Sally Allen: Election debate raises questions for Torbay residents

We clearly live in very unsettled times. Sometimes this is very scary and sometimes just confusing. 

I think that one of our main problems at the moment is that the Palace of Westminster is devoid of natural leadership. If you cast your eyes over the 650 incumbents, we are not exactly blessed or spoilt for choice. 

The two main parties have very little commercial experience and the government’s front bench has none. 

Most cabinet members have backgrounds in law, public service, civil service or politics rather than traditional commercial careers. This is proven by their lack of ability to, it appears, even run a bath without incident. Maybe they are scared of the U-bend!

This is all very depressing as to me, the current government has lost all credibility, with around 14 to 15 major U-turns on policy decisions identified from July 2024.

Last year, Labour announced plans to postpone numerous local elections in 2026. If you can believe it, and I am sceptical, this was in an attempt to address concerns about a lack of resources across some councils. 

Some authorities said a lack of resources needed to deliver local government reorganisation, and the cost of holding elections led to the need for a delay. More likely, in my view, is that they were terrified of huge losses of control, and in some cases even retaining mere representation, across the board if the elections took place this May.

Currently, Labour controls two-thirds of the councils asking for a delay and Reform had been hoping to make inroads in some of the governing party’s heartlands. Polling, points to heavy losses for Labour, which is awash with talk of a leadership challenge against Starmer.

Then up popped a legal challenge from Reform UK aiming to block the government’s plan to delay these local council elections. Reform argued delays would be likely to discourage candidates from participating and undermine the conduct of local election campaigns, plus Labour were disgracefully trying to deny democracy.

Nigel Farage called the prospect of delays “outrageous” and accused Labour and the Tories, which have asked for delays in four of the councils they control, of “running scared of voters”.

So, surprise surprise on February 16, the government announced it was dropping the plans to delay elections for more than 4.6 million people in as many as 30 councils, after being warned against the move by lawyers. 

This U-turn came after Reform UK launched their legal action against the government. This challenge was a central factor in the government’s eventual decision to abandon the postponement plans on February 16, after receiving legal advice that it would likely lose the case.

Mr Farage claimed the U-turn as a victory for his party, writing on social media: “We took this Labour government to court and won. In collusion with the Tories, Keir Starmer tried to stop 4.6 million people voting on May 7. Only Reform UK fights for democracy.”

So, well done Nigel. This seemed to endorse the fact that he might be the most able to lead the country at the next election. But then, why on earth has he accepted tried and trusted failures from the Tories into the Reform team? This to me, is a seriously bad decision. 

I am of the belief that Farage and his team were doing so well in the polls because they were new! 

Jenrick and Braverman are mere opportunists intent on their own ambitions rather than serving the country. Clearly, their thinking is, why stay on a losing team when you can jump ship and join what looks a better bet.

Jenrick has already proved he was a snake in the grass to Kemi Badenoch and not someone to be trusted because of his over-riding ambitions. I think that long-term, Farage could find that the public are not overly fond of turncoats, and it could prove a big miss-step for him and his party.

Added to this, surely all the politicians who have swapped political parties should be forced to have a by-election? Voters voted for a party and representative and therefore it can’t be right to suddenly find that you are being represented by a person whose allegiance has flipped to something you might not agree with, without the option of another vote.

I strongly believe that the same requirements should be forced on local councillors who also change sides during a term of office. It is both disingenuous and undemocratic to the voter.

Currently, electoral modelling (eg from Electoral Calculus) suggests Reform UK has the highest probability of being the largest party if an election were held now, potentially forming a government, either alone (minority) or with support. Reform is often projected well ahead of both Labour and Conservatives.

However, modelled outcomes vary widely:

• A Reform minority government is seen as the most probable scenario.
• A Reform overall majority is also possible in some projections.
• Other scenarios include no overall control or very low probabilities for a traditional Conservative or Labour majority

Whatever happens, and at the moment, it is still all up for grabs, I hope that for a change the public actually get what they want, and are constitutionally entitled to, rather than the sad and predictable alternative.

It is clearly a reflection on the standards of our current society that our politicians seem to be drawn from the chancers of the world, rather than those truly wishing to serve the public. Honourable politicians have become as rare as hens’ teeth.

Now, this will show my age, but we used to have politicians running the country that we could respect even if we didn’t agree with their political views. 

Now they change sides at every opportunity for their own advantage. There is no evidence of any of them being made of the ‘right stuff’, which is a truly sad reflection on society today. 

The image of a dedicated, honourable and resolute politician who shows moral fibre and courage, appears to be long gone. Just look across the pond at the most powerful person in the world. I weep for us, and future generations!