Consider for a moment the frustration of you and your neighbours when local representation fails to meet expectations.

Next May, you head to the polling station and cast your ballots against your current representative, only to discover that despite clearly signalling your disapproval, they continue in their role with their allowance intact for another twelve months.

Seems rather undemocratic, doesn’t it?

Well, next year, all Labour councillors could be voted out yet still cling to power and influence over this city for an additional twelve months, despite voters having given them only a four-year mandate.

Is it surprising that public trust in politics and politicians has diminished when such blatant power grabs occur? Such moves undermine democracy by attacking the core principle that those we elect derive their legitimacy from public consent. When voters clearly articulate their preferences at the ballot box, those choices ought to be honoured and enacted promptly. Should politicians manage to stay in post, continue receiving their allowances, or wield influence after losing public backing, residents are left questioning whether their votes hold any weight.

Such behaviour fosters the impression that political figures prioritize retaining their own positions over serving constituents, and this perception causes real harm. The consequence is heightened cynicism, reduced electoral participation, and an expanding chasm between elected officials and the public, creating a void frequently exploited by extremist movements. When power is defended rather than transferred peacefully in line with electoral outcomes, democracy suffers and public confidence in governance deteriorates further.

Cynicism may also resonate strongly with inhabitants of Peacehaven and Telscombe, who after being repeatedly consulted about potential incorporation into Brighton and Hove, repeatedly declining, are starting to recognise that consultations under this current leadership are utterly futile. Since Steven Reed MP, who championed this entire proposal, has been dismissed, along with Hove MP Peter Kyle, surely we must engage our neighbouring communities thoroughly and authentically to understand what communities genuinely feel when subjected to decisions rather than participating in open processes.

This week at full council, in yet another display of the administration’s opacity, I will be raising concerns about Freedom of Information requests. Following a recent disclosure, it emerged that the council’s FOI compliance has declined markedly. The Information Commissioner’s Office classifies an organisation’s adherence to FOI legislation as inadequate when fewer than ninety percent of requests are addressed within the statutory twenty-day window. During the first quarter of 2026, the council failed to meet this deadline on fifty-three occasions. One explanation offered for this decline references apprehension about publishing particular data, resulting in staff being pressured to justify exemptions. During a previous career, a senior Labour representative once observed that without FOI requests, publication decisions would rest with those in authority, individuals with a personal stake in keeping politically awkward, controversial or damaging material hidden from public scrutiny. Responses may be sent to The Argus, though identifying the speaker requires no great effort.

A pattern is emerging here. A leadership that postpones relinquishing authority lost at the ballot box. A consultation treated as a box-ticking exercise rather than a genuine attempt to listen. A freedom of information regime hindered so inconvenient realities remain concealed a while longer. Individually, each instance might admit some justification, but collectively they send residents a clear signal that this leadership prefers managing public opinion rather than being held accountable by it.

Democracy extends well beyond the act of casting ballots. It encompasses the daily practice of governance with honesty, openness, and deference to public mandates, even when this proves difficult for those in authority. Currently, we are witnessing a spectacle in Clacton where the prospective Prime Minister will spend the summer dealing with an intergalactic waste container. This individual was awarded his parliamentary seat by a Labour MP. He only entered Parliament in 2024 following a highly public Labour Party crisis aimed at removing Keir Starmer.

Now your present Labour administration are informing you, not requesting, that you will endure another year of their governance, something nobody in Brighton and Hove sought or requested. Residents merit more than hollow rhetoric and delayed departures. They deserve a council that treats their input as something requiring action rather than circumvention. One that properly represents community interests rather than its own. This is the standard we should demand of this administration and the standard we shall continue to advocate for.

This Labour administration and this Labour government, with its newest continuity Prime Minister, appear so detached from the views and aspirations of their constituents that their disregard for the public seems to be accelerating, manifesting as disengagement and opacity. Nothing changes, it seems.