Democratic accountability is not an inconvenience to be managed but a responsibility to be honoured. That belief has shaped my approach throughout the national discussions on local government reorganisation and the Government’s suggestion that councils might request a postponement of the May 2026 local elections.

This week, I can say with real satisfaction that the Government has confirmed elections will go ahead across Hampshire as planned — even while they are being postponed in other, mostly Labour-run parts of the country. This is the right outcome for our residents, and one I am delighted to welcome.

Just before Christmas, ministers consulted 63 local authorities, including Hampshire, on whether the 2026 elections should be deferred on the grounds that councils facing potential structural reform might struggle to manage both reorganisation and election administration.

From the moment this proposal surfaced, my position was unambiguous: Hampshire should not ask for a delay. I set out three reasons for that stance, and they remain as important today as they were then.

First, democratic legitimacy cannot be paused. Elections are how residents choose their representatives. Delaying them for administrative convenience risks undermining trust. Hampshire residents deserve the opportunity to vote at the time promised, not at a moment that better suits a bureaucratic timetable.

Second, Hampshire has already experienced one postponement. The 2025 elections were delayed to allow the Government’s fast-track devolution process to proceed. That process is now largely complete, securing a £1.4 billion investment pot for Hampshire and the Solent, significant additional skills funding, and new powers for the future mayor — whose own election has now been pushed to 2028. Asking residents to accept yet another delay would have been unreasonable.

Third, residents need stability, not further uncertainty. Reorganisation already creates understandable concern among residents and staff. Delaying elections would only have added to that uncertainty. Holding them on time provides clarity and continuity.

Ministers argue that postponement might free up capacity for structural reform. It is obvious that dropping one task creates more capacity for another, but democracy cannot be treated as optional. If capacity is genuinely the issue, then it is reorganisation — not elections — that should be delayed.

Earlier this month, at an extraordinary council meeting, colleagues from all parties overwhelmingly supported the position that Hampshire should not request a postponement. The Government’s decision now vindicates that stance.

Reorganisation, if it happens, will take years. Elections are not an obstacle to reform; they are essential to ensuring any new structure has democratic legitimacy.

Whatever the Government decides elsewhere in the country, Hampshire’s position has been principled and consistent — and I am pleased that ministers have recognised that our elections should proceed on time.

I love serving as leader of Hampshire County Council and as a county councillor. But residents must always have the right to choose who represents them — even if they choose someone else. Democracy is rarely convenient, but its inconvenience is precisely its strength. It ensures power rests with the people.

Especially in times of uncertainty, protecting the democratic process is non-negotiable. It is the foundation of trust, legitimacy and accountability, and it must be respected.