The government has postponed the round of local council elections from 2024 to 2026 as part of a broader devolution reform, drawing mixed reactions from Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat figures who see the delay as politically charged and potentially detrimental to democratic participation.

Officials reject claims of dictatorship, arguing the pause enables a more solid devolution framework and a pragmatic, phased approach to implementing unitary authorities before mayors take office.

The administration contends that delaying elections ensures devolution is built on proper foundations, with unitary authorities established prior to mayoral powers being activated.

The Devolution Priority Programme aims to share nearly 200 million pounds annually across six areas for local priorities over 30 years, with work continuing behind the scenes to lay groundwork.

In total, almost 6 billion pounds are earmarked for the Devolution Priority Programme over 30 years, with about 200 million per year distributed to participating areas to be used by mayors for local economic growth, transport, housing, and skills.

Supporters emphasise that genuine devolution rests on strong foundations and partnership-based structures to foster long-term autonomy and growth.

Officials and local supporters stress the need for thorough preparation and consultation to ensure new devolution arrangements operate smoothly from day one.

For areas not on the DPP, the plan starts with foundation strategic authorities before advancing to mayoral status to build local capacity and collaboration.

Councils across Greater Essex and other authorities remain committed to devolution, viewing it as a path to growth and investment, while noting that the postponement does not affect other local elections.

Essex County Council and regional authorities have outlined interim arrangements and readiness to proceed, including appointing an interim chief executive for the Greater Essex combined authority.

The new mayoralties were created under February devolution reforms intended to grant enhanced powers and accelerate regional growth.

Essex councils issued statements updating the devolution timeline and signaling coordinated regional communications about the changes.

Reaction from political and local government figures calls for greater transparency and assurances on the devolution process and its regional implications for Essex, Sussex, Hampshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Greater Essex.

In the near term, the region will receive a modest investment to set up the new mayoral authorities, with larger devolution funding deferred until elections take place.

The broader debate centers on mega-councils and whether rapid devolution helps or hinders local decision-making.

Critics from the Green party highlight communication shortcomings and potential impacts on staff, campaigning, and devolved powers.

County Councils Network and other regional leaders describe the delay as disappointing and seek clear assurances on the devolution process and funding to move combined authorities forward.

They warn the postponement creates uncertainty for timelines, investment, and capacity-building, even amid assurances of funding to support the transition.

The delay is seen as potentially eroding confidence in future devolution plans, despite promises of ongoing investment and capacity funding.

Officials have not offered a formal explanation for why six new areas were postponed from joining the Devolution Priority Programme.

The postponement raises concerns about stalled regional projects and a potential impact on a broader devolution package worth about a billion pounds, including rail and airport improvements.

Ministers maintain they have not apologized, stressing statutory processes and consultations are in place to ensure mayors have the necessary structures on day one.

Some areas have already completed unitary arrangements or are progressing through devolution while others await elections.

Local leader Daniel Cowan signaled readiness to deliver elections and supported a phased devolution and reorganisation approach.

Investment allocations by area under the program include figures such as Greater Essex and other regions, guiding how funds will be distributed to support local authorities.

The overall response reveals a regional and political split over timing, governance, and the balance between timely elections and structural reform.

Local authorities express disappointment over costs already incurred and seek guidance on reimbursing expenses tied to the transition.

The postponement comes within a broader extension of the Devolution Priority Programme aimed at accelerating devolution through new mayoral powers.

Reform UK figures frame the delay as a chance to reorient representation and governance for residents across Norfolk and Suffolk.

Local officials highlight practical disruptions to campaigns and staff, underscoring calls from Green and Lib Dem voices for timely elections and democratic accountability.

An urgent parliamentary question drew attention to the delay, with district councils warning it could disrupt decision-making and fuel debates about mega-councils.

Labour figures call for clarity on polling in unitarised areas and advocate for elections in 2026 where feasible, while recognizing on-the-ground challenges.

Officials warn the postponement risks reduced investment, legitimacy of local governance, and funding promised for economic development in Norfolk and Suffolk.

The government argues more time is needed to reorganise local government while promising continued progress on housing, town centers, and business support.

Labour’s Steve Reed framed the postponement as part of the Devolution Priority Programme, stressing the need for solid foundations for devolution benefits.

Before mayoral terms begin, areas will receive staged investment to start local projects, with some regions receiving half funding in a future year and others receiving smaller portions in subsequent years.

Critics warn the postponement could undermine open decision-making and withhold roughly 38 million pounds annually intended for regional growth.

The Devolution Minister argues the local reorganisation should be completed before elections, aligning with broader regional restructuring plans.

Officials emphasize the pause is meant to ensure robust unitary councils and a solid devolution framework.

Political groups express concern about democratic legitimacy and want more transparency around funding and assurances as devolution progresses.

Analysts view the delay as giving the government room to manage potential backlash, while officials insist the aim is careful, effective delivery of devolution.