Call for General Election

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his eloquent introduction of this important topic. Over a million people have signed the petition, and 4,929 of them are constituents of mine in Didcot and Wantage in Oxfordshire. I want to start by summarising some of the reasons they gave for asking for a general election and, indeed, this debate when they wrote to me.

Some people feel that the Government’s impact on small businesses and economic growth is too much to bear—for example, a small business owner who is considering having to close his business as a consequence. For other people, it is more about international matters, including concerns about the Government’s approach to the Gaza situation. Others felt that working-class people have been disregarded and betrayed by the Government, given what was promised before the general election. For other people, there was an overriding feeling of dissatisfaction and general incompetence. Some people, particularly those who send their children with special educational needs to private institutions, were concerned about the impact of VAT on school fees.

Although I am no fan of the Government and agree with some of those criticisms, I am afraid I must politely disagree with my constituents, because I do not think we should have a general election, for three reasons. First, there are no straightforward criteria for assessing when it is time for a Government’s time in office to end early, because under our first-past-the-post system a Government almost never earns more than 50% of support in the first place. We could end up with an endless revolving door of elections and brand-new Government chaos. The period in the late 2010s, when we saw frequent general elections, did not lead to a general increase in satisfaction with the political system, or to a feeling that the economic or general outcomes for the country had improved.

To be fair, Governments deserve time to learn the ropes and get things right, albeit this Government have not necessarily used their time so far very well. But we must hear and understand the underlying reasons that have led to the petition and the call for a general election. There are lots of things that we need to change about our politics, which we need to make relevant and responsive again. Notwithstanding the very good opening remarks by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, I am afraid the exchange we heard during the previous speech perhaps shows what is wrong with our politics at the moment and why it puts people off: relitigating the arguments of 10 or 15 years ago, with a lot of “he said”, “she said” or “they said” between representatives of the two main parties, which between them have been running our country for the overwhelming majority of the last 100 years or more.

Instead, I offer some better ways to address the discontent and boost engagement with politics. At the risk of sounding naive and full of optimism about the future—my Liberal Democrat colleagues know I never do that, as I am yet to understand the philosophical or intellectual basis of optimism, but I will put that to one side—what we really need in our politics is more listening to each other and more sharing of political ideas, not just as parties but as 650 people who all have different backgrounds, and who bring those different backgrounds and life experiences to this place. We need to do that to achieve better representation for our constituents, because none of us individually can hope to represent directly, or have the lived experience of, all of our tens of thousands of constituents. That would be impossible. We can only listen to them, learn from them and reflect on that.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive comments about the need to change the political culture inside this place, but there is also a need to change it right across the country, including in our councils and devolved Governments. Does he agree that working to roll out proportional representation across all our electoral systems would change the culture both in the country and in this place?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Arthur]

It is great to hear what is happening with Conservative council groups across the country in relation to the rape gang inquiry. What did the Conservative Government do over the last 14 years?

[Robbie Moore]

The grooming gangs taskforce was rolled out. As an individual, I have been clear; the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse under Theresa May, the Home Secretary at the time, provided a huge number of recommendations, and I have always advocated that they be put into force. But let us look at the timing. The 14 recommendations in the IICSA report—a very detailed report by Professor Alexis Jay—came out in 2022, and an equivalent amount of time has passed since the general election, so I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) why it is that this Labour Government have not implemented in full even one of those recommendations. That is shameful.

There have been further U-turns. The winter fuel allowance has changed. Our pensioners have been hugely negatively impacted by this Labour Government, and we can go on to the two-child benefit cap change and income tax. Labour MPs will say, “Those with the broadest shoulders need to bear the brunt of these choices”—like the Chagos deal, which cost something like £47 million, or the roll-out of digital ID at £1.8 million. But who is paying these bills? Basic rate income tax payers will see their income tax go up by £220 this year. They are not the individuals with the broadest shoulders, but it is these hard-working people across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth Valley who will pay for the disastrous decisions that the Government have made in the last 18 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This Labour Government came to office on the back of so many promises, and more than a million people have signed this petition because so many of those promises have been broken.

Labour promised our farmers that it would protect British agriculture, but it slammed them with the family farm tax, threatening food prices, threatening food security and causing misery for families who have farmed for generations. Labour said that it wanted to help Britain’s high streets and small businesses, but it battered them with the jobs tax, hiking up business rates and slashing reliefs.

Pensioners were promised security and support, but they had their winter fuel allowance ripped from their hands and were forced to sit in the cold and make the decision between heating and eating. Labour promised to cut energy bills by £300, yet the average family is now paying almost £200 more.

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

Labour promised us more police officers and police community support officers on our streets. Instead, we have seen cuts to police numbers and prisoners released early. We are now looking at an end to jury trials, and police chiefs are telling us about a funding shortfall of half a billion pounds.

Labour promised to end the use of asylum hotels, but the number of such hotels has risen and the number of those arriving illegally in the country has gone up, not just by a bit, but by 50%. Of those who have arrived illegally, fewer are now being deported.

The Prime Minister promised every council tax payer in the land “not a penny more” on council tax, yet council tax is on the up. In fact, taxes are on the up left, right and centre, and have reached a record high. Under this Government, those who work are paying more and more in tax and those who do not are getting more and more in benefits.

[Dr Arthur]

When the hon. Gentleman refers to people who are not in work getting more and more from the state, is he talking about our increase to the state pension?

[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.

--- 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.

[John Lamont]

As the hon. Member will know, there is wide speculation in the Scottish press about a plot among Scottish Labour MPs to bring down the Prime Minister. Labour MPs are quoted as describing the Prime Minister as “terrible”, “incompetent”, “mind-blowingly stupid”, and saying they are going to get “slaughtered” in the Scottish Parliament elections. Is the hon. Member part of that plot?

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely not. Those are not comments I am familiar with at all. I would advise the hon. Member not to focus on newspapers’ speculation and to focus on supporting his constituents.

I talked to the young people in school about how the Government take our international treaties on both the climate and human rights seriously, and they value that. I also talked about the plans to extend the voting age for general elections in Scotland to 16. Young voters can already vote at 16 in other elections in Scotland.

[Robbie Moore]

Before the hon. Member moves on, does he recognise the level of frustration there is with the Employment Rights Act 2025? My inbox has been filled with a lot of emails and correspondence from lobby organisations representing those with disabilities and special educational needs. They are frustrated that the Act will make it much more difficult for an employer to take a risk on giving an opportunity to someone with additional challenges or needs, so that there will be much less opportunity for them. Is he proud that the Government are aiming to do that with the Employment Rights Act and are not recognising those challenges?

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Member knows that that is not the intention of the Government. He is welcome to visit my constituency, where I can help him meet lots of people who already support those with additional needs into work. They are doing fantastic work. I am sure that whatever the Government do will build on that success.

I am proud that the Government have learned from Edinburgh and introduced a pavement parking ban last week that will give councils across England the powers to introduce one. Again, that is a great step in creating a more equal UK. I am also really happy with the road safety strategy, which will save thousands of lives.

In Scotland, as we have already heard, we have had our biggest ever settlement. It is still a bit of a mystery to me how the Scottish Government spent that money. One of the biggest challenges we face in Edinburgh South West—this will have been part of the frustration that led people to sign the petition—is the housing crisis. I was really disappointed that last week the Scottish Government voted to tax house building in the middle of a housing emergency. That is the kind of Government we face in Scotland. We could talk about the UK Government, but people should look at the Scottish Government before doing so.

And I am really proud of what my office has done in the past year. It has resolved 8,000 cases and accumulated £303,000 of financial gain for constituents, mostly due to my colleague Lucie in my office. We also had a big impact on the Budget. Our lobbying brought about changes to inheritance tax and infected blood payments, and also brought reform to the Pension Protection Fund, ensuring that there was some indexation of the payments.

However, cutting across everything that happens in my constituency, there is still the cost of living crisis. There is also the growing youth employment that we have, particularly in Scotland—a point raised repeatedly by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. Immigration is also a real issue. People feel that the previous Government lost control of immigration—I think we can accept that—and that the current Government must do more to bring it back under control. I say that as someone whose life was saved by an immigrant back in 2015, and who also worked at a university. So I understand the benefits of immigration, but we have to get it to a place where it is supporting the country as a whole, and I think there are some questions about that.

To conclude, we have used the word “betrayal” quite a lot in the debate, and I really regret that, because it has often been used to deliberately amplify division in the country and among people listening to the debate. As a Parliament, we have a duty to talk much more about where we agree. I am sure we agree with the point raised earlier about improving employment rights for pregnant women, women returning from childbirth and women who have had miscarriages. I hope that, for the remainder of this Parliament, we can spend more time talking about what we have in common and engaging with the electorate on that. Then, we will perhaps be able to focus on delivery rather than petitions.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

On a point of order, Dr Huq. Could you clarify whether it is in order for so many Government speakers in the debate to have left the Chamber before the Front-Bench speeches to listen to their beleaguered Prime Minister at the parliamentary Labour party meeting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I was, absolutely.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his excellent opening speech. He made so many good points, not least about the level of support for this petition. With 1 million signatories—including 2,040 people from my constituency of Thirsk and Malton—this is the eighth most-signed petition in history. This is such an important debate. The petition states that this country wants and needs “an immediate general election”.

I am the first to admit, having been in government myself, that governing is not easy; it is a difficult business. But one or two Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), said that this petition was somehow about us sowing division. The hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said that there was somehow a Conservative plot to bring this petition to a debate. As a number of hon. Members have said, there are real people out there very concerned about what they see as betrayal and about how much they have been let down. They are angry. Dismissing their concerns on the basis that there is some kind of political plot is a big mistake. It was also a mistake for the Government to respond, as they did to this petition on 11 August 2025, by saying that they are

“fixing the foundations, rebuilding Britain and restoring…confidence”.

This Government are not listening and do not understand what the people are saying to them.

[Dr Arthur]

I think I am being slightly misrepresented, or perhaps I was unclear. I perfectly understand why people signed the petition. I explained that a lot of people feel left behind by the way the economy has evolved over the last 20 years. People are frustrated, and that frustration has been harvested by parties that offer no solutions to the problems. That is perhaps the point I was making; sincere apologies if I was not clear.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That issue is one of the many things that the people who signed the petition are concerned about, Dr Huq.

One of the big things that the Government promised, which I agree with them about, is the need to encourage faster growth in our economy. Of course that is right, but look at where that growth is. There is growth in inflation and in unemployment—including youth unemployment, which is rising significantly, with 5.2% of the working-age population unemployed compared with 4.2% when this Government took over. Taxes are also growing, to the tune of £60-odd billion a year. That is against the backdrop of the promises made about a fully costed, fully funded manifesto. No wonder people are angry. Debt and borrowing are up—on interest alone, gilt yields are higher than ever, at 5.72%. We pay £116 billion every year purely in debt interest. Small boat numbers are up 13%, year on year.

The cost of living is one of the greatest concerns of my and no doubt all hon. Members’ constituents. Against the backdrop of a promise to cut electricity prices by £300 a year, the average household now pays £190 more.

[Dr Arthur]

It is important to reflect that because of Liz Truss’s Budget, gilt rates are still higher in the UK than they would otherwise be. But gilt rates are rising right around the world—the hon. Member must accept that. While they are higher in the UK, they are high right around the world. Does he accept that every developed country faces that challenge? They are higher in this country because of Liz Truss as well.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That last point is complete nonsense. I was going to agree with the hon. Member that generally Government borrowing is higher because of where interest rates are. The most important thing we can do is get inflation under control to reduce the cost of debt. But the reality is that our margin above the rest of the world is higher than it has been for years; I am sure the hon. Member will not dispute that fact.

How do we get growth? We do not go about it the way Members on the Government Benches are talking about. I listened to the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), who made a good speech about the priorities of his constituents and what he is doing. But, as with a number of other Members, when it came to achieving growth all he talked about was long-term spending and infrastructure—I am not saying that is not important—or certain allocations of cash from the Government to those areas. What Government Members are not talking about is where growth is really driven from: small businesses. Governments do not create jobs— not sustainably. The only thing that creates growth and increases the number of jobs in our economy is small businesses. That point has been notably absent from the comments of Government Members.