The current coronavirus
pandemic is forcing difficult decisions on governments across the world and
drastic changes to life in a variety of spheres. Just one of these has been the
decision taken by the UK government to delay upcoming local elections - due to
be held in May for 118 English local councils, eight directly-elected mayors
and 40 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales – until May
2021.
The decision to suspend has
been broadly welcomed - pressure had been building on the government from
Labour and other opposition parties, and the decision followed formal guidance
from the Electoral Commission to postpone. However, it is notable that the
Commission’s advice had been to delay only to Autumn 2020 and it is important
to query the rationale behind this decision and its implications for local
government.
The Commission’s
letter to the government dwelled on the ability of councils to run
polling stations while also managing other core services in a time of
emergency, and do so in a climate where public gatherings of any kind are being
discouraged. Administrative disfunction and public concern about the health
risks could also have impacted turnout, already notoriously low in British
local elections (France has seen a reported
drop in turnout after pressing ahead with March local elections). Some
US states are pushing back their current presidential primaries to May or June,
with Ohio’s
governor commenting “in-person voting does not conform and cannot
conform with [US Centre for Disease Control] guidelines” on social distancing.
Our own government’s specific
decision to delay until 2021 may be motivated by concerns about a
potential “second
wave” later in 2020, a feature of some historical outbreaks that is
thought to be heavily influencing other aspects of the government’s policy
response to coronavirus. It may also be an attempt to reduce the complexity and
cost of holding two rounds of elections less than a year apart – though it is
hard to estimate, the LSE-based Democratic
Audit suggested a round of local elections carries an average cost to
the public purse of at least £45m, but combining elections tends to reduce the
price tag for councils (already hard-hit
by a decade of austerity).
However, Democratic
Audit’s Dr
Alistair Clark has also warned that “holding different rounds of
elections at the same time leads to lower performance”. Many voters will be
expected to express informed preferences on more candidates and offices, voting
for both district and county councillors at the same time as their PCC for
example, which impacts upon local democracy. Many PCCs and councillors will
have been planning to retire in May and by-elections may now be required in
seats with present vacancies, including two county PCC offices (a ‘six-month
rule’ in the law had been relieving the need for these by-elections as
scheduled elections were upcoming, Andrew
Teale of Britain Elects noted). The decision has also created huge
uncertainty in Northamptonshire and
Buckinghamshire, due to hold inaugural elections after reorganising with
unitary authorities. And while nationally the delay might carry electoral
incentives for either one of the main parties – Labour’s internal
research had suggested the party faced a difficult night outside
of Sadiq Khan’s London, while the Conservatives may have feared a backlash
over Boris Johnson’s handling of the coronavirus crisis – it is not in the
interests of the public for politicians to avoid accountability.
It is worth considering
whether postal or even Estonian-style electronic voting could be a remedy for
countries worried about the health risks of in-person elections. Between 2000
and 2004, dozens of local authorities piloted
all-postal voting, leading to reported increases in turnout. In the US
state of Oregon, all ballots have been cast by post since 1998. However, this
would be a major administrative shift for stretched councils to undertake in
crisis conditions. And we must also remember that in a truly strong and free
society, voting itself is not the only democratic act – the Electoral
Commission’s recommendation to delay stressed that constraints on campaigning
meant voters would not have the chance to make informed decisions, something
that would hold regardless of how voting is organised.
These are not easy decisions
for societies to make, and the government’s decision to accept some kind of
delay to the 2020 local elections was prudent. But it is important for the
health of municipal democracy that the government clarify their thinking behind
the length of the delay, and fully support frontline councils doing the best
they can to battle coronavirus with strained capacity and potentially unclear
local democratic mandates.
Originally
published on the Young Fabians website on March 20th
2020, on behalf of the Young Fabians Devolution and Local Government Network
Comments
Post a Comment