Cllr Paul Marshall is the Leader of West Sussex County Council. Cllr Keith Glazier OBE is the Leader of East Sussex County Council.
For Conservatives, elections are not a procedural inconvenience; they are the foundation of democratic legitimacy. That is precisely why it is important to be clear about what is — and is not — happening in East and West Sussex.
Neither East Sussex County Council nor West Sussex County Council has decided to defer elections. That decision rests with the Government alone. What both councils have done — responsibly and transparently — is set out why, in the context of major Government-led local government reorganisation, we do not have the capacity to run county council elections and induct a new set of members at the same time without risking delivery, value for money, and democratic clarity.
This distinction matters.
The Government is undertaking significant reform of local government structures, including the creation of new unitary authorities and new governance arrangements. In addition, East Sussex, West Sussex and Brighton & Hove are part of the Government’s devolution priority programme, working together to establish a new strategic authority across Sussex. This programme is intended to devolve powers and funding, strengthen strategic leadership, and enable more joined-up decisions on transport, skills, housing and economic growth.
Taken together, local government reorganisation and devolution represent the most substantial change to governance in Sussex for a generation. Delivering both successfully requires sustained political leadership, officer capacity, and organisational focus.
In both East and West Sussex, we concluded that attempting to deliver this scale of reform while simultaneously running full county-wide elections would materially undermine both processes. That assessment was formally communicated to the Government in our Local Government Reorganisation submissions on 26 September 2025, and that position still stands.
We were clear then — as we are now — that running elections during this period would compromise our ability to deliver reorganisation and devolution effectively and safely. It would place unacceptable strain on limited capacity, distract from critical decisions, and risk slowing progress at precisely the moment Ministers have said pace and certainty are essential.
This is not theoretical. Alongside reorganisation and devolution, both councils continue to deliver complex programmes: adult social care, children’s services, highways investment, public health and economic growth. These are services residents depend on every day. Maintaining momentum on these priorities while redesigning governance structures and establishing a new strategic authority already stretches capacity; layering county-wide elections on top would inevitably slow delivery and increase risk.
That is not an argument against elections. It is an argument for being honest about what can realistically be delivered at the same time.
Elections require significant officer time, senior leadership focus, member availability, and financial resource. In the months leading up to polling day and in the months that follow, councils inevitably enter periods of reduced decision-making capacity. That is a normal and accepted feature of democratic life. It becomes a serious risk, however, when overlaid on complex structural reform and the establishment of new strategic governance arrangements.
Councillors elected during this period would also face an impossible task. They would be elected to authorities approaching the end of their lives, with limited scope to shape outcomes before the next election cycle begins. That does not strengthen democratic accountability; it risks hollowing it out.
There is also a duty to be frank with residents. Asking people to vote for councils that will shortly be replaced — while simultaneously asking the same organisations to redesign themselves from the ground up — risks confusion, disengagement and election fatigue. None of that serves the long-term health of local democracy.
From a Conservative standpoint, there is a further consideration: value for money. County council elections cost millions of pounds. At a time of intense financial pressure across local government, it is right to question whether running elections under these circumstances would represent responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money — particularly when elections to the successor authorities will follow shortly thereafter.
Importantly, none of this creates a democratic vacuum. Elections will take place to the new authorities — both the unitaries and the strategic authority — that will carry responsibility into the future. Those elections will be clearer, more meaningful, and more honest about where power lies and who is accountable.
Conservatives believe in strong local leadership, efficient government, and respect for the taxpayer. We also believe in delivery. That means sequencing reform properly, being realistic about capacity, and avoiding decisions that look principled on paper but fail in practice.
Finally, to those who suggest that raising these concerns amounts to democratic backsliding, we would offer this response: defending democracy means ensuring elections are credible, consequential and properly supported. It does not mean pretending institutions can do everything at once without cost or consequence.
East Sussex and West Sussex have been clear with Government about the risks of running elections alongside major reorganisation and devolution. The decision on whether to defer elections now sits with Ministers. Our responsibility has been to set out the facts, the capacity constraints and the consequences — and to do so in good faith, in the interests of residents and local democracy alike.