Starmer abandons plans to cancel local elections

Primrose53

sixandahalf

They also have to pay the legal fees to Reform so very embarrassing for Labour

So you are not merely passing on information, you are enjoying it and hoping Reform do well on the back of it?

I fear for the chaos which is coming our way.

Have a go at Starmer, not me. He’s the one who caused all this.

In what way am I "having a go"

Things seem to be in almighty mess.

Where you and I possibly differ is ,I don't believe Reform and its hateful rhetoric is the way to improve things.

That would be the Stephen Kinnock who thought the Covid regulations didn't apply to him and his parents when one had a birthday would it?

Rosie51

That would be the Stephen Kinnock who thought the Covid regulations didn't apply to him and his parents when one had a birthday would it?

Oh dear, we are playing that game again are we? Really?

What 'game' would that be? Are you denying he broke the regulations, and have you never noticed that other people have their Covid transgressions raised when appropriate?

Casdon

Sorry ronib, getting my years muddled up, but it was debated in March 2025 in the Lords, and the elections were originally scheduled for 2026, so it is a year until the councils merge, so my point stands.

I believe that these council elections had already been postponed from 2025 to May 2026 and then it was agreed to postpone for yet another year. i. e they were looking to defer for 2 years.

The councils have had 12 months in which to start the process of the merger so it isn't as if they are having to start from scratch

I've just checked the average turnout for local elections. C. 30% . Seems most people are not bothered about local democracy.

Rosie51

What 'game' would that be? Are you denying he broke the regulations, and have you never noticed that other people have their Covid transgressions raised when appropriate?

🤣
How could anyone miss the transgressions being brought up on GN, or on any other media for that matter?
It’s only playing that game again when it doesn’t suit the reader.

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.

No, you cannot say that a law has been broken when it is a matter of legal interpretation (not public opinion).

It is up to the courts to make a judgement.

I'm not sure that 'contrary to the spirit of the law' would be a legal conclusion. It is up to the court to examine what the law actually 'says' not the motive for it.

I sat through a public inquiry many years ago. The judge examined every single word in the part of the law which was being invoked to establish if the application which was being challenged met the criteria established by the wording of the law.

It all boils down to the wording of the law, not the 'spirit'.

I think the legal challenge should have gone ahead.

Rosie51

What 'game' would that be? Are you denying he broke the regulations, and have you never noticed that other people have their Covid transgressions raised when appropriate?

We don't know if the regulations were broken because there has been no judicial judgement given on it.

I suggest you read the piece from the Electoral Reform Society, which may aid your understanding fancythat.

While folk are busy dissing Starmer, let it be known that next week they are discussing The Representation of The People Act is coming before parliament nest week.

The Campaign group Make votes Matter covers all aspects of political party funding - ie "Dark Money" as in a key member of Reform taking Russian money well as their key aim, which is to bring PR before parliament so as to give more people the chance to feel they are represented.

I quote from an email from Make votes Matter

___________________

The long-awaited Representation of the People Bill is finally here

There’s plenty in it that’s welcome: from stronger rules to tackle dark money to new measures against the harassment of candidates and campaigners

(one has in mind the appalling SM harassment, especially the rape threats against women candidates)

The email goes on to say:

But a key piece is missing.

The Bill, as it stands, doesn’t do anything to fix the very voting system that leaves millions of people without representation. We need to change this.

That’s why next week, ahead of the Bill’s second reading, we’d like to invite you to a special All-Activist Call.

Click here to sign up

This will be an opportunity to find out more and discuss:

What exactly does the Bill include - and not include?

What opportunities do we have to influence it?

What role will the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Elections play?

How can you help make sure PR is on the agenda?

The next few months could shape the future of our democracy. An opportunity like this doesn’t come very often. We need your help to make sure PR is at the heart of the debate in Parliament and in the media. We can do this - together. Come to find out how you can be involved.

____________

If you are interested - and I am personally for PR but only if its an effective form that doesnt lead to weeks of negotiating leaving power in a vacuum - as well as the whole band of measures to make our democracy strong against plutocrats and similar then you might want to investigate

makevotesmatter.org.uk

as "keyboard warriors" can make a difference.

(never give up?)

Casdon

I suggest you read the piece from the Electoral Reform Society, which may aid your understanding fancythat.

I read it and it didn't add anything to my understanding in regard to the legal challenge I'm afraid. In fact it appeared to dismiss it as being irrelevant.

However, the decision was reached, it is welcome to see the elections in May reinstated.

I just feel that this has been another way for Reform to disrupt. Their aim is to destabilise the country. Gives them more of a chance to win elections.
I fear what will happen to this country if they are ever elected.

Personally I do feel it's appropriate to delay elections for a limited time when the whole situation is "all change" so soon.

I see only chaos resulting in many councils where people are bing elected for one year. "New to Politics" counsellors take a goodish amount of time to really understand how the council functions and especially the limitations in attempting to effect major change which could easily affect those most vulnerable by trying to enforce cut backs on social care and other council facilities in an attempt to reduce the rates:

We have seen Reform led councils try to do this and end up raising the rates: I don't think upheaving extremes are good for the humdrum but necessary provisions that take up a massive proportion of council activity

When there is only a year before all is upheaved again. As I've said above, my council is not affected by boundary changes and my hope and indeed expectation is that once Reform councillors hit reality time - the good ones will settle and work with, not against, looking after their people in their ward.

I suspect your understanding is pretty good already MaizieD. Obviously we don’t know exactly what the challenge said in detail or what legal advice the government acted on, and why it changed, but we do know what the law actually says, and that it was not broken, which often happens when something is open to interpretation. The only things that I can see that are different on this occasion to when elections were postponed previously is the interpretation of the circumstances when it should be used.

AGAA4

I just feel that this has been another way for Reform to disrupt. Their aim is to destabilise the country. Gives them more of a chance to win elections.
I fear what will happen to this country if they are ever elected.

Or as it has been said, Labour wanted to postpone the elections as they were scared of losing their council seats.

I fear for this country for the next 3 years with Labour in charge. Look at the damage they have managed in just 18 months.

sundowngirl Labour will lose council seats next year - the main pressures that lead to Reform being chosen are not going to be sorted
all you are doing is creating chaos in some areas, believe me.

I'm active enough in local politics to know what my councillors are currently doing and nothing is achieved except by long term careful planning due to budgetary limitations in times of incredibly high times of need.

Although I am in the Labour Party I appreciate the work Greens and Lib Dems have done locally by pulling together and hammering out realistic long term plans depth incredibly budgetary difficulties.

Yes, your relative or friend counting on support by SSD -care workers, all aspects of adult and children's care, how education functions locally - these all take people who know what they are doing and long term plans are likely to be affected if chaos ensues.

I am defintely not saying that all Reform Candidates intends chaos - many will be genuinely caring as well as those who have stood not knowing how things work but are "ideologues" with an agenda based on ignorance, as we have seen in some councils.

For example,

Worcestershire County Council: Reform UK-led Worcestershire County Council has discussed potential council tax increases of up to 10% following approval to seek exceptional financial support.
This decision led to the resignation of a local Reform councillor.

MaizieD

Rosie51

What 'game' would that be? Are you denying he broke the regulations, and have you never noticed that other people have their Covid transgressions raised when appropriate?

We don't know if the regulations were broken because there has been no judicial judgement given on it.

But Labour thought they would lose.

Had advice to that effect.

but we do know what the law actually says, and that it was not broken, which often happens when something is open to interpretation. The only things that I can see that are different on this occasion to when elections were postponed previously is the interpretation of the circumstances when it should be used.

Those are all the points some of us are discussing.

1. I doubt even you know all Laws surrounding this issue
so

2. We dont actually know for sure yet, if the Law broken.
Looks that way, but we will have to wait and see.

3. Intrepretation on the part now, means it can have been broken. Hence all the hoo haa.

4.Intrepretation previously, well yes, quite. See 3.

And surely, if a loophole has been found or whatever, a person can be found guilty or innocent when that has been discovered??

Wyllow3

sundowngirl Labour will lose council seats next year - the main pressures that lead to Reform being chosen are not going to be sorted
all you are doing is creating chaos in some areas, believe me.

I'm active enough in local politics to know what my councillors are currently doing and nothing is achieved except by long term careful planning due to budgetary limitations in times of incredibly high times of need.

Although I am in the Labour Party I appreciate the work Greens and Lib Dems have done locally by pulling together and hammering out realistic long term plans depth incredibly budgetary difficulties.

Yes, your relative or friend counting on support by SSD -care workers, all aspects of adult and children's care, how education functions locally - these all take people who know what they are doing and long term plans are likely to be affected if chaos ensues.

I am defintely not saying that all Reform Candidates intends chaos - many will be genuinely caring as well as those who have stood not knowing how things work but are "ideologues" with an agenda based on ignorance, as we have seen in some councils.

For example,

Worcestershire County Council: Reform UK-led Worcestershire County Council has discussed potential council tax increases of up to 10% following approval to seek exceptional financial support.
This decision led to the resignation of a local Reform councillor.

sundowngirl isn’t creating any chaos!

You’re going round and round fancythat. We cannot know what is not yet in the public arena. We do know what the law actually states.

AI Overview
That is a central debate in legal philosophy. While it is true that many, if not most, legal disputes hinge on the interpretation of the law rather than a simple denial of the facts, the assertion that a law has been "broken" is the conclusion that a court reaches after that interpretation process.

I can see now why Sir Kier did not wait for Thursday!

Starmer is afraid of losing Labour seats to Reform, which may or may not come to pass.Elections should still take place regardless, and now they will, which is the correct democratic outcome.