Lower voting age could swing Herefordshire seat
The current Conservative MP for the seat Jesse Norman saw off his Labour challenger by just 1,279 votes at the last general election a year ago.
But official figures published by the House of Commons Library show there are currently 2,016 young people aged 16 and 17 in the constituency.
RELATED NEWS:
Jesse Norman puts 'blighted' Herefordshire veterans' case
Palestine Action: how Green MP Ellie Chowns voted
Jesse Norman MP: 'huge change' in Herefordshire housing is coming
Mr Norman was asked to comment on the planned change and its likely consequences.
Meanwhile in North Herefordshire, Green MP Ellie Chowns, currently campaigning to become joint leader of the party nationally, tweeted: 'On this one, Labour have got it right: votes at 16 is long overdue.'
What are your thoughts?
You can send a letter to the editor to have your say by clicking here.
Letters should not exceed 250 words and local issues take precedence.
With a majority of 5,894 over the Conservatives a year ago, compared to 1,884 16- and 17-year-olds in the constituency, she would appear to be less impacted by the change.
OTHER NEWS:
Herefordshire road closure confusion cleared up
Planning battle over 'eyesore' leylandii hedge
'Horrendous' traffic danger fears on roadworks 'rat run'
In both constituencies, young people in this range make up just over two per cent of the population, slightly below the national average.
Meanwhile a seat-by-seat analysis by Stats for Lefties based on the polling this week by Find Out Now predicts that if a general election were held now, Hereford and South Herefordshire would fall to Reform UK, which would gain an outright majority in Parliament.
Ellie Chowns would retain her North Herefordshire seat for the Greens, who would gain a further six seats nationally, Stats for Lefties said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Britain's self-inflicted Afghanistan data leak disaster
When a news story bursts into the headlines in the U.K. and consumes all the oxygen for several days, it can be difficult to know whether it is a domestic uproar or something that is reaching an international audience. For all the fevered debate here, it seems that what we are calling 'the Afghan data leak scandal' has not attracted much notice in America. Perhaps we should be grateful. To sum up, in February 2022, a Royal Marine at U.K. Special Forces headquarters emailed a spreadsheet that he thought contained the names of around 150 Afghan nationals who had applied to come to Britain, having assisted U.K. forces in Afghanistan. In fact, it had the details of 18,714 Afghans, as well as some Special Forces personnel, senior defense officials, members of Parliament and intelligence officers. In the wrong hands, it could have been a pre-prepared Taliban kill list. This was a catastrophic breach of data security. The Ministry of Defence was unaware of this loss of data for 18 months, until some of the information appeared in a Facebook group in August 2023. Defence Secretary Ben Wallace applied to the High Court for a temporary injunction on reporting the leak so that the security implications could be assessed and appropriate measures put in place to protect those at risk. Wallace was, however, standing down. His successor, Grant Shapps, who took on responsibility for the issue. Astonishingly, the High Court judge who considered the Ministry of Defence's application, Justice Robin Knowles, went even further: He granted what is referred to as a 'super-injunction,' which not only prevents reporting of the issue covered by the injunction, but disclosure of the existence of the injunction itself. The use of this kind of measure by the government is unprecedented, and it meant that there was no public or parliamentary scrutiny of the data loss, because very few people even knew it had occurred. Those who knew the full extent of the situation were extremely few: Shapps as defence secretary and the armed forces minister, James Heappey; Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his deputy, Oliver Dowden; Labour's defense spokesman, John Healey, who is now defence secretary; the speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle; the media organizations whom it silenced; precious few others. The current prime minister, Keir Starmer, was not informed at that point. Under the cloak of secrecy — the super-injunction's duration was extended twice in 2024 — a new resettlement scheme was hastily introduced which extended to 900 individuals affected, along with 3,600 family members. When Starmer's Labour government took office in July 2024, only Healey, the incoming defence secretary, knew the full situation. Although he told the House of Commons when the super-injunction was lifted that 'it has been deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House,' it was in place for slightly longer under Labour than it had been under the previous Conservative government. A review was conducted by Paul Rimmer, a former deputy chief of defence intelligence, which concluded that 'there is little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution against' those who assisted U.K. and coalition forces. The various resettlement schemes for Afghan nationals have now been closed down. Inevitably, the current government is seeking to blame its predecessor. But that will not wash. Not only did Starmer and Healey have a year to rescind the injunction, but the prime minister's office will not rule out seeking such an instrument in the future. The government did not inform the Intelligence and Security Committee, the independent oversight body of these kinds of issues, and it has not been frank with the National Audit Office, the U.K.'s public spending watchdog. The Ministry of Defence is a secretive organization by instinct. It parts with even the most harmless information under duress. Many will find it hard to avoid the conclusion that when a judge offered such a wide-ranging court order to prevent scrutiny or comment, it was as if Christmas had come early. Not only could challenging questions be avoided, they would never even be asked, because most legislators were unaware there was anything to ask questions about. The eventual cost of the debacle is not clear, but it will be billions of pounds. That it touches on the ultra-sensitive subject of immigration compounds the damage done. Some have called it the worst data breach in British history; sadly it is part of a pattern at the Ministry of Defence, which reported 569 incidents of data loss in 2023 to 2024. The most damaging aspect, however, is the corrosive effect on public trust, already at a historic low. Those inclined to believe overblown tales of 'the deep state' have been provided with fresh ammunition — the government using the courts to prevent parliamentary scrutiny and media reporting of an issue for two years. It should not have happened. It cannot happen again. But the government will struggle to make voters believe that. Eliot Wilson is a freelance writer on politics and international affairs and the co-founder of Pivot Point Group. He was senior official in the U.K. House of Commons from 2005 to 2016, including serving as a clerk of the Defence Committee and secretary of the U.K. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Minister claims Farage is on the side of Jimmy Savile over plans to oppose online safety laws
A row has broken out between Labour and Nigel Farage after a Cabinet minister accused the Reform UK leader of being on the side of Jimmy Savile and 'extreme pornographers' over his opposition to new online safety laws. The technology secretary Peter Kyle accused the Reform UK leader of wanting to 'turn the clock back to the time when strange adults, strangers can get in touch via messaging apps with children'. It came after Mr Farage's party promised to scrap the Online Safety Act - a new set of laws aimed at protecting children and adults onlinedubbing it a 'dystopian' infringement of free speech. Responding in a virtual broadcast on Tuesday morning, Mr Farage said the 'below the belt' comments were 'so disgusting its almost beyond belief'. Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms such as social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children from accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. But Reform UK said the Act, intended to reduce online harm, did 'absolutely nothing to protect children' but worked to 'suppress freedom of speech' and 'force social media companies to censor anti-government speech'. Speaking to Sky News on Tuesday morning, Mr Kyle said: 'People have to understand the wild west that children have been living in for too long. 'That ended on my watch. It ended on the watch of this government.' He added: 'I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he's going to overturn these laws. So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Asked to clarify his comments, Mr Kyle added: 'Nigel Farage is on the side of turning the clock back to the time when strange adults, strangers can get in touch via messaging apps with children.' In the wake of the comments, the Reform leader demanded the technology secretary apologise, saying: 'Peter Kyle's comments on Sky News are disgusting. He should do the right thing and apologise.' But Mr Kyle declined to do so, posting to social media: 'If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act, you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that.' In a broadcast from Reform's London headquarters later in the morning, the MP for Clacton said: 'Well this is so absolutely disgusting that it's almost beyond belief. Just how low can the Labour government sink in its desperation. 'Yes, of course they're in trouble. They're well behind us in the opinion polls. But frankly to say that I would do anything that would in any way aid and abet people like Jimmy Savile, it's so below the belt it's almost not true.' Meanwhile, former chief Brexit negotiator Lord David Frost described the comments as 'shameful', adding: 'What chance do we have of a proper debate about free speech if Labour ministers are going to resort to this?' But Labour MP Mike Tapp came to Mr Kyle's defence, claiming Mr Farage's morning broadcast confirms 'he is indeed a delicate snowflake'. The new measures in the Online Safety Act include introducing age verification for websites and ensuring algorithms do not work to harm children by, for example, promoting such content towards them when online. Failing to comply with the new rules could incur fines of up to £18 million or 10 per cent of a firm's global turnover, whichever is greater. The UK's independent reviewer of terrorism and state threat legislation Jonathan Hall KC warned that the Online Safety Bill will achieve 'precious little'. 'I think that children have got to stop using social media, full stop. And I think we need to go down the line that Australia has pioneered', he told LBC. 'I'm afraid the Online Safety Act is not going to be the solution.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Voices: By likening Nigel Farage to Jimmy Savile, Peter Kyle has handed Reform a free gift
Just when Nigel Farage and his tiny parliamentary party were beginning to be exposed as shrill and clueless, Peter Kyle, one of the most promising cabinet ministers, handed them a free gift. By saying that the Reform leader is on the side of 'people like Jimmy Savile', Kyle destroys his own arguments for the Online Safety Act. The attempt to link Farage with a notorious child sex abuser is gratuitous and offensive. It makes Kyle seem desperate, and allows Farage to pose as the wronged party. Farage's criticisms of the Act seem more credible after Kyle's outburst than before. It is surprising that Kyle has chosen to use this slur when Labour people were so indignant – and rightly so – when Boris Johnson used it against Keir Starmer. That was when Johnson was desperate: Sue Gray's report on lockdown parties in Downing Street had just been published and Johnson wanted some way of deflecting attention. His attack on Starmer had nothing to do with Gray's report. It was an aside referring to Starmer's time as director of public prosecutions, during which, Johnson said, 'he spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can make out'. But it was more relevant than Kyle's attack on Farage. It is factually correct that the Crown Prosecution Service failed to prosecute Savile when Starmer was in charge, and it is unclear whether it could have done more to bring Savile to justice at the time. But Farage has nothing to do with Savile – at all. Kyle's attempt to smear the Reform leader was phrased thus on Sky News: 'If people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online, and Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Nothing could be better calculated to distract from the real issue, which is whether Farage's pledge to repeal the Online Safety Act is a sensible one. The Reform rhetoric about 'authoritarian' and 'dystopian' legislation is overdone, and Farage admitted yesterday that he didn't know how he would protect children online instead. But rather of exposing the weakness of Farage's arguments, Kyle allowed his opponent to protest on X that his comment was 'disgusting' and to demand an apology. Kyle responded: 'If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that.' This is a terrible way to conduct a public debate. There are well-founded concerns about the Online Safety Act, which seems to put unworkable obligations on non-profit-making websites while doing little to ensure that the big tech companies behave more responsibly. A lot of well-informed people said it was badly drafted legislation even before it was passed by the Conservative government two years ago. Kyle is now overseeing the coming into effect of provisions of the Act relating to age-verification, and instead of acting on the concerns that have been expressed, he has ploughed ahead – in effect accusing anyone who has doubts, including for example Ella Dorn of the New Statesman, of being aligned with Savile. When Johnson gratuitously dragged Savile's name into his attempt to save his disintegrating premiership, the disgust at his deliberate attempt to invoke conspiracy theories driven by fears of paedophilia was felt across the political spectrum. Munira Mirza, Johnson's adviser who was consulted in advance, begged him not to do it, and resigned when he did. Kyle should not be using the same disreputable tactic, which not only speaks volumes about this government's self-confidence but also allows Reform off the hook. Only this morning, Sarah Pochin, Reform's newest MP, was struggling to explain what her party's policy on small boats actually is. All she could propose was that Britain should 'do something drastic', by which she seemed to suggest that we should let migrants drown in the Channel. If the next election really is a fight between Labour and Reform, Labour must fight it better than this.
