Counting the cost of local elections

Local councils are probably the part of government most of us interact with most of the time. They collect our bins, fill in potholes, approve or block planning applications, provide social care and SEND services and a whole lot more. They often don’t do these things very well but that’s certainly what they’re meant to be doing. And we all get the chance to decide who’s best to do the job when local elections come around. For some of us though, we visit the polls quite a lot more frequently than others. While most councils hold all-out elections once every four years, 91 elect by thirds and 7 elect by halves - leaving taxpayers to pick up the bill.

Our first research paper of 2026 has revealed that local councils electing by thirds of halves could have saved local taxpayers a whopping £25 million if they’d used all-out elections between 2021 and 2024. For district councils electing by thirds, the average cost per election cycle was £455,221. In comparison, district councils electing in whole elections averaged £201,566. For metropolitan districts the difference was even starker, with those electing by thirds costing £1,170,951 on average while those running all out elections came in at just £285,842.

While more frequent voting opportunities certainly gives people more chances of expressing their views on how a council is performing and can allow for continuity, a cynic might say it helps parties cling on to control when they’re unpopular. Whole elections by contrast mean the performance of councillors can be assessed over a full term and unpopular councils can swiftly be given the boot.

In comments carried by numerous local papers, Jonathan Eida, the author of the report, explained: “At a time when councils are stretched and cutting vital services, it’s extraordinary that millions of pounds are still being spent on unnecessarily frequent local elections. Whole council elections arguably offer clearer accountability, reduce voter fatigue and, crucially, save taxpayers a substantial amount of money. Councils need to seriously ask whether the marginal benefits of elections by thirds are worth the very real financial cost being imposed on residents.”

Changing local election frequency is no silver bullet for the problems in local government and no guarantee they’ll be cheaper. Thrice-bankrupt Croydon, which has all-out elections, somehow managed to spend £1,282,044 in 2022 on a single election with an average cost per councillor elected of £18,315. But with council tax consistently going up, there are much better ways to spend £25 million. Have a read of Jonathan’s research here.

Make or break time for the SDP

For the first episode of a nation of taxpayers, Duncan Barkes and William Yarwood sit down with William Clouston, leader of the Social Democratic Party.

William talks about the origins and history of the party and outlines some of their current policies. He also says the next general election will be "make or break" for the SDP. Listen to the latest episode of a nation of taxpayers now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube.

Whose cid-er this bitter government on?

Rachel Reeves has used both of her budgets to absolutely batter hospitality. With rising employment costs from increases to the national minimum wage and her national insurance hike, November’s outing saw business rates set to become the final nail in the coffin of the sacred local. After months of mounting pressure, and having Labour MPs barred from more than 1,000 pubs across the country, Thursday saw a rushed briefing of support being on the way but no actual detail.

The likelihood is that whatever ministers announce, it’ll barely make a dent in the problem. Business rates are simply the latest assault on the industry as more than a pub a day closed last year and there’s no suggestion of help for restaurants or other high street businesses either. John O’Connell was spot on when he told reporters: “This is a pitiful sticking plaster from a government that claims to support pubs and hospitality while strangling the sector with punishing taxes and costs… If the government is serious about saving pubs, it must reverse the business rates grab and scrap the employers’ national insurance hike in full, instead of drip-feeding half-measures while the sector bleeds out.”

On the wrong track

Saturday was the 163rd anniversary of the opening of the London Underground and to mark the occasion the TPA eggheads crunched the numbers to see where all those rail fares and government subsidies are going.

The number of TFL staff receiving over £100,000 in total remuneration has rocketed by 189 per cent since 2022-23, from 766 to 2,217 in 2024-25. Andy Lord, commissioner of Transport for London, topped the table romping home with an eye-watering £639,164!

Anne Strickland used an op-ed for LBC to call out these outrageous pay packets: “Transport for London is quietly presiding over one of the biggest pay booms in the public sector… Londoners deserve a transport authority focused on running trains, not rewarding executives. Until TfL gets its costs under control, especially at the top, fare rises and bailouts will keep coming, and passengers will keep paying for a system that too often feels like it’s run for insiders, not the public.” Have a read of Anne’s piece in full here.

In other state-run-railway-extravagance-news, ministers have managed to splash more than £30,000 on focus groups and a new logo for their nationalised railway service, Great British Rail. Oh, and we’re also getting a new app apparently at some point but no one seems to know how much that’ll cost (or if it’ll even work…).

Unsurprisingly, John was having none of it and gave the spending both barrels when he spoke to Sky News: “This is just Whitehall playing with logos while passengers pay more for nationalised trains that have no guarantee of providing better services. Spending £32,000 on branding and focus groups without any idea of the final cost of repainting trains or building the app shows how flippantly taxpayers' money is being treated.” Passengers may face delays but the gravy train keeps rolling…

Regulation, Private Markets and the UK’s Growth Challenge

Jonathan’s ongoing series (it’s not really a series but he’s certainly fond of writing about it) looking at financial regulations continued this week in his latest blog. With ministers scrambling around for ideas to kick start growth, their rhetoric suggests they’re keen to cut financial regulation but as Jonathan writes, it might not be that easy.

Jonathan hits the nail on the head when he says: “The problem is that meaningful control over the regulatory burden faced by financial institutions has been delegated to a sprawling network of regulators that operate largely beyond direct government control. This leaves ministers with little more than rhetoric, rather than real levers to pull… if the government is serious about growth, it must be willing not only to challenge regulators’ risk aversion but also, over the medium to long term, to curb their powers and reclaim control of the UK’s growth levers.” Check out Jonathan’s latest blog here.

Sorry not sorry

Longtime readers will recall our past work exposing Stonewall’s reliance on funding from taxpayers with government departments and agencies supplying grants and signing up to its diversity champions scheme..

Following concerted campaigning, we’re pleased to report that Stonewall’s income from government sources dropped from £618,757 in 2023-24 to £454,645 in 2024-25. There’s still some way to go but we can take pride in the progress.