General Election

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We all know that we live in a parliamentary democracy and that there does not need to be an election until summer 2029. There probably will not be an election before then, however many petitions are produced, but I think it would be foolish to ignore this petition, as an expression of public disappointment and anger. I do not want to be overtly party political, but I do think it would be useful for the Government not just to dismiss the petition as having been cooked up abroad—apparently—or by nefarious anti-democratic forces. I think it would be quite wise to listen to the public. If they are in a black hole—if indeed there is a black hole—I say to the Government: just stop digging. If they have to raise money, there are mechanisms, such as income tax, where—

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Member agree that the essence of the petition is in fact the political manifestation of buyer’s remorse, and that the delivery and introduction of proportional representation would not lead to such remorse so soon?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Well, actually, the Liberal party seems to have done very well from this system by focusing its attacks on Conservative constituencies. It seems to have many more seats than the Reform party, for instance, and less votes, but I will leave that aside.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, I do not want to get involved in all this. I have given way once; I will conclude my remarks within the time limit.

I think it would be quite foolish for the Government to ignore this petition. If I may give some fatherly advice, it is always good to compromise when bringing in reforms. For instance, if the Government were worried about winter fuel payments going to everybody, perhaps they should have cancelled them for higher taxpayers. There would have been very little controversy about that, but taking the winter fuel allowance from somebody whose total income is only £13,000 a year is bound to cause great hardship. If they were worried about large estates escaping any inheritance tax, perhaps they should have focused their tax on the very largest estates of more than 1,000 acres, rather than picking on family farms of 250 acres. Or if they wanted to rake in more money from national insurance, perhaps they should have absolved, for instance, hospices from those proposals.

I just give that advice to the Government. Of course they will not take it, but it is always useful when bringing in reforms to think of the general public, and how those reforms will impact on people and relate to their sense of alienation. That is what I want to talk about now, because there is undoubtedly a sense of alienation in the country. It is partly due to the issues that I have been talking about, but also to do with general issues. I sit on the Council of Europe, and I see how other countries—France, Germany and Italy—are coping with political unrest. Unless the two major parties actually listen to the public and respond to their concerns, this country will simply see the rise of more and more populism of far-right and far-left parties.

There is a particular issue where people feel alienated. They cannot understand how in the last year, in a country like ours, something like 35,000 people jumped the queue, crossed the channel, and were put in hotels to stay here forever and break the rules. They cannot understand why no Government—either the previous Conservative Government or apparently this one—are actually solving the problem. I know that this Government are not going to follow our Rwanda policy, but they simply cannot talk in easy terms about smashing the gangs when we all know that unless we have an offshoring policy, we will never stop people crossing the channel and making us a laughing stock in the world.

Another issue I want to talk about, on which people feel very frustrated, is the sheer level of legal migration. I want to put this particular point to the Labour party. This is not a right-wing point of view. This is Mattias Tesfaye—a Danish Immigration Minister and the son of Ethiopian refugees. He said:

“If you look at the historical background, it is completely normal that left-wing politicians like me are not against migration, but want it to be under control. If it isn’t—and it wasn’t since the 1980s—low-income and low-educated people pay the highest price for poor integration. It is not the wealthy neighbourhoods that have to integrate most of the children. On the contrary, the areas where the traditional social democratic voters and trade unionists live face the greatest problems.”

Both parties have to solve the problem of the sheer level of legal and illegal migration.

I will make one other point. We all believe that we must solve climate change, but we must do it in a moderate and sensible way. Many people in rural areas, such as the area I represent, are worried not only about the farmers tax but that, if they live in Gainsborough, they will see the 10,000 acres around their small town covered with solar farms. Let us have more solar farms on rooftops or on industrial warehouses, but when people see good agricultural land being taken away from them, with solar panels made by dodgy Chinese companies benefiting large landowners, that again leads to a sense of alienation. Both parties have to listen to the people; they cannot go full-steam ahead with their own policies, ignoring what many are frustrated about.

I have one last point to make. We have just had a statement in the main Chamber about the NHS and social care. Frankly, we have to have some sort of cross-party consensus on how we will pay for our increasingly elderly population. We cannot just throw brickbats at each side, saying, “It’s the fault of the Labour Government” or “It’s the fault of the Conservative Government.” We are all living longer. We are all going to be more frail in our old age, and to need more and more help. There has to be some sort of political consensus on how we will pay for it, and my own view is that we will have to pay for it through some form of social insurance.

My advice to the Government is: you can ignore this petition—of course, you will ignore this petition, in the sense that there will not be a general election—but do not ignore the sense of alienation and frustration that lies behind it.