United Kingdom lowers voting age to 16 in biggest reform since 1969: PM Keir Starmer says 'They're old enough to go out to work'
In an interview with ITV News, Starmer clarified the rationale behind his decision, saying:
"They're old enough to go out to work, they're old enough to pay taxes ... 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."
While the change in voting age is pending parliamentary approval, the Labour party's majority all but ensures it'll pass. However, Keir Starmer's popularity has been in decline since he took office, with Nigel Farage's Reform UK party catching up to Labour in the polls.
Keir Starmer fulfils major campaign promise
Keir Starmer and the Labour Party campaigned on electoral reform and empowering younger voters, and with their upcoming Election Bill, they're set to follow through on their promise. Other measures in this Election Bill include expanding voter ID options, tightening regulations on campaign financing and moving towards automatic voter registration.
Kier Starmer is changing the game.The plans have been published in a new strategy paper: - Extend the right to vote in UK-wide elections to 16 and 17-year-olds by next general election - Allow UK-issued bank cards to be used as voter ID at polling stations- Permit use of… pic.twitter.com/HBbKzqZeyR
This change will also standardize voting eligibility laws across the United Kingdom, as the voting age was already 16 in local council elections in Scotland, along with elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd.
The Elections Bill also heralds the biggest reform to the system since 1969's change to the voting age from 21 to 18.
UK right-wingers oppose the reforms
The United Kingdom's right wing has come out in opposition to these voting reforms. Conservative party minister Paul Holmes accused the Government of being 'hopelessly confused', saying:
"Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?"
Paul Holmes take a bow "Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?" #votingage
The Conservative party has also spoken against the usage of bank cards as voter ID, claiming it undermines the integrity of the voting process.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
PIO peer calls for Clive of India statue in front of London's foreign office to be pulled down
LONDON: An Indian-heritage Labour peer has called for the statue of Clive of India outside the foreign office in London to be pulled down due to the role he played at the East India Company laying the groundwork for the British Raj. 'I'm not sure that a statue of Clive should really have any place outside of the foreign office. Clive was one of the early architects of the British empire in India. He landed in Chennai, where my family is from. The frieze on the side of the statue shows happy smiling at people looking really delighted to see him. It is not historically accurate and not helpful for our current relationship with India,' Baroness Debonnaire said. 'It is deeply unhelpful to see India as a country that Britain civilised. India had a thriving engineering industry in the 17th century — it knew about mineral extraction, it had incredible technological advances. It knew about free trade before free trade agreements were written. That was all closed down by an extractive colonising force. It is also a shocking sculpture,' she said. 'What is pictured on that statue is tiny, tiny little Indians who are kind of subservient and incidental to their own national story, and then a great big picture of Clive on a horse.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Patna Users Prefers Toothsi Aligners Toothsi by MakeO Book Now Undo One of the bronze friezes shows Clive receiving the grant of Bengal at Allahabad in 1765. Debonnaire, born to a father of Indian and Sri Lankan heritage and an English mother, was speaking at the Edinburgh International Book Festival. A former Labour MP, she previously represented the Bristol constituency where the Edward Colston statue was pulled down in 2020 during a Black Lives Matter protest. TOI understands that the foreign office has no plans to remove the 1912 statue by John Tweed, which is the responsibility of English Heritage. A marble statue of Clive, also by Tweed, still stands in Kolkata. The only other statue of Clive in the UK is in Shrewsbury. There were petitions to pull it down, and a counter petition to keep it, in 2020. Shropshire Council kept it and instead erected an interpretation board next to it which says 'Lord Clive's activities on behalf of the East India Company and the profits extracted both by the Company and him personally, resulted in the plundering of India. They inflicted famine, poverty and other atrocities upon the native population. '
The Hindu
30 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Benjamin Netanyahu's push for a no-state solution
It took 108 years after the Balfour Declaration, when the British first professed support for the establishment of a Jewish national home 'in Palestine', for London to even commit to recognising Palestinian statehood. Last month, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that Britain would recognise the state of Palestine in September, unless Israel ended the war in Gaza and took urgent measures aimed at long-term peace, based on the two-state framework. France, another close ally of Israel and an enabler of Israel's nuclear weapons programme, also said that it would recognise Palestine in the UN General Assembly session. Canada, Australia and a few other nations in the western alliance system have also pledged to follow suit. Make no mistake. This is not a moment of sudden moral awakening against Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. Israel has occupied Palestinian territories since 1967. Several countries in the Global South, including India, recognised Palestinian sovereignty in the late 1980s, following the declaration of independence by the Palestine Liberation Organization. Even after the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995, which promised a two-state solution, most western governments insisted that they would recognise Palestine only as part of a final settlement. Today, such a settlement based on the two-state formula appears as remote as ever. But more and more countries in the Global North are now stepping forward to recognise Palestinian sovereignty. Why? Charges of genocide There are two possible explanations. First, the charge that Israel is committing genocide, the most serious crime before international law, is no longer a fringe theory. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, while the International Court of Justice is examining the genocide charge. Within Israel, two leading rights organisations, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel, have accused the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) of committing genocide, a position also echoed by Amnesty International and Médecins Sans Frontières. Omer Bartov, an Israeli-American genocide studies scholar and a veteran of the IDF, has stated that Israel is committing genocide. David Grossman, one of Israel's most respected writers, has said that 'with immense pain and a broken heart' he must use the word genocide to describe his country's war on the Palestinians. In just 22 months, Israeli forces have killed 2.6% of Gaza's pre-war population, wounded over 6.5% and displaced nearly all of them. Among the dead are over 18,000 children. Israel had also imposed a total blockade in March 2025, weaponising hunger and aid delivery, and triggering a mass starvation crisis. Since May, over 1,000 Palestinians have been killed while trying to collect food and other relief, according to the United Nations. Such systemic violence against an entire people in an occupied territory by their colonial rulers has been unprecedented in recent history, which makes the war increasingly impossible for even Israel's staunchest allies to defend — the United States remains the outlier. Second, mounting allegations of war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide have shifted international public opinion decisively against the Jewish nation. Across Europe, public protests have swelled, fuelled by anger not just towards the war but also towards the hollow position most of their governments, which, otherwise, are vocal about human rights, have taken. A YouGov poll in June found that only 13%-21% people in western Europe have a favourable view of Israel. In some countries, the support for the Gaza war has dropped to as low as 6%. Dissent is growing even in the U.S., which is Israel's patron and partner. An Economist/YouGov Survey in August found only 27% Americans to be supportive of Mr. Netanyahu, while 84% backed an immediate ceasefire. Nearly half of American voters now believe that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. Ideological regime Israel is aware of the strains in its ties with its traditional allies and that it is losing global public opinion. The stain of Gaza will not fade easily. The most prudent and humane thing for Israel to do is to end the war through a ceasefire for a hostage deal, open all humanitarian corridors, pull back from Gaza and take steps to hold itself accountable for its failures and violations. But Mr. Netanyahu's regime, driven by a settler, expansionist neo-Zionist ideology, is unable to pursue any of these measures. Instead, Mr. Netanyahu seeks to escalate the war further. Last week, his security cabinet cleared a proposal to take control of Gaza City. How did the 'start-up nation', imagined as a collective of communes for what Pankaj Mishra calls 'a pitilessly abused people', become a victimiser? The answer lies in a collective failure of both the post-War world and an expansionist Israel. This failure reached catastrophic proportions following Hamas's brutal October 7, 2023 massacre. Nations typically go to war with clearly defined objectives and a theory of victory. Israel's declared objectives were the destruction of Hamas and the release of hostages. But in Gaza, the target has not just been Hamas. It has been Gaza itself. Twenty-two months later, Hamas is far from destroyed. And some 50 hostages, most of them dead, remain in captivity. If Mr. Netanyahu ends the war and leaves Gaza, that would be tantamount to admitting defeat. If he agrees to a ceasefire, his far-right allies — Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir — will abandon his government, which has already lost its majority in the Knesset. And once he is out of power, he will have to face a reckoning, not just about the corruption charges he faces but also about the failures of October 7 and the war that followed. So, it is in Mr. Netanyahu's interest to prolong the war even if it continues to devastate Palestinian lives and erode Israel's standing in the world. Shoa and Nakba The second problem is more structural. Mr. Netanyahu, a child of revisionist Zionism, has long supported Jewish settlements in disputed areas. The settlers, a big political bloc in Israel, want more Lebensraum (living space). For them, the war is an opportunity to 'return to Gaza after 20 years'. But Gaza is the home of two million Palestinians. What becomes of them? Mr. Smotrich, the Finance Minister, has openly called for 'Gaza to be totally destroyed' and the Palestinians expelled. Defence Minister Israel Katz wants to push them to the 'humanitarian city' in Rafah, which is widely criticised even by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, as a concentration camp. If Palestinians are expelled or confined to such concentration camps, Jewish settlers can return to the enclave. This is the theory of victory for Israel's far-right. And this theory aligns well with Mr. Netanyahu's plans to escalate the war and seize control of the territory. When the world pushes for a two-state solution, Mr. Netanyahu is pushing for a no-state solution — no sovereignty for the Palestinians, no state for the Palestinians and no rights for the Palestinians. Milan Kundera once wrote: 'The struggle of a man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting'. For over seven decades, Israel not only remembered but also reminded the world of the horrors endured by the Jews in Europe. The organised and institutional remembrance of the Shoah has, at times, become a tool in the hands of extremist Zionists to silence criticism of the Israeli state, branding dissent as anti-Semitic. But today, the organised and systemic violence in Gaza, live streamed to millions across the world, is forging a new collective conscience about the Palestinian Nakbas. The decision by Israel's closest allies to recognise Palestinian sovereignty and subjectivity may not immediately alter the situation on the ground. But it is a breaking moment in the post-1948 Israel consensus in the West. Messrs Nentanyahu, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, blinded by their shared ethno-nationalist ideology and drunk with hard power, are programmatically incapable of grasping the shifts unfolding around them.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
What is UK's ‘deport now, appeal later' scheme and why it now includes India
Indian nationals serving prison sentences in the UK who have active asylum appeals will now be eligible for removal before their claims are decided, under changes to the government's 'deport now, appeal later' policy announced on Sunday. The scheme is a fast-track removal policy aimed at sending foreign criminals out of the country before they can challenge their deportation in court from within Britain. Instead of allowing appeals to delay removals for months or even years, the policy lets the Home Office remove offenders first and have them take part in their appeal hearings remotely, usually via video link, from their home country. The scheme applies to foreign nationals convicted of crimes in the UK who are citizens of specific countries with which Britain has legal or diplomatic agreements allowing such deportations. Once the Home Office decides to deport someone, they can be removed almost immediately, without waiting for their appeal to conclude. While the offender can still challenge the decision, the process happens from outside the UK. They remain abroad for the duration of the appeal and if the court later rules in their favour, they may be allowed to return. The government says this prevents 'abuse' of the appeals system by offenders seeking to remain in the country as long as possible. This week, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced the scheme will now cover 15 additional countries, bringing the total to 23. New additions include India, Canada, and Australia, alongside Angola, Botswana, Brunei, Bulgaria, Guyana, Indonesia, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Uganda, and Zambia. Previously, the scheme covered just eight countries. Cooper said the change would help 'fast-track removals' and stop criminals from 'exploiting our immigration system.' Cooper said earlier that offenders were able to remain in the UK 'for months or even years' while their cases worked through the appeals system. 'That has to end. Those who commit crimes in our country cannot be allowed to manipulate the system, which is why we are restoring control and sending a clear message that our laws must be respected and will be enforced,' she added. As per the Guardian, in the year since Labour came to power in July 2024, 5,179 foreign nationals who had been convicted of crimes had been deported, a 14 per cent increase on the year before. The other countries added to the scheme are: India is the most significant of the new additions because Indian nationals are among the largest groups of foreign offenders in England and Wales — 320 prisoners as of June 2025. Under the new rules, eligible Indian offenders could be removed soon after sentencing and take part in appeals from India. The move comes as the UK works with India on broader migration cooperation, but it could also create diplomatic challenges if New Delhi resists accepting certain deportees. One key driver behind the expansion is the UK's worsening prison overcrowding crisis. England and Wales are operating near full capacity, with more than 10,700 foreign offenders, around 12 per cent of the prison population. Ministers say quicker removals will free up space, reduce costs (an average of £54,000 per prison place annually), and protect public safety. There are currently 774 prisoners from the newly added countries, about 7 per cent of all foreign inmates, who could become eligible for removal. Albanians accounted for the largest share, with 1,193 inmates, followed by 707 Irish nationals, 320 Indians, and 317 Pakistanis. The expanded scheme is part of a broader government push to accelerate deportations. Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has separately proposed allowing deportations immediately after sentencing, reducing the current threshold from serving 50 per cent of a sentence to 0 per cent, BBC reported. In practice, this could mean offenders are sent home directly from court after being handed a prison sentence. Life-sentence prisoners, such as terrorists and murderers, would still serve their full term in the UK before being considered for deportation. According to report by BBC, Prison governors will have the power to block removals if the offender poses a national security threat or is suspected of planning further crimes in the UK. Deportation can also be halted if it risks breaching Britain's human rights obligations. The Labour government says the policy is about restoring control and ensuring foreign criminals face swift consequences. 'Those who commit crimes in our country cannot be allowed to manipulate the system,' said Cooper. The opposition Conservatives support the expansion but argue Labour is not going far enough. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp called for a blanket policy to deport all foreign criminals, while shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick urged using visa suspensions and foreign aid cuts to pressure uncooperative countries. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the government is working to add even more countries to the scheme in future.
