Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to scrap local elections is an abuse of power which undermines the foundations of British democracy, the High Court is expected to hear.
Reform UK is bringing a legal challenge against the Government’s move to postpone 30 local elections originally scheduled for May 7.
Lawyers representing the party will contend Labour’s actions were politically motivated and have stripped 4.6 million citizens of their voting rights.
Court papers describe the postponement of polls during peacetime as fundamentally irrational.
The documents obtained by The Telegraph assert the decision contradicts the nation’s core principles of democratic and individual rights.
Party leader Nigel Farage is anticipated to attend both days of the hearing, which takes place next Thursday and Friday.
In documents submitted to the court, Reform UK’s legal team says the reason for the cancellation is “no reason, other than politics” rather than legitimate governance concerns.
Reform’s lawyers are expected to say: “In an irrational world, of which examples might be world wars and coronavirus, there may be limited rationality to postpone elections, but in peacetime, free of world crisis, it is patently irrational.
Reform UK is bringing a legal challenge against the Government’s move to postpone 30 local elections originally scheduled for May 7
|
FLICK/HOUSE OF COMMONS
“It stands in contradiction to the basis of the country, namely democratic rights and the basis of individual rights within the country.”
They will add: “There is no reason, other than politics, why reorganisation could not be planned without sacrificing elections; on the contrary, postponement or cancellation of elections in the circumstances of local government reorganisation is to remove accountability when it is most needed.”
Writing in The Telegraph on Saturday, Mr Farage accused the Prime Minister of “running scared” from voters.
He claimed people are being prevented from sending a message to Westminster, saying “that voice is being silenced”.
The Reform leader described the cancellation as the “stuff of banana republics” before arguing local elections form the “very heartbeat of grassroots democracy” rather than being “some minor administrative inconvenience”.
Mr Farage warned the Government against assuming constitutional matters would not generate public anger comparable to tax increases or immigration issues.
He said the administration is underestimating the British public’s inherent sense of fairness.
Reform’s challenge will assert Mr Reed has operated ‘entirely outside the framework’ of the legislation’s intended scope
|
FLICKR/HOUSE OF COMMONS
He warned “in cancelling local elections, they are setting a chilling precedent for the future of our democracy which will not go unnoticed”.
The Government’s authority to cancel the elections derives from section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000, an obscure provision that grants Steve Reed, the Local Government Secretary, powers to alter the timing of local authority polls.
Reform UK’s legal team will contend that this clause was originally designed to adjust election cycles whilst promoting local accountability, not to eliminate them altogether.
They assert Mr Reed has operated “entirely outside the framework” of the legislation’s intended scope.
The challenge takes particular issue with justifications based on council capacity during local government reorganisation.
Lawyers argue this reasoning creates a perverse situation where well-managed councils proceed with elections whilst poorly-run authorities—where accountability is arguably most crucial—can deny citizens their vote by citing “capacity concerns”.
The court will be asked to examine the fundamental question: “Where is the rationality in a democracy to deny elections?”
Vijay Rangarajan, chief executive of the Electoral Commission, has reinforced his organisation’s view that capacity constraints do not provide adequate justification for delaying polls.
Speaking to The Telegraph on Friday, he emphasised that authorities must conduct elections according to statutory timetables, adding: “We would hope that no Government would go and say that somehow, elections are fungible with other parts of council money.”
The Electoral Commission previously identified a significant conflict of interest when councils determine how long before they face voter scrutiny.
Multiple councillors are reportedly waiting for the judicial review outcome before deciding whether to resign in protest.
Some residents have refused council tax payments, contending there should be no taxation without the opportunity to choose representatives.