Call for General Election

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairship, Sir Edward. Let us be honest: if this petition was likely to trigger a general election, I doubt very much whether some of my former colleagues would be in the room today, because many of them would lose their seats—[Interruption.] We all make mistakes, and when we do we should hold our hands up and say sorry.

Wherever I go in this country, and I travel a lot round this country every week, people say to me that they are sorry—sorry for voting Labour at the last general election—and that they will never vote Labour again. They wish they could turn the clock back and vote for a different party, normally Reform UK.

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Gentleman talks about being sorry. Many people across the country voted Reform in local council elections on the basis that there would be either no increase in or perhaps even a cut in council tax. Now they face with rises at the very limit of what is legally possible. Is he sorry for that?

[Lee Anderson]

I will just correct the hon. Gentleman slightly. Nowhere in our national literature did anybody promise to cut council tax anywhere in the country. He may want to correct himself on that.

Anyway, I get people apologising for voting Labour. Sometimes the odd lunatic might say they are going to vote for the Green party—they are usually recaptured very quickly. But there is a glimmer of hope, because at the next general election, this lot over here, on the Labour Benches, will all be looking for jobs. Of course most of them are absolutely unemployable now, unless they fancy a job as a bailiff, because, let’s face it, all they have done over the past 18 months is go into people’s houses and take stuff off them—usually money from people’s pockets. It is absolutely disgraceful. They can shake their heads or grin if they want, but they will not be forgiven—mark my words.

Just imagine when Labour Members are down at the jobcentre in a couple of years’ time for their next job interview. The adviser says, “What have you been doing for the past couple of years?” Well, I can sum up their achievements already. For the past few years, they worked for an awful dictator. Under his leadership, illegal migration is totally out of control. Our streets are filling up with criminals; in Birmingham, they are filling up with rubbish as well—there are rats the size of small dogs roaming around Birmingham, feasting on tons of rubbish. They have closed pubs and restaurants. They have put 100,000 people in the hospitality industry on the dole.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points about the hospitality industry and how difficult that is right now, but I come back to his party’s commitment at last May’s elections. I have a leaflet from the May elections, with his party leader on it, which says the party would

“Reduce waste and cut your taxes”.

I will be the first person to admit that governing is more difficult than it looks from the outside, but does he agree that that set unreasonable expectations among the electorate in those May elections?

[Lee Anderson]

Nowhere on the leaflet did it say we were going cut council tax, so the hon. Gentleman should maybe read it again.

This Government have stolen money off the workers by not increasing the income tax thresholds—something they promised to do—and they have given that money to the shirkers. By shirkers, I mean that these are able-bodied people—the bone-idle, basically. They refuse to go to work. In fact, they stay at home all day and sponge off the state—[Interruption.] Labour Members are shaking their heads. In fact, the only work some of these shirkers do is go out once every five years and deliver leaflets for this lot—great work if you can get it.

Our farmers have been attacked, our pensioners have been robbed and we have been locking people up for social media posts. And let’s not forget puberty blockers—these are medical trials on children. Everyone on the Government Benches who supports that should hang their heads in shame.

The Government are ending the automatic right to trial by jury—shameful. They allow Islamist thugs to dictate police policy on the streets of Birmingham. They have turned a blind eye to Islamists threatening to kills Jews on the streets of London. They voted against having a national inquiry into the mass rape of young girls in Labour-controlled areas—absolutely shameful. Each one of them should be absolutely ashamed.

[Patrick Hurley]

If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about the rights of the children of this country, will he support cracking down hard on Elon Musk and X?

[Lee Anderson]

I think X has to clean its act up—that is simple, and I think we all agree with that. It is interesting that all these Labour MPs complain about X, yet they are all on X every day making silly comments—you could not make it up, Sir Edward. If they had any scruples or backbone they would all come off X, but I suspect that not one of them will; they will carry on.

[Dr Arthur]

How much money did the hon. Gentleman make from X last year?

[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]

Obviously I agree that children need to be fed, but I would gently say to the hon. Member, “Be honest with the public.” The Prime Minister promised before the general election that hard-working people would not be taxed. What was then rolled out? A rise in employer national insurance contributions. It is those organisations that provide a public service—our councils, hospices, hospitals, GP practices and schools—that are impacted by that rise, and their budgets have not increased at the same rate as those taxes have. Therefore, the level of service that they are able to roll out is diminished as a result of this Labour Government.

Having spoken to many constituents on the doorstep, I know that what angers them the most—the reason they signed this petition—is they have been duped by this Government through promises that did not come through and a strategy that was not in the manifesto. The Government then followed up with the U-turns—crikey, what have we seen this year alone? Inheritance tax changes have been rolled out on our farmers and small businesses—yes, the relief has increased, but it goes nowhere near far enough. The Conservatives believe that the family farm tax and the family business tax should be axed, but the thresholds have simply been tweaked.

Then, of course, there is the statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. Let us rewind to a year ago: the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), stood at the Dispatch Box and said that we would have five local inquiries into grooming gangs, yet every Labour MP voted against having a national inquiry. It was only as a result of campaigning by the Opposition, as well as by many victims and survivors, that the narrative that we had to have a national inquiry continued. A year later, the Government were brought to the House—dragged to the House—to say that we would be having a national inquiry.

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is most generous with his time. Could he please explain why he thinks Labour MPs were so against voting for a national inquiry?

[Robbie Moore]

We have seen it at a national level, and the very same strategy was rolled out across Labour-run Bradford council, where a Conservative group motion was put before the council, urging it to vote for a national inquiry. What did the Labour councillors on Labour-run Bradford council do? They voted against that motion. This gets to the nub of the issue, because it should not be about politics; it should be about the difference between right and wrong. That, I feel, is why so many people have signed the petition. Yet again, this Labour Government—Home Secretary after Home Secretary—have been dragged to the Dispatch Box to carry out a further U-turn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

We are talking about the end of the two-child cap and the ever-increasing amount spent on benefits in this country, while hard-working people—the guys who get up early and go out and graft all day—are paying more and more in tax. It is simply not fair.

Then there is the one thing in particular—it is one of many, actually—that did not feature at all in the Labour party manifesto but looks set to be imposed: digital ID. We do not want it, we do not need it and nobody voted for it. It fundamentally changes the relationship between citizen and state, and this Government have no mandate to do it.

[Lee Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. He talks about pledges that were not made in the manifesto. I can think of three: a Deputy PM had to resign for tax dodging, a Homelessness Minister had to resign for making people homeless, and an anti-corruption Minister had to resign over corruption. Does he think those things should have been in the manifesto?

[Matt Vickers]

The Prime Minister promised us that they were going to be whiter than white—a new start for politics, “in the service of working people”—but it has been one scandal after another. It is entirely appalling.

But there is one thing that Labour MPs and the Prime Minister promised everybody that stands out: they promised change. Well, boy have we got change, but it is not the change anybody voted for. The last Government left this country with the fastest growing economy in the G7, but under this Government we are below the G7 average. Growth has limped along at rates so weak that monthly GDP has slipped into contraction. This is not the growth that Labour promised; it is living standards being squeezed and promises unfulfilled. The only place we are seeing any real growth under this Government is in the size of our national debt.

Unemployment is up 21%. That is 21% more people without the security of a pay packet; families without the cash they need, having to make tough decisions, unable to fulfil their aspirations. Virtually every Labour Government in history have left office with more people out of work; this Government are set to do it in record time.

Nowhere is that seen more starkly than in the hospitality sector. Yes, the sector has faced tough times in the tough environment in which it operates, but under the last Government 18,000 jobs were created in the sector. Under this Government, as a result of the choices made in No. 10, 111,000 jobs have been lost, and two hospitality businesses are closing every day. That is the youngster getting their first job. It is the people who set up a small business and work day and night to create jobs and deliver economic growth. The jobs tax, rocketing business rates and the Employment Rights Act 2025 have real consequences. They are costing jobs, increasing prices and sending businesses fleeing.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) when he says that the word that comes up on the doorstep, time and again, is “betrayal”. People feel totally and utterly betrayed by this Labour Government, and Labour Members should ask themselves why. This Labour Government are riddled with scandal and chaos. They have broken pretty much every single promise they made to the British people. People have had enough. This is not the change anyone voted for. Our great country deserves better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing the debate, although he was a little “glass half-empty” when assessing the Government’s record.

One of the challenges facing the Government is that, when it comes to borrowing, our bond rate remains high because of the calamitous Budget set by Liz Truss. It showed the world that we were capable of making horrendously bad decisions, which also impacts on our ability to attract investment to the UK. Although I support the idea of a recall petition for MPs, a recall petition for whole Governments would just further weaken confidence in us as a country.

I do understand the sentiment of the people who signed the petition, and particularly the people from Edinburgh South West. Many would have started their first job, or perhaps got married, around the 2008 financial crisis, and that would have impacted their ability to move on in life. Some would have felt the impact of Brexit, which has been a huge financial disruptor in the UK, and again that would have affected their life chances. Both those things are once-in-a-generation events, but right in the middle of them, we had a once-in-a-century event—the covid pandemic. So a lot of people in the UK right now have not had a fair chance to get on in life, and that leaves them feeling frustrated.

Then, along come parties that are keen to sow division. They do not offer answers; all they do is amplify that feeling of mistrust and of being left behind. We heard that from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who gave us a long list of things he thinks are wrong with the country, but not a single solution other than misleading leaflets. That is something I talked about when I was touring schools in my constituency as part of Parliament Week last year. Children in modern studies and politics classes asked why politics is so divisive in the UK.

[Lee Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman is most generous with his time. He talked about divisiveness in politics, and he said that schoolchildren are picking up on that. At Quarrydale academy in Ashfield, a year 9 history class was being taught polities. There was a chart on the wall; on one side, it said, “far-right” and “Nazis”, next to pictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), myself, Oswald Mosley and Mussolini. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is the right way to teach our children?

[Dr Arthur]

This is a serious point. I would hope that teachers are not teaching children that. Although I disagree with the hon. Member’s politics, I do not rank it alongside that of the far-right politicians he has mentioned from history. Of course, if this was part of a school assignment, I am sure he would be the first to talk about freedom of speech; children have that right as well. However, I hope that those things are not being taught in schools; in fact, I am sure they are not.

In the schools that I went to, one thing that came up was LGBT rights. Some students were absolutely disgusted by some of the comments from Reform, which were echoed earlier in the debate in relation to access to healthcare for people who are part of the trans community. Students are absolutely disgusted by what is happening because they care; they have friends who face this issue, and they care about it passionately. I urge the hon. Member to represent everyone when he makes his comments.

In the classrooms, I was challenged on what I thought the Government’s greatest achievement was. I am an emotional person, and the thing that got me most emotional was voting for better employment rights for women and making it harder for employers to sack women just because they were pregnant, had had a miscarriage or were returning from having a baby. I think that is something we would all support; I know some Members might have voted against it, but I am sure we all think these are good things.

Likewise, I said I was proud of the work the Government were doing to lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. I said that knowing that some of the children in that very classroom would benefit from that policy and that other children in the classroom would maybe know who those children were. I am really proud of what the Government are doing in that space.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

My hon. Friend, as always, speaks powerfully on these issues and I agree with him wholeheartedly, as I often do. This Government are struggling and the official Opposition look increasingly like a mediocre turquoise tribute act. However, we face an even more dangerous threat to our country’s values and our future if the next general election delivers the results that the current polls suggest. There are political forces who, if left to their own devices, would move us closer to a model similar to that promoted by President Trump: one without a universal NHS, where patients face high insurance costs or are denied care altogether; one that relies on expensive fossil fuels and permits widespread fracking while climate change accelerates; and one where the Government can erode basic rights and freedoms by leaving the European convention on human rights.

We must be clear about what this political retirement home for disgraced ex-Ministers represents economically. Its fiscal proposals mirror the disastrous Truss mini-Budget, which its leader praised at the time. He now proposes to replicate it through massive, unfunded spending commitments supported only by vague promises of unrealistic savings. Perhaps even more troubling is the platforming of anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists and dangerous health misinformation. Shamefully, the leader of a UK political party has adopted Trump’s approach of refusing to push back against dangerous misinformation, including false claims regarding paracetamol use during pregnancy that risk leaving expectant mothers suffering unnecessarily. That is dangerous claptrap from those seeking to win the next general election.

The Liberal Democrats advocate a fundamentally different approach to how we should change our country, in ways that the voting public would welcome and that would leave a lasting legacy. We must fix social care if we want to stand any chance of having an NHS that we can continue to be proud of. We must focus on genuinely local community engagement rather than centralised, developer-led planning, to get the homes, including the social homes, that our communities need and our constituents deserve, with zero-carbon homes as standard for all new construction. We must reform our politics and democracy so that the public feel that their voices are heard and that more people get what they voted for.

I welcome the Government’s plans for the removal for life of hereditary peers from being able to make laws, and I will welcome the introduction of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in future general elections. But that all feels a bit too timid, and the moment demands more. One of the most regrettable impacts of the Government’s cancellation of local elections in some parts of England is that it gives succour to those who seek to stoke distrust in our democracy and divide our communities. Trust in our politics is vital, and we all need to take to steps to build it, not destroy it. Changing the way our politics works by capping donations to political parties, restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission to remove political interference in how electoral rules are enforced, and changing the way we elect our MPs are all suggestions I make constructively to the Minister.

Proportional representation ensures that seats broadly match votes, that every voter has a meaningful say, and that Governments represent the majority of the electorate. This Government got roughly one third of the votes in 2024; they were rewarded with roughly two thirds of the seats and almost all of the power. Evidence shows that PR leads to higher voter turnout, more representative Governments and more stable policy making. We already have PR in the UK, just not here in Westminster: it is already used in different forms in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as in the vast majority of democracies worldwide. It is surely reckless to maintain an electoral model that consistently produces such wildly disproportionate groups of MPs and leaves millions of voters feeling ignored.

[Lee Anderson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lisa Smart]

I would be utterly delighted.

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the hon. Lady. She talks about representation and proportionality in the country and in this place. Is she aware that Reform UK got 4.1 million votes in the last election, but got five MPs, and the Lib Dems got 3.6 or 3.7 million votes and got 71 or 72 MPs?

[Lisa Smart]

It was 72.

[Lee Anderson]

They got 72 MPs. Yet the Lib Dems are allowed on every single Select Committee and Bill Committee, but Reform UK is not. Is that fair?

[Lisa Smart]

I would be genuinely delighted to talk about the many and varied ways in which we could change this place that I am sure the hon. Gentleman and I would agree about. There is a chance that we agree, although I am not entirely sure whether we still do, about how we elect people to this place. People elect their MPs to come here and represent them, and that includes fair representation on Select Committees, and that should be proportionate. Given the total of 650 MPs, including five Reform MPs, there is a risk that we would end up with about 100 MPs on each Committee to maintain proportionality. I do not think that that is practicable or practical.

The hon. Gentleman and I would agree in many ways on how we should reform this place and change it for the better. The voting tonight is due to start soon; we are going to be going for many hours until late tonight, as I understand it. I suspect that he and I will feel similarly about that as a way to run a country. [Interruption.] Voting is a good thing, of which there should more, but I think that other democracies in other parts of the world have found a more effective and efficient way of doing it than voting at midnight by walking through a corridor for 15 minutes.

It is reckless to maintain an electoral model that so consistently produces such wildly disproportionate groups of MPs and leaves millions of voters feeling ignored. If those trends are allowed to continue, it is not difficult to see how turnout will fall further, results will become even more distorted and political instability will grow.

We can look at what has happened in actual ballot boxes since the last general election: in 2025, the Liberal Democrats won more councillors than Labour or the Conservatives for the first time, and won more local council by-elections than any other party. We Lib Dems look forward to May’s local elections and are well up for the next general election, whenever it is called. It is shaping up to be a battle to stop Trump’s UK fanboys from doing to our communities what their idol is doing to America.

I am a bit worried about what the future holds for our country, but I choose to be optimistic. The British people are bright, innovative, witty and sarky, and they will not put up with snake oil salesmen peddling conspiracy theories and division for very long. The people will let the Government, whoever they are, know that they are livid with them—not usually by rioting in the streets but by taking the mickey out of them, mercilessly. Long may that continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I welcome the hon. Member’s explanation. I appreciate it; he seems like a very decent Member. It is very important that we listen to the public. There are some genuine concerns about what the Government set out to do, and about what they are actually doing.

[Lee Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman is being most generous with his time and has returned me the favour of an intervention. He talks about listening to the public; the public are very angry about the Chagos deal. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Opposition parties should use all the possible levers, in this place and the other place, to kill that Bill?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with the hon. Member entirely. That is a terrible Bill, which we have opposed at every stage. Paying tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to give away our own territory and rent it back is ludicrous.