Call for General Election

Luke Charters Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I am genuinely quite baffled that so many Conservative and Reform MPs are here, given that they have missed important debates in this House on things like employment rights. To be fair to the Conservatives, they went to the debates on VE Day and VJ Day; there were no Reform MPs at those debates. What does my hon. Friend make of that?

[Patrick Hurley]

It looks like Reform MPs turn out only when there is something in it for them.

We should be honest about what the petition represents. It is not a considered proposal for the better governance of this country. We can tell that by the way Opposition Members are giggling behind their hands on the other side of the room. The petition is not accompanied by a constitutional argument for changing this place to make it better, nor by any sort of legislative necessity. It is simply an expression of dissatisfaction at how long it has taken the new Government to fix the problems that were left behind after 14 years of chaos, division and decline caused by the Conservative party. There were years of economic stagnation, a referendum of such consequential proportions that the economy has barely grown since 2016, and a Tory Government who were more concerned with looking after themselves than with looking after the most vulnerable in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Well over a million people signed this petition, a good proportion of them from my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. They want me to speak on their behalf, and to reiterate that this debate is fundamentally about trust—why? Because trust matters in the relationship between constituents and their MPs—and not only MPs, but the Government of the day.

Let me take us back to the last general election, when many Labour Members were knocking on doors in my constituency promising change. They promised that, if they were lucky enough to get into Government, they would not increase taxes on hard-working people, would not raise council tax by a penny, would return to a politics of service and would ultimately deliver a strategy aligned to their manifesto.

What have we seen? We have seen rising taxes on working people. Council tax has been raised by 14.99% in my constituency alone in the last two years under Labour-run Bradford council, so that tax is increasing on hard-working people. We have seen betrayals and U-turns, and I will go into a few of them because ultimately that is why so many people—more than a million—have signed this petition. It illustrates the level of frustration out there among the wider population. This is the second petition on this issue that the Petitions Committee has considered.

Let us start with the betrayals. Our farmers and family businesses have been impacted by choices this Labour Government have made. Those choices and changes were not indicated before the general election, such as inheritance tax challenges with agricultural property relief and business property relief. We have seen 14 months of huge amounts of anxiety and frustration among our farming community and family businesses, which will now be exposed to an IHT liability of 20%, over and above a rise in the threshold to £2.5 million. That rise only took place at the 11th hour, three days before Christmas, after 14 months of many of those farmers and family businesses raising their concerns.

We saw Labour MP after Labour MP go through the voting Lobbies, backing the ambitions of the Prime Minister and Chancellor to increase tax on many of our hard-working farmers. Only one Labour MP had the courage and the backbone to stand up on behalf of his constituents and tell the Chancellor that he did not agree with the proposals she and the Prime Minister had made.

All those family businesses, whether in hospitality, brewing, manufacturing or engineering, are being impacted by the IHT changes. I was with the owners of a business that makes furniture in my constituency, who had worked out that their business property relief liability was already about £800,000. They employ 250 people in Keighley, and will be directly impacted by this Labour Government, who—dare I say—said that they would not do this and did not include it in their manifesto. That is a betrayal that this Labour Government has rolled out.

[Mr Charters]

The hon. Member uses the term “betrayal”. I know he has been a steadfast voice for the defence of the Ukrainian people, so does he agree that the biggest betrayal this country has seen from a politician has been Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform in Wales, taking money from a foreign power?

[Robbie Moore]

I have to confess that I am not aligned with the detail of that case, but what I do know is that the hon. Gentleman, who represents York Outer—a very rural constituency—and I believe sits on one of the key all-party parliamentary groups for food security, was one of those Labour MPs who voted against the inheritance tax changes that the Conservatives advocated. I am sure the hard-working farmers and family businesses in his constituency will feel a huge amount of frustration that he did not stand with them.

Then there is our pub industry. The huge rises in business rates and employer national insurance contributions are hitting many of those hard-working businesses within the hospitality sector and the pub industry. No wonder it is very difficult for a Labour MP to get a pint in a pub, many of which they have been quite rightly asked not to return to. Of course, the rise in employer national insurance contributions is hitting all businesses. I have had many conversations with our hard-working teachers and headteachers, who regularly tell me about the tough choices they face about making teaching assistants redundant because of the rise in employer national insurance contributions. The grant that comes out of central Government to cover the rise covers only about 70% of the increase in costs, so the additional 30% must be covered by the existing school budget.

There are also the free school meals and breakfast clubs—but who is paying for them? The schools are, out of their existing budgets. Labour MPs want to roll out the narrative that our constituents are going to receive all these benefits, and of course we want to see those benefits happen, but they must get to grips with the facts of the case. Hard-working hospices now cannot provide end-of-life care and schools cannot roll out education because they are having to make tough choices around paying increased levels of employer national insurance contributions. That betrayal was not in the manifesto.