Farage claims mayoral election delay is “electoral fraud“
Claim: Nigel Farage says the government is “basically committing electoral fraud” by postponing four new mayoral elections in England until 2028.
Verdict: ⚠️ Misleading / Legally inaccurate
Last updated: 5 December 2025.
The government’s decision to postpone the first elections for four new combined county authority mayors has prompted political and media controversy. The combined authorities Greater Essex, Norfolk & Suffolk, Sussex & Brighton, and Hampshire & the Solent, were originally due to elect mayors in May 2026. Ministers now say the initial elections will instead take place in 2028. The official explanation is that additional time is needed to complete local government reorganisation, finalise agreements with councils, and ensure the new authorities are properly constituted before voters choose their leaders.
This reversal has not gone unnoticed. Local leaders, some former Conservative ministers, and even Labour figures involved in previous devolution negotiations have criticised the delay as a breach of commitments made to residents. Many argue that the changes undermine trust in the devolution process, particularly where councils had already begun preparing for the new governance structures and selecting prospective candidates. The political backlash has been strongest from opposition parties, but criticism is not limited to them.
Nigel Farage has taken a more dramatic line. Speaking in interviews and campaign clips, he argued that the government is “basically committing electoral fraud on the electorate” by denying residents an election they were expecting. He claims the timing of the delay is politically motivated and that Reform UK “would have won all four mayors” if the contests had gone ahead in 2026. These accusations sit at the centre of Reform UK’s push to frame the government’s decision as an attack on democratic choice.
However, the term “electoral fraud” has a specific and serious legal meaning in the UK. Under the Representation of the People Act and related legislation, electoral fraud refers to criminal acts such as personation (voting under someone else’s identity), bribery, undue influence, false registration, falsifying nomination papers, or tampering with postal ballots. These are offences concerned with interference in the conduct, fairness, or integrity of an election that is actually taking place. Changing the date of an election through legislation or statutory powers is not classified as electoral fraud.
Successive UK governments of all political colours have altered election schedules, changed mayoral or local authority structures, postponed contests, and reorganised boundaries. Some decisions have been controversial and politically charged, but they have not met the legal threshold for fraud. Parliament retains broad authority to legislate on matters of timing, scope, and governance. While these decisions can certainly be debated and criticised, the existence of controversy does not equate to criminal wrongdoing.
This does not mean the government’s decision is beyond reproach. Residents were repeatedly told they would vote in 2026, and the sudden change has practical consequences for local planning, budgets, staffing, and devolved powers. Critics say the new timeline appears convenient for the governing party and diminishes local autonomy. The sense that communities have had promised elections taken away feeds a legitimate public frustration, especially when many hoped for stronger local decision-making.
Nevertheless, the leap from “politically questionable” to “electoral fraud” stretches the claim beyond what evidence supports. No ballots have been altered, no votes suppressed, and no criminal interference with an active electoral process has been alleged by authorities. The controversy concerns constitutional timing rather than illegal electoral manipulation. Regulators have not opened investigations, and legal experts have not described the decision as fraud.
The situation reflects a broader tension in British politics between rhetorical escalation and legal reality. Strong language captures attention but can obscure important distinctions. There is a valid argument that postponing the elections damages trust and sets a worrying precedent for democratic commitments. It may also undermine confidence in devolution agreements. But presenting the decision as “electoral fraud” risks confusing voters about how electoral law works and what genuinely constitutes criminal wrongdoing.
In summary, while many may feel frustrated that the promised 2026 elections will not go ahead, the government’s decision does not meet the legal definition of electoral fraud. The claim relies on rhetorical exaggeration rather than factual accuracy.
Sources:
The Guardian – Delay to four mayoral elections
ITV News – Sussex mayoral election delay
Electoral Commission – Electoral offences guidance
Crown Prosecution Service – Election offences