Voting age to be lowered to the age of 16 by the next general election
Last year's Labour Party manifesto committed to lowering the UK voting age to 16, in order to 'increase the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy'.
Today's announcement comes alongside other election reforms, including extending voter ID to include bank cards and the introduction of new rules against foreign political interference and abuse of campaigners .
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said: 'We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy, supporting our Plan for Change, and delivering on our manifesto commitment to give 16-year-olds the right to vote.
'We cannot take our democracy for granted, and by protecting our elections from abuse and boosting participation we will strengthen the foundations of our society for the future.'
The next general election is due to take place before August 2029, as the last one took place in July 2024.
However, the Prime Minister is able to call one at any point before that date.
That is currently unlikely, as Labour holds a considerable majority in the House of Commons.
Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here.
In Scotland, 16 and 17-year-olds have been able to vote in local and Scottish Parliament elections since 2015.
The voting age is still 18 in most of Europe, though it is 16 in countries including Germany, Belgium and Austria.
Got a story? Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk. Or you can submit your videos and pictures here.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
Follow Metro.co.uk on Twitter and Facebook for the latest news updates. You can now also get Metro.co.uk articles sent straight to your device. Sign up for our daily push alerts here.
MORE: Here's how it could become harder for people-smugglers to reach the UK
MORE: Why was a superinjunction put on the Afghan evacuation story and what did it do?
MORE: What changes in ISAs could mean for you and where you should invest
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
7 minutes ago
- ITV News
Kemi Badenoch labels Labour policy a 'disaster' for farming in Wales
Kemi Badenoch has said Labour policies have been a disaster for farming in Wales. The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, has said that Labour governments in Cardiff and London have been 'a disaster for farming' here in Wales. Speaking at the Royal Welsh Show in Builth Wells, she said a Conservative UK Government would 'reverse' Labour UK Government plans to change inheritance tax, which she called 'the immoral family farm tax'. She told ITV Cymru Wales: 'We are promising to back farmers. Farming is a way of life. Standing up for farmers is standing up for Britain. And one of the things that Labour did when it first came into office was bring in the immoral family farm tax. It is going to destroy farming across our country. And I have said that once Conservatives get back into government we will reverse it.' As well as still reeling from a massive defeat in last year's UK General Election, which saw not a single Conservative MP elected for Wales, the party is also looking at losses ahead of next year's Senedd election. The most recent Barn Cymru poll for ITV Wales and Cardiff University suggested the Conservatives could end up in fourth place with as few as nine Senedd Members. In her interview, Kemi Badenoch acknowledged that her party faces an uphill struggle. 'Well, we know that we suffered a historic defeat last year," she said. "It's not going to be easy to get back on track, but that's the work that I'm doing. It's one of the reasons why I'm here, getting all across the country, trying to rebuild trust with the public, acknowledging where we made mistakes and showing that Wales has not thrived under Labour. It certainly won't under Plaid. It most definitely will not under Reform.' She was asked, too, if she has confidence in Darren Millar's leadership of the Welsh Conservatives in Wales. She said. 'Absolutely. Darren is here with me. We get on famously. We speak all the time. He is absolutely the right person to be First Minister.' And she was asked, too, about the status of his leadership. When Andrew RT Davies was first in charge of the Welsh Tories, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said publicly that Mr Davies was considered the leader of the wider party in Wales. Since then, other leaders have held varying views. I asked her: 'Who is the leader of the Welsh Conservatives? Not just the group in the Senedd: who leads the Welsh Conservatives?' KB: 'I do.' 'And where does Darren Millar sit in that?' KB: 'Darren is the leader of the Welsh Conservatives in the Senedd but this is not what the public are asking about. They want to know who's going to deliver for the people of Wales and that is the Conservatives.' 'The only reason I ask is because different Conservative leaders have given different answers.' KB: 'Well you've asked me the question. We are a united party. We are the Unionist party. We're not interested in carving ourselves up and having lots of little, you know, different groups and factions. We are the Conservative and Unionist Party. We believe in the United Kingdom. We want Wales to be very much a part of the United Kingdom, not what Plaid Cymru is offering. Labour will end up sectioning Wales off the way they're going.' And she backed the decision to insist that Conservative candidates in next year's Senedd election should not be opposed to devolution, saying: 'That is the settlement that we have now. Devolution is a process. What we need to make sure is we have the best people. It's the people that matter.' Asked if she was sceptical about devolution, she said: 'Well, yes, because people think devolution is a solution in and of itself. It's not. It's how you use it. And that's why you have to look at the people. If you put bad people in, then it doesn't matter whether you're devolved or not, if you have great people then yes, devolution would work.' The Conservative leader said: 'That's that, honestly, in terms of the top 100 things that this country needs, that's not one of them.'
Spectator
7 minutes ago
- Spectator
The Liaison Committee summed up Starmer's woes
If you want a sign of how badly things have gone wrong for this government, compare Keir Starmer's third Liaison Committee grilling with his first. Back in December, it was all stonewalling and smiles, as the Prime Minister gently dead-batted questions in front of a (largely) sympathetic crowd. Seven months on, the audience remains the same: 18 of the 26 select committees in the Commons are chaired by Labour MPs. But now the tone has hardened considerably. Today's session focused on poverty and international affairs. Normally, these might be regarded as areas in which a redistributive social democrat premier would excel. But after the benefits U-turn a fortnight ago, Starmer found himself subjected to some hostile grilling. His worst moment came when Debbie Abrahams, the chair of the welfare panel, said that his ditched reforms were 'so far removed from Labour values of fairness and social justice I have to say I felt ashamed.' In his wearisomely-familiar style, Starmer gave Abrahams a set of stock lines which any No. 10 spokesman could have mustered: he wants more people back in work and has commissioned a review to ensure it. A similar formula was deployed when Florence Eshalomi, the chair of the housing select committee, asked about the Budget's freeze to local housing allowance. Starmer defended the decision – before pledging 'there will be a chance to look again across the board.' As the recent Ashes series has shown, there is often merit in a Geoffrey Boycott-style approach to defence. But refusing to even attempt to score some runs can certainly tire the patience of the crowd. The frustration on the face of Liam Byrne and others was visible as Starmer made his way through the 90-minute grilling, stubbornly refusing to enlighten his assembled colleagues. Challenged multiple times on the detail of an answer, the PM begrudgingly promised to write in due course. A classic case was offered in an exchange with Meg Hillier. 'What other accomodation are you planning to take over to provide temporary accommodation for families?' she asked in a discussion on migrants. 'Oh, there's lots of housing in many local authorities that can be used and we're identifying where it can be used', Starmer gaily replied. 'Have you got any examples you can give us?' retorted Hillier. 'No but I'll write in and give you details', he answered, haltingly. It says something when Gaza offers easier ground for a Labour PM to discuss. Pressed by Andy Slaughter on how the government will 'protect Palestinians from mass killings', Starmer offered the usual line about the need for an immediate ceasefire and aid to enter the region. It was a depressing and predictable note on which to end an underwhelming and angst-ridden first year for Starmer. Asked by Hillier for the highlight of his initial 12 months, the Prime Minister responded 'walking into Downing Street.' Being something, rather than doing something – with this government, the jokes all too often write themselves.
Scotsman
7 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why Afghan data breach cover-up is a genuine scandal
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The scandal that landed last week over the cover-up of a massive data breach of not only tens of thousands of potential Afghan refugees but also British intelligence agents and special forces personnel will run deeper and longer than the headlines and outrage it generated. We have come to expect significant data breaches, be they through incompetence and error of administrators, the criminal exploits of organised crime or political agents of foreign powers intent on bringing down our democratic freedoms. What continues to shock many people, however, is when the politicians and officials we expect to look after our interests go to extraordinary lengths to cover-up their failures, be they innocent or guilty of the original misjudgment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Our political class appears to find no difficulty in being prepared to sign-off not just millions or even hundreds of millions – but billions of pounds to make problems we were not even aware of appear to go away. Large numbers of Afghans fled the country when Western forces withdrew and the Taliban took over Kabul in 2021 (Picture: Master Sgt Donald Allen/US Air Forces Europe-Africa) | U.S. Air Forces Europe-Africa vi Democratic scrutiny denied As if that is not a scandalous enough breach of public trust, some politicians then travel down the road of using legal processes such as super-injunctions to prevent public knowledge of their department's administrative failure to protect them from political embarrassment. The use of a super-injunction means the reporting of the actual injunction itself is not possible – so only a limited few are aware of the scandal and the legal cover-up that has taken place. It means the ordinary democratic processes of public scrutiny and accountability are automatically denied and the democratic order of making elected representatives responsible for their judgments and actions is bypassed. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad One might think the natural order of actions having consequences in a democracy would be restored when there is a change of government but, as is so often the case, the poor decisions of previous governments are very often picked up by new administrations who see there is advantage in continuing with the same approach as they too might suffer some blow-back and might want to avail themselves of the same secret protections. Veterans at risk To sum up, when the real life-threatening failure for many of sending personal data to the wrong person was discovered, a conspiracy between ruling politicians, government officials and then opposition politicians who became the new rulers resulted in several billions being committed to accepting 25,000-30,000 refugee applicants into our country. The possibility that some of those might actually not be who they appeared to be, but have criminal histories and intentions or be agents of terrorist groups cannot be discounted. Meanwhile the new government, aided by many activist lawyers working through lawfare, take it upon themselves to instigate processes that put our veterans at risk of prosecution and spend a great deal less on veterans' welfare such as housing. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Unsurprisingly, these revelations have led to recriminations about the role of some previously respected politicians who were thought to be on the side of veterans and seen as hawks in the pursuit of protecting our all-too-porous borders. Politicians such as the former Secretaries of State for Defence, Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps, have been forced to justify their actions at the time. Of course, when a scandal breaks under the pressures of competitive politics, naïve confusion and wilful misrepresentation abounds. Some politicians who were not in office at the time and had no responsibility for a particular error – such as the application for a super-injunction or the establishment of potentially costly refugee schemes that could be open to abuse – are smeared by the accusations and recriminations. Super-injunction may have backfired Establishing a timeline of when decisions were taken, whom they were taken by and what the consequences were becomes crucial in determining if the policies pursued were justifiable. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the case of the mistaken release of data, there is now good reason to believe the pursuit of the super-injunction – while thought at the time to be necessary to protect lives – only served to elevate the importance of the data and make it more valuable to the Taliban. Sadly this type of misjudgment without consequences is all too prevalent in British establishment circles. We should recall how in June 2021, Angus Lapsley, a British official, left behind classified Ministry of Defence documents at a bus stop in Kent. They were found by a member of the public, dripping wet from the rain and handed in to the BBC. The papers included PowerPoint presentations and e-mails that revealed sensitive military recommendations regarding the UK's military presence in Afghanistan; details about the British military's response to Russia's reaction to HMS Defender's passage through disputed Ukrainian waters; further plans for a possible UK military presence in Afghanistan; details of service numbers around Kabul and arms export campaigns. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Lapsley was not dismissed or prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act but had his security clearance suspended and was redeployed to the Foreign Office. Yet this year he was appointed Britain's permanent representative to Nato. In contrast, another senior civil servant, Richard Jackson, was fined £2,500 under the Act for leaving sensitive papers about al-Qaeda on a train in 2008. Politicians must trust public Cover-ups and sometimes consequence-free misjudgments appear all too easy in our parliaments. If our political discourse and decision-making – including whom we choose to elect – is to improve, then we need to be better informed. Treating the public as children rather than adults only ever results in child-like behaviours and outcomes. For our people to make considered choices and be able to trust our politicians requires far more trust in the public from the politicians themselves. When Prime Ministers make promises before general elections, they should be expected to do everything in their power to deliver them – or learn not to make pledges they cannot keep. When politicians fail, they should be ready to accept responsibility, and only those that do should be given the opportunity for redemption – rather than shielding those who have hidden the truth from us for years and even decades.
