Thursday, December 05, 2024
The true cost of the Rwanda farce
She provides a table showing spend in millions of pounds, reproduced at the top of this post. She says that of the £715m spent, which does not include wider costs to the asylum system such as slower decisions and rocketing hotels costs:
💷£270m was to Rwanda's Economic Transformation and Integration Fund (unrelated to people being sent) and £20m was for operational spending by Rwanda;
💷£95m was went on "investment to optimise capacity within the existing detention estate" and "options to increase detention capacity";
There wasn't enough room to hold asylum seekers the Tories wanted to send to Rwanda
💷£50m was spent on attempting, planning and training for flights to Rwanda that never happened. It included the cost to secure flights, hire and train escorts, prepare and police airfield;
💷The remaining £280m is under a very broad category called "other fixed costs". It includes spending on developing digital, IT and data systems required to operationalise the Rwanda deal, legal costs and staff working directly on the Rwanda deal and linked Illegal Migration Act.
AS she points out, £715m is far from the total cost of the Rwanda scheme. The way these figures are calculated mean they are mainly "direct" costs and don't take account of other impacts. She points out that the Illegal Migration Act was passed to enact the Rwanda scheme and drove spending on asylum up by billions.
She adds that the Illegal Migration Act was so wildly expensive because the govt effectively barred itself from deciding asylum claims from small boat migrants, but couldn't send them to Rwanda. It was, and remains, the most insane law she has ever seen.
She concludes that the initial Rwanda deal required a rare "ministerial direction" by Priti Patel to force it through in April 2022 because the Home Office permanent secretary said value for public money couldn't be shown, but after that there are serious questions about what safeguards were in place.
It is little wonder the government needs to raise taxes to fill the financial black holes they inherited.
Wednesday, December 04, 2024
The Muesli Assassins
Nation Cymru reports that Davies has quit as Welsh Tory leader and has blasted a “muesli and croissant brigade” of Welsh Conservatives for destabilising the party.
The site says that the leader of the Welsh Tories resigned on yesterday after narrowly winning a confidence vote 9-7 in his favour:
He claimed a “substantial minority” of his party opposing his continued leadership made it “untenable”.
Speaking to the PA news agency, Mr Davies suggested his detractors within the Welsh Conservatives had been “running to the press, leaking stories”, and undermining his leadership.
He also ruled out joining Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, which is hoping to win seats across Wales in the next Senedd poll in 2026.
Mr Davies, Senedd member for South Wales Central, denied “entirely” that his brand of Conservatism had been rejected by the party.
His critics have accused him of leading the Welsh Tories into culture-war-focussed politics, including when over the summer he said children should not be forced to eat halal meat in schools.
Criticism for his social media use has also been widespread, including one occasion when he asked constituents if they wanted to see the Senedd abolished.
“I do not accept that we have done culture war politics,” Mr Davies told PA.
He added: “What we, under my leadership, have always done is seek to speak to the issues that people find challenging in their everyday lives and addressing them head on.
“We speak firmly about our beliefs as Welsh Conservatives. I was offering a full Welsh fry up with extra black pudding. My detractors wanted more muesli and croissant.
“Obviously, the muesli and croissant was in the minority, were constantly running to the press, leaking stories, and that doesn’t do any good for a united party.”
It wasn't Brexit that got him in the end. It was breakfast.
Tuesday, December 03, 2024
Facing a Trumpian disaster
The Guardian reports that a cap on political donations and wider powers for the House of Lords Appointments Commission to block unsuitable peer nominations are among 54 proposals laid out in a paper from the campaign group Unlock Democracy:
Campaigners acknowledged that Keir Starmer has made changes to the ministerial code, including tightening the rules on gifts after a row over freebies.
But they argued the prime minister was still able to ignore recommendations made by the independent adviser on ministerial interests “without explanation” while former ministers could continue to seek jobs outside government.
The Unlock Democracy paper also recommends the introduction of a clear job description for MPs against which constituents and the standards commissioner would be able to measure their performance.
The UK’s “over-reliance on conventions and norms” is a source of democratic vulnerability, the paper argues. It urges the government to give the House of Lords Appointments Commission the power to block peerage nominations to address perceptions of cronyism.
A substantial reduction in party campaign spending and a cap on political donations had also been recommended to reduce the ability of wealthy donors to “wield outsized, unaccountable influence”.
Other recommendations suggested to reverse “democratic backsliding” include:
* Cabinet ministers must be confirmed by MPs’ select committees and parliament should ratify new prime ministers before the new government can bring forward a king’s speech.
* Close loopholes that allow unincorporated associations to conceal the source of their political donations or overseas residents to donate to political parties
* A £200 per-item limit on freebies for MPs or ministers and a cap on earnings from second jobs at half an MP’s salary.
* Amend the MPs’ code of conduct and the Recall of MPs Act 2015 so they can be sanctioned for failing to fulfil their responsibilities.
Tom Brake, director of Unlock Democracy and formerly a Liberal Democrat minister, said: “Donald Trump’s return to the White House should set alarm bells ringing for all of us who value democracy. We cannot just assume something similar could never happen here.
“Public confidence in the integrity of the political system is dwindling. Meanwhile, concerns continue to grow about the accountability of the government to elected representatives, and the accountability of elected representatives to their voters.”
The proposed measures “have the merit of being low cost, big impact”, he said.
Although a Trumpian disaster is to be avoided, that should not be the only reason to introduce these reforms. They are commonsense. The system has been abused for too long. It is time to put a stop to it.
Monday, December 02, 2024
Ongoing huge cost of Brexit divorce
The Independent reports that Britain has set aside more than £10bn for post-Brexit payments to the EU as the UK continues sending billions to Brussels despite leaving the bloc years ago.
The paper adds that to cover the cost of the UK’s divorce from Europe, the government has accounted for £10.6bn in future payments for Brussels staff and diplomats’ pensions, as well as Britain’s pre-existing financial obligations:
Official government figures this week revealed that the provision for ongoing “EU liabilities” has fallen from £31.7bn a year ago and £38.7bn the year before.
But the figure still stands at more than £10bn, with critics saying the UK is still “paying vast sums for a terrible Brexit deal”. The revelation comes after Rachel Reeves’ Budget piled £40bn of new taxes on households and businesses - with the chancellor claiming the changes were necessary to fill a black hole in the public finances left by the Conservatives.
SNP MP Stephen Gethins, an ardent anti-Brexit campaigner, added: “Not only is Brexit taking away our rights, hurting business and removing opportunities from young people, it’s also costing a fortune.
“We are unnecessarily crippling our economy and paying billions for the privilege.”
Former armed forces minister Sir Nick Harvey said that as well as ongoing payments to the EU, Brexit is still having a significant impact on the economy.
The Independent last month revealed that government estimates show Brexit will cut UK trade by 15 per cent in the long run. This paper then uncovered figures from the independent spending watchdog showing that just 40 per cent of the economic damage of Brexit has materialised, with the majority of the impact yet to be felt.
Former Lib Dem MP Sir Nick told The Independent the government is “tinkering around the edges” and that “addressing the economic damage done by Brexit must become a priority”.
And, amid Sir Keir Starmer’s post-Brexit reset with the bloc, Sir Nick said a return to the single market and customs union must be on the table.
This money could be better spent on public services, instead we are having to pay out vast sums, without getting any of the benefits of membership in return, while at the same time crippling our economy by not being part of the single market.
Sunday, December 01, 2024
Buying influence?
The paper says that cash from companies that have never turned a profit, from unincorporated associations that do not have to declare their funders, and banned donations from overseas donors via intermediaries are all entering the system, according to research by Transparency International (TI):
Foreign governments are also donating millions in the form of flights, food and hotel stays. The gifts and hospitality from governments including those of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan are allowed, even though all other types of donations must come from a permissible UK source. “It is increasingly clear that this loophole presents a reputational and security risk to our democracy,” TI said.
The findings are revealed in a report by the campaign group to be published this week. TI researchers analysed 78,735 donations worth £1.19bn reported to the Electoral Commission between 2001 and 2024. They found that £115m came from unknown or “questionable” sources – equivalent to almost £1 in £10 donated to parties from private sources.
Of the £115m from unknown or questionable sources, more than two-thirds – £81.6m – went to the Conservatives, partly explained by the party’s greater reliance on private donors than Labour, which gets more from membership fees and unions.
In response, the Electoral Commission, which regulates political finance in the UK, said reform was needed to “strengthen the system further”. A spokesperson said: “We stand ready to work with government and parliament on delivering improvements.”
The analysis, seen by the Observer, also reveals that the total donated privately to parties has risen dramatically, from £30.6m in 2001 to £85m in 2023. Meanwhile, between March 2001 and July 2024, £48.2m was given to UK politicians and parties by donors alleged or proven to have bought privileged access, influence or honours; £42m came from donors alleged or proven to have been involved in other corruption, fraud or money laundering; £38.6m came from unincorporated associations that have not reported the source of their income, despite parliament introducing new transparency rules in 2010; £13m came from donors alleged or proven to be intermediaries for foreign funds or a hidden source; and £10.9m was from companies that have not made sufficient profits to support the political contributions they made.
Beyond financial donations, the researchers analysed transparency registers since 2001, finding that MPs have accepted £11.6m of visits abroad, including £4.5m from foreign governments, parliaments and regime-linked groups.
Among the biggest funders of overseas trips was Qatar, which spent £460,000 on gifts and hospitality for UK politicians, mostly in the run-up to the 2022 World Cup; Saudi Arabia, which spent £400,000; Bahrain, which spent £200,000; and Azerbaijan, which spent £140,000.
TI said this was possible due to a “gap in legislation which allows foreign governments, including hostile states, to court UK politicians through all-expenses-paid overseas visits”.
Other comparable democracies such as that of the US have explicit rules to manage the funding of overseas trips funded by foreign governments.
In some cases, politicians went on to promote the interests of the governments that gave them gifts and hospitality. In 2022, the Observer revealed how Alun Cairns, then chair of the Qatar all-party parliamentary group (APPG), made a Commons speech praising Qatar before the World Cup.
The former Tory MP had received £9,323 worth of donations from the Qatari government in 2022 for two trips to Qatar. A statement via Cairns from the since dissolved Qatar APPG said it played an “active role in scrutinising all aspects of UK-Qatar relations, including human rights, ethics, education, energy and infrastructure”.
TI’s analysis further reveals how companies can donate even if they have no clear record of doing business in the UK. They must be registered with Companies House, incorporated in the UK and should be “carrying on business here”.
But TI said this was a “low bar” because while political parties are supposed to check for suspicious activity, such as a company being dormant, there is no ban on accepting money from them.
Another “loophole” means that since 2010, unincorporated associations – groups with no legal entity or requirement to disclose their funders – have donated huge sums to UK political parties and MPs. This includes private clubs linked to both the Conservatives and Labour.
Campaigners say the findings show the UK’s vulnerability to “undue influence from large donors, suspicious and corrupt individuals and foreign governments”.A briefing from Spotlight on Corruption this year concluded that “our electoral finance laws are riddled with loopholes and the enforcement regime is not robust enough”.
This is a major contribution to the debate on funding politics and highlights how badly reforms are needed.
Saturday, November 30, 2024
How Trump has changed the Brexit narrative
Freedland says that the November 2024 event that will have the most enduring global impact is the election of Donald Trump and although some in the higher reaches of the UK government are surprisingly relaxed about that fact, reassuring themselves that, in effect, we got through it once, we’ll get through it again, this is not going to be like last time:
Whether that’s complacency or naivety, it’s a mistake. This is not like last time. As Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, put it to me: “Trump is different and the world is different.” During his first term, Trump was hemmed in by the establishment types he had appointed to key jobs. Now he will be unbound. Back then, there was no war in Europe, China was relatively cooperative and Britain was still in the EU. That’s all changed now.
Consider what Trumpism, if implemented, means for the world. It would dismantle the post-1945 order, underpinned for eight decades by the US. In that period, the US acted as both guarantor for a system of global trade and defensive umbrella for the western alliance, with Britain and Europe the obvious beneficiaries. Playing that role came at a cost for the US, but successive presidents believed it was worth it, because a stable world was one in which the US could prosper.
Trump marks a radical break from that thinking. He believes those previous US presidents were suckers, ripped off by allies taking a free ride at US expense. He denies the US has any greater responsibilities than any other country: it should sacrifice nothing, looking out instead solely for itself. He’s happy for the US to be No 1 in the world, but not the world’s leader. The two are different. Like the slogan says: it’s “America first”.
For China, Russia, the Gulf states, Brazil and others there is some relief at that: they relish a future without a scolding Washington sticking its nose into their business. But for Europe, including Britain, it’s a disaster. In terms of both defence and the economy, our societies are predicated on a US-led world that will soon no longer exist.
The impact will be felt most sharply in Ukraine, which is weeks away from seeing US support fall away. Leonard fears a “Yalta-type settlement sealed by Trump and Vladimir Putin over the heads of European countries”, one that will reward Putin’s aggression and leave him emboldened. That leaves more than the likes of Moldova and the Baltic states feeling vulnerable. As the Guardian reported today, “Germany is developing an app to help people locate the nearest bunker in the event of attack. Sweden is distributing a 32-page pamphlet titled If Crisis or War Comes. Half a million Finns have already downloaded an emergency preparedness guide.” Berlin is taking steps to get the German public kriegstüchtig: war-capable.
On the continent, it’s become an urgent question: can Europe defend itself either without America or, at best, with less America? European defence spending is up and there is talk of shifting the industrial base, repurposing factories, to allow for a fast and massive, Europe-wide programme of rearmament. Our nearest neighbours understand that if the US president no longer believes in the core Nato principle of mutual defence – one for all and all for one – then, at the very least, Nato’s US pillar is gone. If Nato is to survive, the EU pillar will have to bear much of the weight alone.
It’s not clear that this penny has quite dropped in London. And remember there is a double threat here. Trump also plans to protect US domestic industry by slapping tariffs on imports from the rest of the world. China is likely to be hardest hit, with a 60% charge, but Trump wants a “universal” tariff of up to 20% on all goods coming into the US – including from Britain. For a trading nation such as the UK, that spells calamity.
He says that we can, of course, spend more on defence, and work more closely with our European allies to improve our security, but when it comes to a trade war then Brexit has left us isolated and much weakened. He adds that Britain alone would be all but impotent against the might of the US and that there is only one nearby market that is of comparable heft to the US, whose threats to retaliate against US tariffs would have a deterrent effect, a body, incidentally, that happens to be a virtuoso in the realm of trade and trade disputes - the European Union
What’s more, these two spheres, military and economic, are no longer as distinct as they once were. When states confront each other, they no longer do it solely through bombs and bullets. Everything else gets weaponised too, whether it’s the financial system through sanctions, the supply of energy or food or technology. Witness Russia’s war against Ukraine. As it happens, these are all areas where the EU’s particular brand of cooperation can help. So when Russia moved to choke off the gas supply to individual European countries, the EU was able to step in and connect what were previously separate energy grids, thereby thwarting that threat.
The point is, the landscape of 2016 – that fateful year – no longer exists. Plenty of Brexiters believed, in good faith, that a buccaneering, free-trading Britain could thrive in a world of open borders. But that world has gone now, replaced by one of war, barriers and Darwinian competition. Whatever case you could make for Britain being out of the EU in the Obama era of 2016 makes no sense now.
I don’t expect Starmer to announce a plan to rejoin the EU tomorrow. But it’s time for outriders to start riding out. Labour MPs, perhaps the odd minister, can begin to make the case that is becoming increasingly obvious to many millions of Britons. The polls are saying it, the governor of the Bank of England is saying it. And when immigration levels are four times higher now than when we were in the EU, the issue that served as the Brexiters’ trump card lies in shreds. One by one, the premises of Britain’s 2016 decision are crumbling.
I understand the political calculus that made Labour believe Brexit was an issue best avoided. But the reality around us is changing and politicians, governments especially, have to adapt to it. In the age of Trump, when the US is no longer the predictable guarantor it once was, Britain cannot thrive alone and in the cold. It’s not ideology or idealism, but hard-headed, practical common sense to say our place is in Europe – and to say so now.
Starmer needs to wake up to this reality and start to do something about it.
Friday, November 29, 2024
Union lanches legal action over winter fuel payments
The website says that Unite claimed the Government did not follow the correct procedure in making the decision, which will see around 10 million pensioners miss out on the benefit:
The union had threatened legal action earlier in November and announced on Thursday that it had applied to the High Court for leave to proceed with a full judicial review after receiving an “unsatisfactory” response to its demand that the Government reverse its decision.
Sharon Graham, Unite’s general secretary, said: “Labour’s decision to pick the pocket of pensioners was wrong on every level. The government has been given every opportunity to reverse its decision and it has failed to do so.
“This is a rushed, ill-thought-out policy and the government clearly failed to follow the proper legal measures before executing it. With winter approaching the courts must now hold the government to account and reverse this cruel cut as quickly as possible.”
The union said it hoped the court would grant an urgent hearing on its case in the context of “worsening weather conditions and dropping temperatures”.
In its pre-action letter, the union said it believed the Government had breached its legal duties by not referring the cut to the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) and by failing to consider the impact on disabled people, among other grounds.
Ministers are not required to refer regulations on benefits to the SSAC if they are a matter of “urgency”, something the Government relied on when implementing the winter fuel cut.
The Government also conducted an “equalities analysis”, which was released under the Freedom of Information Act, but has been criticised for not carrying out a full impact assessment of the policy.
The bid for a judicial review will further strain relations between the Government and Unite, which has been one of Labour’s main donors but grown increasingly distant from the party since Sir Keir Starmer became leader.
This could run and run.
Thursday, November 28, 2024
Welsh Tory Leader under pressure
They say that a series of controversial “gaffes” by the most senior Tory in Wales has caused MSs to become “nervous” about the direction he was taking the party, leading to Davies bring informed on Wednesday evening that more than half of his group have asked for him to resign from his leadership role:
Pressure has been mounting on Davies since the Senedd’s summer recess when a number of senior Tory figures and members of his own shadow cabinet publicly lambasted his behaviour following a series of stories by Nation.Cymru.
In August, he was accused of Islamophic race-baiting by the Muslim Council of Wales after he posted a number of incorrect claims about Halal meat in Welsh schools to his social media.
One post published to X, formerly Twitter, went viral after it was amplified by anti-Muslim activist Tommy Robinson.
The rift in the Senedd’s shadow cabinet appeared to deepen further following another social media stunt at the Vale of Glamorgan show.
Davies and his team had constructed a home made ballot box to canvass the public on whether they thought the Welsh Parliament should be abolished.
Supporters and associates of the politician then began to secretly manoeuvre to change the party’s policy so it would support the abolition of the Senedd
Davies was later pressured by his Tory MSs to make an official statement rejecting calls for the party’s stance on devolution to change.
The rumblings of a coup appeared to lose pace after the group returned to the Senedd in the autumn for a new term.
But tension began to mount again this month after comments Davies made to the tabloids about a Welsh Government report which allegedly suggested dog-free zones could tackle racism.
The ethnic minority group at the heart of the viral news story said Davies had “cherrypicked” lines from the report “out of context, misrepresented and used as clickbait to drive engagement.”
An email exchange shown to Nation Cymru revealed how the head of organisation had reached out to Davies asking him to stop reinforcing the claims because some participants were being subjected to a “barrage” of racist abuse and hate mail.
The Welsh Tory leader responded by doubling down on his stance and arguing that nothing he had said on the issue was “untrue”.
He later discussed the issues on a podcast famous for offering a platform to Tommy Robinson and other far-right figures.
Davies also attacked a Welsh Government incentive scheme to recruit BAME teachers – a cause previously supported by one of his group.
Despite some MSs disagreeing with their leader’s comments, a statement was put out backing Davies without the full group’s sign off first.
Many of Tory figure’s divisive talking points and trademark Twitter persona are said to be the handiwork of his chief aide George Carroll who is a councillor in the Vale of Glamorgan.
Carroll recently lost his bid to become the Chairman of the Welsh Conservatives.
During his campaign he promised a members ballot on whether abolishing the Senedd should become party policy.
He also planned to change the rules around incumbency rights for sitting MSs ahead of the 2026 Senedd election.
Such a move could have seen some current members deselected.
Davies threw his support behind his senior advisor while the rest of the Tory Senedd group backed the winning candidate.
With Reform on the rise in Wales, maybe Welsh Tories feel that having Andrew RT Davies in a leadership role does not distinguish them enough from Farage's party.
Wednesday, November 27, 2024
Labour's misdirected tax rises
The Guardian reports that well-paid City lawyers and other self-employed partners at businesses including top accountancy and private equity firms have been spared the increases to national insurance contributions announced in October’s budget, in a move that will deny the Treasury “billions” of pounds of potential revenue.
The paper says that members of limited liability partnerships (LLPs) were not included in Rachel Reeves’ changes to employer national insurance contributions (NICs), which were raised to 15% from April 2025, while the threshold at which contributions are due was also lowered to £5,000 from £9,100:
The measures, expected to ultimately raise £25bn a year, have drawn criticism from a string of large businesses, including retailers and hospitality firms, who say they will be forced to cut jobs and raise prices. Separately, thousands of farmers have protested against the changes to inheritance tax affecting agricultural and business properties.
Top partners at City law and professional services companies that operate as LLPs can take home salaries of £1m and upwards, but will not be affected by the increase in contributions.
Most members of LLPs are considered self-employed for national insurance purposes, and pay the lower class 4 rate of contributions. Currently, class 4 workers pay a 9% rate on profits between £9,568 and £50,270, with an additional 2% paid on profits above the upper limit.
Before the budget there had been speculation that LLP members would also have been affected by the changes, according to the Law Gazette, which is published by the Law Society, the professional body for solicitors in England and Wales.
It has also reported estimates that the Treasury could have raised £4bn from four of the five firms that make up the so-called ‘magic circle’ of City law firms that operate as LLPs, including A&O Shearman, Clifford Chance, Freshfields and Linklaters.
Tony Williams, principal at the legal consultancy Jomati, said he estimated that such a move could have raised “into the billions”.
Keir Starmer warned in August that the October budget would be “painful” given the state of the public finances. The prime minister, who worked as a lawyer for decades before becoming the director of public prosecutions, added that “those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden”.
Historically, self-employed workers paid a lower rate of national insurance, on the basis that they did not receive benefits they would have been entitled to as employees, including holiday pay, sick pay, minimum wage and pension contributions.
Williams added that Reeves could have closed the apparent loophole by bringing in a higher threshold for the self-employed, either at the current upper limit of £50,270, or alternatively by adding a higher rate over £100,000.
“When you think about the number of firms in the City and others where people are earning significantly over £1m, it could be £2m or £3m,” said Williams.
He added that the government may not have looked at changing rates for partners at LLPs to avoid breaking its manifesto promise not to increase taxes on working people.
The self-employed also used to pay lower rates of national insurance, as they were previously not able to access benefits such as unemployment benefit.
“But that rationale doesn’t stack up very well in this environment,” Williams said.
None of this sounds like the sort of omission a Labour government should be making.
Tuesday, November 26, 2024
A matter of perspective
This movement attracted much derision from the Tories, those fly-by-night charlatans who now form the bulk of Reform and the right-wing media, all of whom argued that the country had spoken and to reopen the debate again would be undemocratic. And yet these very same people appear to have had a change of heart, it seems that they no longer believe that a democratic election should be the final word.
The Independent reports on the now two million strong petition calling for another General Election just five months after the last one, an election that produced a landslide Labour majority, albeit within a flawed electoral system.
The paper says that the petition comes amid growing backlash over Labour’s budget, which has sparked controversy for hikes to national insurance and extension of inheritance tax to include farms, among other unpopular proposals which aim to fill the spending black hole.
And there amongst the usual suspects of those initiating this petition is the billionaire Trump-ally Elon Musk, who has repeatedly criticised Sir Keir Starmer since he came to power. So much for his outrage at Labour interfering in the US presidential election. But who exactly is signing this petition? The paper has carried out an analysis:
The petition was only set up on November 20, but has already received over 2,184,000 signatures at the time of writing.
The majority of signatories to the petition are concentrated in Conservatives or Reform safe seats.
Many of the names in these seats may seem familiar, as vocal critics of the current Labour government. The MPs in constituencies where the petitions have received the most signatures include leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch, former leadership hopeful James Cleverly, and topping the list, Alex Burghart.
The petition is highly popular among constituents of Reform leaders Richard Tice and Nigel Farage, with 9,550 signatures between the two constituencies.
However, over a million signatures have come from constituencies with a Labour MP.
The Labour MP representing the most constituents calling for a general election is Kevin McKenna, with 4,609 constituents signing the petition.
Mr McKenna won his constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey by just 355 votes in July.
The constituency had a low voter turnout of just 51.9 per cent and was historically Conservative.
It is likely that his narrow win made many residents unhappy in an area with high Tory support; but even so, it is unclear whether those signing the petition would be able to oust Mr McKenna in another election.
However, this discontent may still cause some concern for Labour MPs with small majorities. In the Derbyshire Dales, Labour MP John Whitby won by 350 votes, and over 4,426 of his constituents have signed the petition to call an election. MPs in Ribble Valley, Middlesborough South, and Redditch face a similar dilemma.
A high number of constituents in South Norfolk have also signed the petition in South Norfolk, where Terry Jermy is the Labour MP.
Mr Jermy has faced recent pressure following the farmers protests, as his constituency is being eyed by the Tories and has 408 farm holdings.
Even some constituents of Labour leaders have signed the petition calling for a new election, with over 3,000 signatures in Deputy PM Angela Rayner’s seat.
At least 14,276 of the signatures were from people based outside the United Kingdom, according to self-declared locations required in the petition forms.
Thousands of signatures came from the United States, Spain, France and Australia.
The petition has also received hundreds of signatures from Thailand, UAE and Cyprus.
There are even five signatures reported from the Vatican City, where the Pope resides.
Only British citizens and UK residents are allowed to sign this type of petition to be considered by Parliament.
However, the rapid scale of the petition may make it more difficult to verify the identities of the two million-plus signatories. The Independent has reached out to the government to confirm how many of the signatures are verified.
This is not helped by non-citizens such as billionaire Elon Musk promoting the petition, saying on X that “the people of Britain have had enough of a tyrannical police state”.
I would argue that the lies and misrepresentation put about by Brexiteers in 2016, together with the many unexpected developments and dificulties in delivering the exit from the EU made the case for a second plebiscite a compelling one. Leaving the EU is final, with no second chance and is unlikely to be undone for generations, if at all.
In contrast, Keir Starmer's government has to face another general election is due course, when people will be able to judge for themselves whether Labour has been faithful to their promises and vote accordingly. The case for another contest so soon is entirely a partisan one, being made for political advantage, and has little to do with the best interests of the country.
I suppose it's all a matter of persepective.
