Call for General Election

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

“You lot”? Not me, thank you very much.

I will not impose a time limit, but Members can see that quite a lot of people want to speak, so I am sure they will be considerate to colleagues and will focus on the petition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Hurley]

They were lied to inadvertently.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member must withdraw that comment.

[Patrick Hurley]

I will withdraw it, but does the right hon. Gentleman respect the vote in 1975 on the exact same thing—staying in the European Community, as it was—which was overturned 41 years later? In every Parliament, at every moment, some people want change and others do not. Some want more spending and others do not. Some want radical reform and others want stability. The fact of merely wanting something to happen does not constitute a constitutional imperative. If it did, the Government would be paralysed. We would lurch endlessly from one election to the next, just like we did at the end of the last decade, incapable of governing because the Government were perpetually campaigning. That is evidence not of a democracy that works, but of a democracy that is failing, just like it failed in 2017 and 2019, and just like it failed when the Conservative party was partying while members of the royal family were dying.

An election is not a comfort blanket to be demanded whenever politics becomes difficult or the previous Government’s chickens come home to roost. There is a tendency in debates such as this to treat an election as though it is some kind of harmless release valve. It is not. A general election is disruptive, expensive and all-consuming. It stalls legislation, freezes decision making and turns Parliament in on itself. That is necessary at the right moment, but it is not something to be done after 18 months simply because people have run out of patience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I am going to have to launch a cyber-security inquiry, because the hon. Gentleman has clearly hacked my notes. [Laughter.] I entirely agree with him and pay tribute to him, because he is a consistent and passionate advocate for proportional representation, as am I. That is something on which we can agree.

Actually, some people said they signed the petition because they would like to see proportional representation, because they feel the current Government do not represent the views of the country. Of course, many people meant that critically, but it also reflects the simple numerical fact that we have a voting system that gave a majority to a party that won 33.7% of the vote on the lowest turnout in 24 years. It would of course be unrealistic to even hope that such a Government could represent the views of the country, because they are so far below representing what at least 50% of people think.

Absent our changing the culture of this place so that we have more listening and sharing of ideas, I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) that we need proportional representation to create a structure to enable that. We could have a long debate about what forms proportional representation could take, but I think people would find that even more dull than anything else. However, proportional representation would enshrine the idea of more than one party having to co-operate, compromise, listen and engage in order to form a broad-based and more representative Government.

I also feel that we need to get back to the idea of fixed-term Parliaments. It was perhaps a matter of regret or irony that the time when we did have fixed-term Parliaments was one of some of the greatest political turmoil that this country has had, but that does not mean that the idea is not sound. It is not right that a Prime Minister of whatever party affiliation should be able to treat the country like a political casino, choosing on a whim when to have a general election. That does not help serious policy or long-term thinking over those four or five years. Instead, a fixed-term Parliament would give everybody clarity on how long a Government are in—absent some particularly drastic circumstances, obviously. It would be good for the economy, good for the markets and good for that Government themselves. It would certainly be good for the civil servants and people who have to enact the instructions of that Government.

We also need reform to political finances. Thankfully, we are a long way from the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in every special election in the United States, but it is still important that large financial interests are not able to have a disproportionate influence on our politics—or at least not without proper transparency and declarations. More is therefore needed to strengthen the role of the Electoral Commission.

We also need a media landscape that is fuelled by facts and respectful discussion of views, rather than misinformation and the screaming that happens between people of different views on social media. That is also important, and comes through creating better politics.

While I agree with a lot of the criticisms of the Government that have led to my constituents signing this petition, instead of a general election now, I hope that the Government will reflect—and I hope to hear from the Minister on this—on what else we can do to restore or build up people’s faith in politics, and have a much more broad-based political system. Who knows? Maybe, this afternoon, the Minister will have a damascene conversion to proportional representation. I look forward to finding out.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I thank you for a cerebral speech, which will probably do you no good at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury]

Absolutely. I could not agree more. Knocking on doors during the general election campaign I was struck by my constituents who, contrary to what we might think when we see opinion polls that, particularly these days, waver quite dramatically, really wanted us to knuckle down and focus on tackling in a four or five-year term the long-term issues that we know are there in our country and need to be tackled.

When I was preparing for this debate I wondered where Prime Ministers of yesteryear were after 18 months into their tenure, so I had a look. Margaret Thatcher, who I will never praise but who it is fair to say did make decisions with a belief in doing the right thing rather than the popular thing, was 13% behind in the polls in December 1980. John Major was 22% behind. Tony Blair was 28% ahead, happily undermining my point, but Gordon Brown was 7% behind and David Cameron a few per cent behind. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was 23% behind, and just a month later decided to call a general election. Few Governments enjoy widespread support 18 months into their time in office, but few have addressed as rapidly an inheritance like the one this Government were left just 18 months ago. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I quite enjoy a bit of positivity. Blue Monday is just around the corner, but anyone listening to some of the contributions in this debate might be mistaken in thinking that it is today.

The reality is that after a year of Labour, our NHS has received a £29 billion boost in funding. That translated into more than 5 million additional appointments, which, contrary to the talk of broken promises, was more than double what we promised in our manifesto. We secured a £400 million investment to boost clinical trials, improving NHS services and driving growth, and we brought 1,000 GPs into the workforce. I worked in a supporting role in general practice before I came into this place, and I know the difference that that investment is already making. One thousand practices are being modernised, including Chadsmoor medical practice, Rawnsley surgery and Red Lion surgery in my constituency. In the Budget, the Chancellor also froze prescription charges, and we are opening 250 new neighbourhood health centres so that our constituents can get treated closer to home.

Perhaps more than anything else, the NHS is a prime example of the cost of short termism and the lack of investment in our public services that we saw under the previous Government, and the progress that this Government are making in short order. NHS satisfaction figures, much like opinion polls, reflect the fact that we have a long way to go, but we have made rapid progress towards rebuilding.

In my part of the world and in many other coalfield communities, our retired mineworkers who powered this country and did one of the most dangerous jobs anyone can do were ignored for 14 years. But within 18 months of this Labour Government, members of both the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme won the pension justice that they had fought so long for. With the transfer of £2.3 billion to members of the BCSSS and £1.5 billion to the MPS, another historic injustice so dismissively overlooked under the previous Government has been righted under this Government.

On transport, for the first time since the 1990s we have frozen rail fares, which will help millions of our constituents save money. Last year, the Government confirmed backing for the improved M54-M6 link road, which will directly benefit commuters in Cannock Chase. The Bus Services Act 2025 will give transport authorities the ability to seize the opportunities of franchising and council-owned bus companies. On education, a quarter of children in my constituency are on free school meals—significantly above the national average—so I am proud that we are rolling out free breakfast clubs across the country, making sure children go to school nourished and ready to learn.

The Government also announced funding for 300 new nurseries, including Heath Hayes primary academy in my constituency, which opened the doors of its new nursery back in September. Recently, we scrapped the two-child benefit cap. Although Opposition Members might disagree with lifting thousands of children in my towns and villages, and 550,000 children across the country, out of poverty, I think it solves another stain on our country and is an investment in the future long-term success of our country.

We have announced homes for heroes, which will ensure that our veterans, as well as domestic abuse survivors and care leavers, get a roof over their heads—something that we have acted quickly on when nothing of the sort was done under the previous Government in 14 years, let alone 18 months. Hon. Members will be pleased to learn that I do not plan to list all of this Government’s achievements—time is far too short for that—but I am sure many of my colleagues will be able to expand. Looking into this year, by March we will have more police on our streets, and by April more health hubs and an average of £150 off energy bills, with much more to come.

Positive change takes time. We know that from many decades of history in this House and in town halls up and down this country. Labour was elected with a resounding victory, a large majority and a mandate to make decisions that turn this country around. Anybody looking at our manifesto can see a vision of what Britain will look like by the time we get to the next general election. That is how our political system works. That is how British Governments have always been judged; they get four or five years and then the public have their say. That is true of our activities as individual MPs—the only people who can speak up for the communities that we represent in this place. In my first 18 months, I am proud to have spoken more than 110 times on a huge range of topics. That is more than seven times what my predecessor managed in her final 18 months representing the people of Cannock Chase. I have held surgeries in villages that have never had an MP offer face-to-face appointments, and I hope to be able to continue that for many years to come.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I remind colleagues that this is a debate about a general election, so we want to keep it focused on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

I am not quite sure. I make about 400 quid a month from being on X. That is not exactly the “gotcha” answer the hon. Gentleman expected to that question, but I make no bones about it: I make money from X, and I pay about 45% tax on the money I make, which goes to the Treasury.

Let us not forget another flagship scheme of the Labour party: building brand-new social housing for illegal migrants who come over the channel. Meanwhile, we have a million Brits stuck on the council house waiting list. Yet anybody who calls that out—anybody who disagrees with that lot over there on the Labour Benches—is labelled a far-right racist.

It would be fair to say that every family in this country has been affected by this Labour Government, but not in a good way. We have all had enough of it. We are fed up to the back teeth of them. Let us discuss the Cabinet, starting with the Prime Minister, whose first instinct is to prioritise foreign judges over British people. We have an Attorney General who agrees with the European Court of Human Rights when it blocks foreign rapists and murderers from being deported. We have a Chancellor who does not understand the first thing about economic growth. We have an Energy Secretary who is killing our manufacturing sector with his net zero madness. We have an Education Secretary who says nothing about the radicalisation of our children by left-wing teachers.

We have a Justice Secretary who once said that Brexiteers were worse than Nazis. Mind you, Sir Edward, that is not the daftest thing he has said; just go on YouTube and have a look at his contributions on “Mastermind”—hilarious. We have a Foreign Secretary who is giving away British sovereign territory and making us pay billions of pounds for the privilege. We have a Health Secretary who is ploughing ahead with giving children life-destroying hormone blockers. Worst of all, as a result of this Government we have radical Islamists, former Labour voters—and some politicians—waiting in the wings ready to stand for Parliament at the next election in once-safe Labour seats. Most of the Labour MPs in this Chamber are going to go—they will be on the dole.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

For a calming speech, I call Peter Prinsley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I do not agree at all with the basic rate income taxpayer having to pay an additional £220 this year. I do not think the vast majority of the country—including many of my constituents—voted for a tax rise of £64 billion over the last two Budgets to fund things that were not even in the Labour party’s manifesto, such as digital IDs, the Chagos deal and the raising of employer national insurance, which, as I have indicated, has had a huge impact on many of my constituents.

The reality is that in areas such as Braithwaite, Bracken Bank, Oxenhope, Haworth, Stanbury and Oakworth in my constituency, and across the country, people were promised one thing and clearly got another. They have seen chaos and U-turns, and most of all, the effect of Labour’s policies are hitting hard-working people across my constituency. The message to the Government is this: get a grip and start delivering for those hard-working people. Be in no doubt, the public will not forgive, and they will not forget.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind colleagues that the focus of this debate is not a general critique of the Government, or indeed a general defence of the Government. The focus of this debate is on whether or not there should be a general election.