February 6, 2025 - 1:15pm
Never one to miss a political opportunity, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was quick to condemn Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner’s announcement that May’s local elections will be deferred until next year. Claiming he was “blooming angry”, Farage said there was “absolutely no justification” for delaying the democratic wishes of around 5.5 million people.
Eighteen local authority areas had applied to defer elections, citing a need to prepare for the merging of district and county councils, and for the establishment of new mayoralty positions like those established in Manchester, Birmingham and the Tees Valley. All located in South East England, the councils granted deferrals notably included Essex and Norfolk, counties where Reform won constituency seats in last year’s general election.
Rayner said it would be “an expensive and irresponsible waste of taxpayers’ money” to go ahead with elections for councils, only for them to be abolished shortly afterwards. “We’re not in the business of holding elections to bodies that won’t exist and where we don’t know what will replace them,” she told the House of Commons. On the contrary, Farage claimed the changes to local government would take up to three years to be completed and that deferring the elections would allow some councillors to ride the gravy train for three years longer than they otherwise would.
Riding high in the polls and sustained by that precious and fleeting political commodity —momentum — Farage is doing what he does best. He is massaging a fairly anodyne change to how councils are run into a narrative that suits him and his party. It’s a free story and one that, with a bit of imagination, can be given life by playfully projecting “DICTATORS CANCEL ELECTIONS” onto the Palace of Westminster as a publicity stunt, and mobilising 245,000 motivated supporters into signing a petition.
All over a little bit of local government reform. Regardless, Farage will get his story of the night when Reform does well in the local elections, even though his sights are set well beyond local government. Love him or loathe him, the Reform leader is an ambitious “vision” politician, not a technocratic “systems thinker” with a respect for institutions and process. Is he really that worried about whether a few hundred extra councillors end up making decisions over potholes and bin collections?
Think of Reform as the polar opposite of the Liberal Democrats, who live and breathe the minutiae and intricacies of local government — using it as a springboard for higher, Westminster-bound ambitions. But for Reform, for now, it is simply enough to criticise the established order, without fleshing out the policy details of alternatives.
The proof of Farage’s clever and purposeful cynicism over this story of deferred elections in a smattering of local councils can be found in his throaty support for President Donald Trump, whose new administration is hardly showing a great reverence for constitutional norms. Indeed, when asked about the President’s plans to turn Gaza into the “Riviera” of the Middle East, Farage quipped: “I love ambition.”
There is of course a big difference between deferring local elections by one year or by three years. The former is a minor change, the latter not so. But if constitutional changes are of great importance to the Reform UK leader, why is he supporting an actual election result denier? As ever, because there’s a “blooming” good story in it and the potential to convince more voters that Reform is holding power to account. Most people know that successful opposition politics is simply about shouting loud enough to be heard.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeBut…Labour have nobbled voters…there’s no way to parse it otherwise…
Rayner’s argument makes no sense. Why can’t the newly elected Local Authorities continue with their work? Or reverse it if that is what they are elected to do? What if the voters don’t want their Local Authorities to be merged? There are elections to allow the people to express what they want. That is the point of them.
Cancelling elections is what banana republics do.
This is one more sign of the abuse of power and moral bankruptcy of Starmer’s government.
It also makes clear whose side Unherd on. Yet again supporting Starmer.
It’s only your skewed interpretation that the article – and therefore Unherd – is “supporting Starmer”. Any reasonable analysis would see it as setting out what’s been said by Rayner and how Farage is reacting to it. There’s no indication whatsoever that the author supports either side – which is probably what narks you (in addition to anyone questioning your own motives). The article succeeds therefore in both its purpose and that of Unherd – to inform.
FWIW, I support the point Farage is making.
Little lost boy is back. Please make your own comments instead of tagging onto mine. GO AWAY.
No, and childish insults reflect more on you than me. I’m not “tagging” i’m telling you that your comprehension skills are woeful and whilst you make some valid points, continually trolling Unherd will receive pushback. If you don’t like it, you know what to do…
You must have something better to do than following me around Unherd.
Your absurdly obsessive comments require rebuttal. That is precisely the purpose of a comments section. If you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.
“It’s only your skewed interpretation that the article – and therefore Unherd – is “supporting Starmer”
Quit the gaslighting, we can read and figure out exactly what this author – and you – are trying to do
Examples of “information” in this piece:
1. Farage is doing what he does best. He is massaging a fairly anodyne change to how councils are run into a narrative that suits him
2. All over a little bit of local government reform.
3. throaty support for President Donald Trump, whose new administration is hardly showing a great reverence for constitutional norms.
4. proof of Farage’s clever and purposeful cynicism over this story
5.why is he supporting an actual election result denier?
Not going to waste time over explaining the above lines – the poisonous insinuations against Farage / Trump on one hand, and the attempts to cover up for the clear fascist, anti-democratic tendencies of Starmer.
Just stop trying to pretend otherwise and don’t take us for fools.
Clear?
I dinnae think Unheard is supporting any party!
Well they never have anything good to say about Farage and Reform. They generally ignore the Conservatives. And they protect Starmer from any criticism.
Criticise Farage and protect Starmer is s clear sign of political bias.
Reform obviously have a charismatic leader who boils the piss of Liberals, very few solid policies, a riddle of contradictions between statist nationalists and libertarians and are able to continuously rabble rouse and cause government and main opposition a lot of discomfort with a USP on migration flows which has set the agenda for nigh on 2 decades. They aren’t responsible for anything and wouldn’t be much good if they were. The GazanGreens are similar in that respect.
As elected representatives at local and national level I think they are a bunch of rank amateurs who will found out over time. Even with the low bar set by the 2 Old Dinosaurs.
Therefore this is Win-Win.
Public face – Labour and Tories are colluding to deny democracy and democratic representation. They despise you all.
Privately- buys us some more time in not having to come up with actual policies for day to day management which would be subject to more scrutiny.
The professional politicians have overseen the decline and destruction of Britain for decades. Maybe it’s time to let the amateurs have a run at it.
Farage achieved a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, against the entire political class and won a Leave vote…and he’s an amateur?
Fine…let’s have a full team of them!
Er did you actually read my first 2 lines.
… have a charismatic leader who boils the piss of Liberals…
He certainly secured the fact there would be an EU referendum. Many others played a huge part in the Leave Vote winning. I’d credit George Osborne and Tony Blair as 2 incredible contributors. To the Leave Vote column.
They (the party) are also currently a riddle of contradictions. E.g. ‘Small state’ but keep handouts for wealthy pensioners?
All opposition parties can posture and amateurs in the sense they never had to run anything.
No I didn’t. I have now but I don’t understand what “boils the piss” actually means.
With regard to contributors to the Leave vote I think Obama played a rather large part. Certainly he reinforced my own intention to vote Leave. Nothing works better than a threat to provoke the response “well you can sod off too”…
No doubt Reform is a “broad church” but so are all political parties…or were. It’s because the main parties became the “uni-party” (vote for any of them, get the same thing…) that Reform is popular.
Boiling in their own piss. And there’s plenty of it.
Nicely put, RR RR. Your negative votes suggest you have got under the skin of the Farage-fanciers here! Reform is likely to do well in Wales next year. Then we’ll see what Reform is made of. I happen to agree with you: they will fall flat on their faces, when they reveal themselves to be as useless as anyone else.
Cancelling elections – the mark of a dictatorship.
“We’re not in the business of holding elections to bodies that won’t exist and where we don’t know what will replace them,”
In other words, she hasn’t got a clue what she’s doing. No surprise there then. They’re just going to tear something down without any clear plan.
It is – or at least should be – astonishing that a government minister can make such a statement.
The Blob is pulling her strings. Their useful idiot
“They’re just going to tear something down without any clear plan.”
So, just like their energy policy and net zero cobblers, then.
This is completely wrong !
“Love him or loathe him, the Reform leader is an ambitious “vision” politician, not a technocratic “systems thinker” with a respect for institutions and process.”
Why ? Because our self-anointed technocrats are not technically literate at all, have no idea what a system actually is, nor what systems thinking is.
I feel we need a new word for “technocrat” which captures the technical ignorance and incompetence of these people – I suspect “technocretins” won’t get past the censor here … and I’d prefer something more elegant.
It did get past them! And a great moniker it is too. 🙂
Agree with you – and l’m stealing ‘technocretins’ for use elsewhere
Technocrets?
I’ve never voted for Reform or UKIP or any other party Farage has been involved with but the only thing this article has done is increase the likelihood of me doing so.
It doesn’t matter that Farage is using this issue for his own ends. Expecting any politician to do any different is like expecting a dog with fleas not to scratch.
Cancelling these elections is flagrantly undemocratic. Whoever is pointing this out and whatever their motivations, they are correct.
‘Is he really that worried about whether a few hundred extra councillors end up making decisions over potholes and bin collections?’
So that’s what is so important that local government authorities have to be reorganised!
‘Eighteen local authorities in England have asked for permission to delay their elections in May to next year in order to implement major reorganisations.’
These potholes and bins can only be tackled with major reorganisations, which means we have to stop people voting until we’ve reorganised the bin collections.
Late to the fray – but you are hopelessly wrong about the duties of County and District councils. Who or what do you think takes 95% of the decisions on all planning and development applications? On highways? Social care? Public health? Doh.
What NF is exploiting is the public’s distrust of mainstream politicians, which is entirely justified!
We know it’s all about gerrymandering council borders to maximise the labour vote. If Parish councils tended to be Labour, they’d be doing that instead.
“election denier”. Very easy to argue that, even if one ignores reports of vote fraud, Trump was denied the win by the media’s refusal to allow various truths to appear.
This is not an anodyne change. It’s the biggest change to local government since Heath’s changes in 1970, which are still remembered with distaste. So these changes had better be necessary and beneficial.
In my borough, there is a lot of unhappiness at the prospect of being lumped in with our nearby city in a large unitary authority in which our voice will be lost.
We’re also campaigning for our county councillors to do the decent thing and resign, triggering a by-election.
It all seems to be very much up in the air, as even Ang admits so surely they should carry on with elections until the alternative systems have been agreed upon? My guess would be that they will end up being 5 years instead of 2 or 3 before they get their act together.
Do you guys not have gerrymandering in the UK. Because this is 100% just gerrymandering in order to split the reform vote and keep them out of power. This is straight up voter suppression of the highest order, and something anyone with half a brain is right to be outraged about.
Really poor argument, that also omits,consideration of the counvil ‘reforms’s
Birmingham (bankrupt) Council votes itself a generous pay rise. Not a single member of Kensington & Chelsea Council has been prosecuted for the Grenfell Inferno of 2017.
How much longer are we going to put up with those worthless parasitical muppets?
THEY TOIL NOT, NEITHER DO THEY SPIN!”
The phrase “election result denier” can only be employed unironically by fools and knaves.
Election results around the world are disputed all the time, and with good reason. Many groups, including some in the US, have no qualms about skewing the results.
Add in the absurdity of voting machines and postal ballots, and it’s certain that there was fraud in the 2020 US election. The only question is whether it was enough to swing the result.
We must also question why UnHerd would publish an article that includes this absurd phrase.
“Rayner said it would be “an expensive and irresponsible waste of taxpayers’ money” to go ahead with elections for councils, only for them to be abolished shortly afterwards. “We’re not in the business of holding elections to bodies that won’t exist and where we don’t know what will replace them,””
How very convenient to trot out this excuse! Labour are as full of bullshit as the Conservatives!
‘Why is he supporting an election result denier?’ … because that election was a stitch up. Remember that the courts didn’t say that there was no fraud they said that there wasn’t enough evidence that the fraud would have changed the result.
There was ballot fraud (always in the Dems favour) through out that election but the lose security of the American voting system makes it very difficult to add up.
Then you have the Deep state interference over the Hunter Biden laptop story which if it had been allowed to run could easily have swung it.
So he’s supporting DT because it’s highly likely that DT was right.
The author needs to look at WHY the government and councils want to merge. Many are hugely indebted and effectively bankrupt. My borough council will take on huge debts by merging. THATs the driver. My council will be paying off neighbours debts rather than improving our locale.