms in teacups.

It has happened a number of times before, during the pandemic, during the foot and mouth outbreak, and so on.

It is about the interpretation of the law, not the actual law,

But that is the Law.

As happens every day of the week. Is it not.

You must know that the interpretation is what causes most changes to the law fancythat. It’s not illegal to interpret a law in a way that was not intended or not thought of when the law was written. It results in challenges to laws, statutes etc. and different ones being reworded all the time?

For once I’m looking forward to the local council elections. The council has been IMO very high-handed in closing much of a local road, which has resulted in a huge, rush hour build up of traffic on a major road nearby, and has adversely affected local small shops - as if they don’t have enough problems anyway!

An independent councillor has been campaigning very vigorously against it, so he’s definitely getting my vote this time.

Casdon

You must know that the interpretation is what causes most changes to the law fancythat. It’s not illegal to interpret a law in a way that was not intended or not thought of when the law was written. It results in challenges to laws, statutes etc. and different ones being reworded all the time?

That was what I thought and assumed.

But your post of 11.10am made me wonder otherwise.

So the Law is still the Law.
And it was broken by Sir Kier.
Was it not?

Was it really beyond the remit of those responsible to plan these boundary changes to coincide with planned election dates? It's not as if the dates of local elections aren't known well in advance. If it wasn't illegal to defer those elections for a further year then why have they u-turned, it makes no sense? Either it was a sound plan or not. The pandemic hadn't been known about in advance to allow for planning, nor a foot and mouth outbreak. They are not directly comparable.

No, it was not broken. It was interpreted by the government in a way that it was contended was not in the spirit it had been written. The government was advised by its lawyers that the challenge could be successful. That is not the same thing as the government breaking the law..

Sorry, that was for fancythat.

in a way that it was contended was not in the spirit it had been written.

Again, broken the Law.

Dont think spirit matters at all!

Whatever. We shall see.

From a BBC article

^Explaining the U-turn, the government said its legal advice had changed - but it has not provided further details, and is now facing pressure from opposition parties to publish the advice.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Heath Minister Stephen Kinnock said: "We had a process that we went through, and then that changed.

"Sometimes circumstances change, and that's the nature of the beast."^

Do wonder how many of the electorate that are bemoaning the fact that they wouldn’t get to vote have never bothered to vote in the council elections.

I doubt you'll ever know MayBee70 and does it really matter? Surely the point is respecting people's right to vote whether they exercise that right or not? It just seems to have not been thought through adequately.