Letter: Electoral Commission Guidance Needs To Be Clear

Published on: 28 May, 2026
Updated on: 28 May, 2026

From Adam Aaronson

In response to: Questions Raised About Successful West Surrey Candidate’s Eligibility

The link in the article shows that the Electoral Commission guidance was last updated in 2023, which was before elections for the new authorities were established.

It could be that when the new authorities were established, the Electoral Commission reviewed the position and decided that the guidance did not need to be updated.

Equally it could be that following the questions raised above, the guidance may need to be updated.

For now, the guidance clearly states that, “You are disqualified from standing as a candidate at elections to a particular local authority if you are a paid officer or employee of that local authority.”

At the time of the election no prospective candidate could have been employed by the authority they were standing for, since the authority was not yet in existence and presumably had no employees. So no candidate could be disqualified under this rule.

Guidance is intended to be clear and easy to understand so that the cost of taking legal advice can be avoided.

Whether a candidate has or hasn’t taken legal advice is rather irrelevant. More relevant would be to question the Electoral Commission as to why it did not update the guidance when the new authorities were mooted.

I have no political affiliation with any of the parties mentioned above.

This just seems an issue of common sense to me, but if my interpretation is incorrect, perhaps an electoral lawyer could put me right.

Responses to Letter: Electoral Commission Guidance Needs To Be Clear

Adam Aaronson Reply

May 28, 2026 at 1:30 pm

I note that, [former Conservative MP] Angela Richardson, who is far more qualified than me to comment on such matters, has suggested that a petition is required in Guildford East.

In my view such a petition would be bound to fail and would therefore serve no purpose.

I think this matter is very straightforward, but perhaps I have a blind spot and have missed something.

I would be happy to be corrected if an electoral lawyer could put me right. But in the meantime it seems as if a mountain is being made out of not so much a molehill as a speck of dust. Has the silly season started early owing to the heatwave?
George Potter Reply

May 28, 2026 at 1:56 pm

Mr Aaronson hits the nail on the head.

However, I would point out that the guidance issued in 2023 post-dates recent local government reorganisation in Northamptonshire, Somerset, etc, all followed the exact same legal process as has been followed in Surrey.

The guidance issued by the Electoral Commission in 2023 therefore already had to deal with and cover those reorganisations. And it really is very clear. An employee of a specific authority cannot stand for election to that authority, and an authority that does not yet legally exist cannot possibly have any employees.

George Potter is a Lib Dem councillor.
Lottie Harding Reply

May 28, 2026 at 8:39 pm

I agree with Adam Aaronson. There are instances all over the country of local government employees who are not in a politically restricted role being councillors at another council that is not their employer.

Someone from a county council could stand for election and serve at one of the district/borough councils within the county area as long as the county council’s code of conduct allows it and they are not politically restricted.

I recall a Conservative councillor at GBC a number of years ago who was a local government officer at one of the London councils.

The electoral commission guidance, and indeed staff codes of conduct at councils, state that you cannot be a councillor at the council which you are employed. That doesn’t prevent an officer from serving as a councillor at another authority if their role is not politically restricted.

Politically restricted roles tend to be the more senior local government officers. In this case West Surrey Council has no directly employed staff and so, assuming Ms Shaw is not in a politically restricted role, there appears to be no problem.

If Ms Shaw is continuing in her employment, then when the county splits in two, I assume she and her employer will ensure that she transfers into East Surrey Council for future employment purposes.