Starmer defends lowering voting age to 16, saying people can work and pay tax then so have right to say where money goes – live

In the Commons Sarah Olney, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson, welcomed the plans set out in the modern elections strategy document. The Lib Dems had been in favour of votes at 16 “for many years”, she said. But she went on:

I am concerned that this strategy shows nowhere near the kind of ambition that we need to fix a system of elections which has left large swathes of the public feeling like their vote simply doesn’t count.

Last year’s general election turned out the most disproportionate result in history, with nearly 60% of people who voted not represented in parliament by the candidate that they voted for.

Olney urged the government to go further and introduce proportional representation.

In response, Rushanara Ali said the government had no plans to change the voting system for UK parliamentary and local elections. She said, when they Lib Dems were in coalition, they had the chance to push for electoral reform. (There was a referendum on switching to the alternative vote, but that was defeated by more than 2:1.)

In Britain political parties are not allowed to accept donations from abroad. But if individuals or companies own a business based in Britain, the UK-based company can donate – even if it does not generate enough money in profits here to cover those costs.

The government is going to close this loophole. In its modern elections strategy document, it says:

A new company could be registered today, owned by anyone and funded from anywhere and, without even a single day of trade, it could still [the test for political donations to be allowable]. These companies are commonly called ‘shell companies’. This is an unacceptably low threshold and a vulnerability in our system highlighted by many independent experts, including the Electoral Commission, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the National Crime Agency.

We will therefore be bringing forward measures to ensure that in future, ‘shell companies’ will not be permitted to make political donations to UK political parties. To achieve this, we will require companies to have made sufficient UK (or Ireland) generated income in order to donate. This check will close loopholes to prevent foreign interference by ensuring that only companies carrying out genuine commercial activity in the UK or Ireland can donate to political parties.

In her response to Paul Holmes in the Commons, Rushanara Ali, the democracy minister, accused the Conservatives of doing “nothing” to close the loopholes allowing foreign donations to influence British elections. She told her Tory shadow:

It was his party that sat in government for 14 years and did nothing to close the gaping loopholes allowing foreign interference and foreign money to enter our system. This is despite independent experts calling for change. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report exposed malign efforts to channel foreign money into UK politics. Both the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission have called for strengthened regulations and greater transparency in political donations, alongside modernised enforcement.

We make no apologies for finally taking the tough choices and to protect Britain’s democracy from malign foreign interference.

The real question for [Holmes] is, will his party finally end their addiction to donations from shell companies?

Under these new laws, they might not have a choice. And we won’t stop there. They will finally have to update their weak due diligence checks and conduct enhanced checks.

Keir Starmer has defended giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in UK parliamentary election on the grounds that teenagers pay tax. He told ITV News:

I think it’s really important that 16- and 17-year-olds have the vote, because they are old enough to go out to work, they are old enough to pay taxes, so pay in.

And I think if you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on, which way the government should go.

So I’m really pleased we are able to bring more young people into our democracy and give them a chance to have a say over how their taxes are paid and what they are going to be used for.

Two thinktanks have issued statements warmly welcoming the plans for votes at 16 and more automatic voter registration.

This is from Darren Hughes, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society.

Bringing in votes at 16 will end the absurd and unfair situation where teenagers can already vote in Wales and Scotland but not in England and Northern Ireland purely by dint of where they live.
Voting at 16 will also help more young people to cast that all-important, habit-forming vote at a point when they can be supported with civic education.
Moving to automatic voter registration (AVR) will make life simpler for everyone, it is common sense, and it helps strengthen our democracy. It will make the process of voting more straightforward and is one less thing on the to-do list for voters.
Crucially, it will also help enfranchise the 8.2m people missing from the electoral register and bring the UK’s registration system in line with the many countries that already have AVR, such as Sweden, Germany and South Korea.

And this is from Harry Quilter-Pinner, executive director at the IPPR, a progressive thinktank.

Barely half of people voted in last year’s general election. Our democracy is in crisis, and we risk reaching a tipping point where politics loses its legitimacy. The government has clearly heard these alarm bells. The policies announced today represent the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969, more than 50 years.

“Lowering the voting age to 16 and introducing first steps towards automatic voter registration could eventually bring up to 9.5 million new people into the democratic process. Meanwhile, new controls on political donations will help shield our elections from foreign interference.

Although the headline story out of the modern elections strategy is about votes at 16, another proposal that is as significant, or even more, is the move towards automated voter registration.

The public debate about the state of democracy tends to focus on turnout – the percentage of registered voters who turn out in general elections. It has been declining seriously over the past 30 years, and at the last election turnout was just 59.7%, which was the lowest level since 2001 (which in turn was the lowest level since 1918).

But there are many potential voters who are not even registered. In 2023 an Electoral Commission report said as many as 8 million people might not be registered.

In its document today the government says:

Everyone who is entitled to vote should be able, supported and encouraged to do so. However, the Electoral Commission estimates that as many as 7-8 million otherwise eligible citizens are either incorrectly registered or not registered at all. Addressing this registration gap must be a priority in order to increase participation in our elections.

Our ambition is to transform our registration practices, harnessing data and moving towards an automated system so voters can easily and simply be registered to vote. This requires a multifaceted approach through both immediate improvements in data sharing and integration of digital services, and, for the longer-term, testing innovative approaches before permanently implementing those changes that prove successful.

The Electoral Commission has welcomed this plan. In a comment on all the reforms announced today, Vijay Rangarajan, its chief executive said:

These reforms will improve the resilience and integrity of our electoral system, tackling many of the threats it faces and should improve the experience for voters, campaigners, parties and administrators.

Registration reform would open the door for millions more to get involved in elections, and the proposed changes to the political finance rules would strengthen the checks on money coming into UK politics and ensure a more proportionate and effective enforcement regime.

Here is the full text of the government’s “strategy for modern and secure elections”.

And here is the text of a letter from Rushanara Ali, the democracy minister, to officials about what the plans involve.

This is how the government describes the “civil society covenant” that Keir Starmer is talking about in its news release.

At its core, the covenant is about delivering real change for working people – strengthening public services, creating safe communities, and providing new opportunities for communities to thrive. It gives civil society a home at the heart of government and recognises that national renewal can’t be delivered from Westminster alone.

Starmer said this approach was about “rebalancing power and responsibility”. He said:

Not the top-down approach of the state working alone. Not the transactional approach of markets left to their own devices. But a new way forward – where government and civil society work side by side to deliver real change.

Starmer did not mention votes at 16 in his speech.

While Rushanara Ali is answering the urgent question in the Commons, Keir Starmer is speaking at the event where he is announcing a “civil society covenant”.

There is a live feed here.

 

Paul Holmes, a Conservative, tabled the urgent question on elections strategy paper published today. (An earlier post mistakenly said he was Lib Dem – sorry.)

Holmes complained that the government was not announcing these measures through a formal statement.

On votes at 16, he claimed this proposal was not consistent with other policy about when people become adults. He said:

Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket or an alcoholic drink, marry or go to war, or even stand in the elections they’re voting? It isn’t the government’s position on the age of maturity just hopelessly confused?

In the Commons Rushanara Ali, democracy minister in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, is answering an urgent question on the government’s strategy for elections published today.

Here is the department’s news release on the strategy, focusing on the proposal to allow votes at 16.

And here is a written statement from Ali on the plans.

The voting age will be lowered to 16 in England and Northern Ireland by the next general election in a major change of the democratic system, Rowena Mason reports.

Reform UK has told Britain’s biggest wind and solar developers it will end their access to a clean energy subsidy scheme if it wins power, PA Media reports. PA says:

Deputy leader Richard Tice has written to firms giving them “formal notice” that the party would axe deals aimed at offering sustainable generators protection against market volatility.

The Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme sees developers guaranteed a fixed price for electricity – independent of the wholesale price – in the hope of encouraging companies to invest in renewable projects.

In a letter to companies including Octopus Energy and SSE Renewables , Tice claimed “there is no public mandate for the real-world consequences” of the clean power agenda. If Reform won an election, he said “we will seek to strike down all contracts signed under AR7” – the upcoming allocation round for CfDs.

“Let me be clear: if you enter bids in AR7, you do so at your own risk. The political consensus that has sheltered your industry for nearly two decades is fracturing.”

He added that participation in the upcoming CfD auction “carries significant political, financial and regulatory risk” for company shareholders.

Climate analysts said the move would drive away investment and put British jobs in jeopardy.

Commenting on the move, a Labour party spokesperson said:

Reform are now actively trying to discourage businesses from investing in clean energy in the UK – leaving bills higher for families, threatening hundreds of thousands of good jobs across the country and putting our energy security at risk. They are disgracefully trying to undermine the UK’s national interest.

This Labour government is cutting energy bills for millions of families, schools, and hospitals, and creating good jobs in our industrial heartlands, to put more money in working people’s pockets. Reform are trying to put all of this at risk.

And Jess Ralston, an analyst at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a thinktank promoting informed debate on climate issues, said:

The aim of the letter appears to be to put good, well-paid British jobs in jeopardy, driving away investment in the economy and denying people the opportunity to make a living. Polling shows the public see clean energy as the number one growth sector for the UK.

Arguing against British renewables is arguing for more foreign gas, which will increasingly come from abroad as the North Sea continues its inevitable decline – a geological fact. Gas has cost the UK £140bn over the last few years and is set to remain more expensive than pre-crisis levels in the long term. So building more renewables means energy security and shielding households from volatile international gas markets, which the voting public are keen to see.

Unemployment climbed and wage growth slowed in the three months to May, according to official figures that will pressure the Bank of England to cut interest rates next month. Phillip Inman has the story.

Rachael Maskell, one of the four Labour MPs suspended from the parliamentary party yesterday, tabled the reasoned amendment that would have killed off the welfare bill. She pushed it to a vote even after a last-minute concession from the government that ripped out the clauses that would have cut eligibility for Pip, a disability benefit.

In an interview on the Today programme this morning, Maskell defended her actions. She said:

I don’t see myself as a ringleader, I joined with other colleagues who had similar concerns about this legislation. We ultimately do believe that cutting money from some of the poorest in our society is not what a Labour government should be doing.

Of course I brought to parliament the voices of my constituents, in fact I told stories within the debate about their fragile mental health and the implications of losing money and the reforms would have on them.

Quite frankly, disabled people are very invisible in our society, they don’t have agency and voice. What was so important about that debate was the recognition of that.

Asked repeatedly if she was willing to change her behaviour so she could be readmitted to the parliamentary Labour party, Maskell said she was Labour “through and through” and that she hoped the party would learn. When Nick Robinson, the presenter, put the question for the third time, Maskell replied: “It’s not about my behaviour.” Robinson said it was, because that was why she was suspended. He then asked Maskell to confirm that she would not change her behaviour, and Maskell replied: “I will continue to advocate for my constituents, of course.”

Eleni Courea has more on the interview here.

Diane Abbott has said she has no regrets about comments on racism that led to her year-long suspension from the Labour party, Eleni Courea reports.

There are two urgent questions in the Commons today after 10.30am: first one from the Paul Holmes (Con) about the government’s elections strategy, being published today, and then one from another Tory, Luke Evans, about NHS pensions and the impact of administrative delays on frontline care.

After that, from about 11.30am, we’ll get the business statement from Lucy Powell, leader of the Commons, followed by a statement about Ukraine from John Healey, the defence secretary.

Good morning. Chief whips tends to be quite secretive, and when four Labour MPs had the whip suspended yesterday, there was no detailed, public explanation as to why they were being punished for rebelling when so many other backbenchers, who have also voted against the party, have not been singled out. As Eleni Courea and Jessica Elgot report in our overnight story, we were just told they were regular rebels.

But the best explanation came from the Labour party source who told Geri Scott from the Times that the four MPs – Rachael Maskell, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman and Chris Hinchliff – were being punished for “persistent knobheadery”.

This is problematic because, if “persistent knobheadery” is a crime, then some of the greatest parliamentarians of all time were also guilty of it. Winston Churchill is regarded as a hero, but he twice switched parties and in the 1930s, when he was leading a lonely fight against his party and over self-government for India and appeasement, “knobhead” would have been one of the politer things colleagues would have said about him. The same is true of Aneurin Bevan during the second world war, and again in the 1950s. And Enoch Powell, and Tony Benn, and Jeremy Corbyn – and many others.

The four MPs disciplined yesterday are not necessarily in the same category as most of these figures, but some Labour MPs are unhappy at the precedent that has been set.

Jess Phillips, the minister for safeguarding, has been doing interviews this morning. She was meant to be talking about measures announced today that the Home Office says will mean “more women and children will be better protected from domestic abuse through the direct targeting of perpetrators”, but inevitably she ended up defending the decision taken yesterday.

All four MPs suspended voted against the government’s welfare bill, even after the government announced two sets of major concessions, and one of them, Rachael Maskell, ended up leading the opposition on the day of the final vote. But Phillips claimed the four were not being punished for their opposition to the cuts in sickness and disability benefits. She told the Today programme:

I don’t think that the discipline that has been meted out over the last 24 hours is linked to [the welfare bill] because many more people voted against the government than these four people.

But when asked why they were being disciplined, Phillips claimed not to know the full story. Asked what the reasons were for the MPs being suspended, she replied:

I actually don’t know because I’m not part of the disciplining team.

But “a level of persistence” was probably a factor, she said.

And she said discipline was important.

The reality is there has to be an element of discipline, otherwise, you end up not being able to govern.

I am a plain speaker and I will tell you that I disagree often with directions that are going on, and I spend time working with colleagues, both on the back and front benches, ensuring that we discuss those things.

I think that constantly taking to the airwaves and slagging off your own government, I have to say, what did you think was going to happen?

Here is the agenda for the day.

10.30am: Keir Starmer is due to launch a Civil Society Covenant at an event in London.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

Lunchtime: Starmer welcomes Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, to Downing Street.

Afternoon: Starmer and Merz visit a factory in Hertfordshire, where they will speak to the media.

Around 4pm: Wes Streeting, health secretary, holds a meeting with the BMA’s resident doctors committee.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.