Latest news with #manifesto
Bloomberg
3 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Helen Chandler-Wilde: Who's Going to Pay for Fiscal Black Hole?
Today we had more numbers to feed into the debate about whether Rachel Reeves will have to break Labour's manifesto and raise tax on working people by the end of this parliament: according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Reeves will have a £51 billion fiscal black hole to fill, making hikes look likelier. That's equivalent to another 5 percentage points on income tax. In other words, it's huge.
Yahoo
24-07-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
FIA presidential candidate Tim Mayer reveals ‘impact manifesto'
Earlier this month Tim Mayer, sacked as a steward by FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem last year, came out as a challenger to him in the forthcoming election. Mayer insisted that this was not a matter of 'revenge', but of providing a real alternative to a president who, he claimed, had not delivered on key manifesto promises he made during the previous election campaign in 2021. Now Mayer has published his own 'impact manifesto' which declares 'our mission is to provide the Member Clubs with a compelling alternative to the current FIA leadership', focusing on 'executing the goals of the FIA in an ethical and effective manner'. The messaging is therefore the same but Mayer has added further specifics and, perhaps more significantly, a repeated emphasis on the means of delivery – including measurable 'milestones'. Read Also: Who is FIA presidential candidate Tim Mayer? When he criticised the current regime during his campaign launch earlier this month, Mayer talked about 'the illusion of progress and the illusion of leadership'. It's therefore not surprising that the language deployed in his 'impact manifesto' is emotive and powerful. But it is also interesting to note that elements of the manifesto relating to mobility and sport are yet to be published. Mayer's presentation doubles down on his assertion that, under the incumbent president, the FIA's management processes have grown less rather than more transparent. The opening slide initially reads 'Governance manifesto' before the word 'governance' is theatrically struck through and replaced by the word 'impact'. Further slides, in a somewhat disconcerting jumble of typefaces and initial capitals, lay emphasis on the theme: 'FIA Governance Is continually reported POOR AND DECLINING in Global Standings'. The goal, it says, is to put the FIA in the 'Top 20% Of Governing Bodies by Globally Recognized Measures by 2028'. The 'Transformation from a Control culture To a Service culture' is detailed via several key milestones, of which 'Day 1' is 'Roll Back Presidential Excess'. The specifics here include a reduction in the president's executive powers over bodies such as executive and audit committees, including the ability to 'fire at will' elected members. 'In no institution in the world should those elected to be the watchdogs be able to be fired by the very executive they are charged with advising and supervising,' it says. Further milestones include the familiar '100 days', by which Mayer promises to have reset the leadership structure so the president has a clear role on the organisation but is no longer the executive. By this point he also undertakes to have established a 'Grant Support Department' for member clubs as a mechanism to drive growth, established an independent financial oversight committee, and set up an independent 'Truth and Reconciliation mechanism' so 'past internal abuse, coercion or ethical breaches' can be investigated. This latter element is said to be 'not a mechanism of retribution, but of healing, with external facilitation'. Tim Mayer The first-year milestones centre around financial strategy – the streamlining of expenses, dedicating a percentage of revenue to member clubs for investment purposes, and a diversification programme to 'Reduce over-dependence on specific Championships'. This, of course, is an oblique reference to Formula 1 – but it is a problematic area since the FIA must observe a separation between church and state, as it were. It's for this reason that the present regime's announcement that it was taking control of the commercial rights to the World Rallycross Championship proved controversial. Such a move invites scrutiny from competitions regulators. The year 2-4 milestones are broader in scope, taking in commitments to expand the growth of member clubs and roll back some of the statutes implemented under Ben Sulayem and Jean Todt, making it more difficult for the sitting president to be challenged at election time. Here the language is also punchy: 'Eliminate Statutes Designed To Allow Incumbent To Manipulate'. A key element of this is to introduce a requirement that 'any statute change must be published for 120 days before a vote' so member clubs are 'given time to understand and debate statute changes'. In June, the FIA's general assembly voted through controversial revision to the statutes regarding the electoral process, despite Austria's national motoring club criticising these changes and asking other members to postpone the vote so they could be debated more thoroughly. Mayer's impact presentation closes with a repeat of his invitation to members to provide feedback on the proposals – what his campaign calls 'open-source strategy development'. While the overall theme of Mayer's campaign so far has been to differentiate his vision of how the FIA should be run from how he says it is presently organised, the elements currently left blank are perhaps more significant. For the campaign to progress he needs to present his 'list' of vice-presidents drawn from a global pool of motoring clubs. It's understood that such a team has been assembled but the identities kept confidential so far, in order to avoid counter-moves such as the 'support letter' for the incumbent from several motoring clubs published ahead of the Spanish Grand Prix. When David Ward stood down as a challenger to Todt in 2013, it was because Todt had already secured pledges of support from 11 of the 12 North American motoring clubs. For the member clubs who will be choosing their allegiance over the coming months, the mobility and sport elements of Mayer's manifesto – also yet to be seen – will likely be of greater interest. High-principled matters of ethics and governance are all very well, but tend to be overtaken by matters of pragmatism: 'What can you do for me?' To read more articles visit our website.
Irish Times
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Don't expect votes for 16-year-olds to change the world. It's the 25-35s who are the rebels
The UK government has confirmed it will deliver its manifesto pledge to lower the voting age to 16 before the next general election, due in 2029. It intends this to apply to all types of elections across the UK, including Assembly and council contests in Northern Ireland . Naturally, the first question this has raised is how it will affect the balance between unionism and nationalism. The presumption is that nationalism will benefit due to the younger age profile of the Catholic population. This explains a sharp orange-green split on the issue: in an opinion poll last year, 70 per cent of nationalists supported votes at 16 compared with 6 per cent of unionists. The consensus among experts is that while nationalism will gain, the electoral impact will be negligible, amounting to less than a 1 per cent advantage. That does imperil two marginal DUP Westminster seats, but it looks trivial in terms of Assembly and council elections, which are held under proportional representation in Northern Ireland, rather than Westminster's first-past-the-post system. READ MORE Rather than fretting over tribal headcounts, perhaps unionists should be more concerned about the remarkable incuriosity towards Britain this story reveals. Scotland has had votes at 16 since its 2014 independence referendum, extended shortly afterwards to council and Scottish parliament elections. Wales reduced the voting age to 16 for assembly elections in 2021 and council elections the following year. These changes have generated a wealth of evidence, research and debate, with specific relevance to devolution, yet Northern Ireland appears completely oblivious to it. Devolution was meant to foster engagement between the constituent parts of the UK. Votes at 16 is a striking illustration of how the regions have instead become wrapped up in their own little worlds. [ Should 16-year-olds have the right to vote? A political scientist and a youth leader debate Opens in new window ] There ought to be particular fascination with the Scottish independence referendum, the first time 16- and 17-year-olds could vote in the UK. Contrary to almost everyone's expectations, they backed the union by a similar percentage to the electorate overall. The outliers were people aged 25 to 35, who exhibited by far the strongest backing for independence. Had unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland paid this the slightest notice, their hopes and fears over lowering the voting age might not be so pronounced. The clearest finding from research on Scotland, Wales and other countries with voting at 16 is that it boosts long-term participation in elections. A person enfranchised at that age is more likely to continue voting as they get older than would otherwise have been the case. The second-clearest finding is that this makes no long-term difference to how they vote or their interest in politics. As they get older, their voting patterns and political activity are exactly as would always have been expected given their socio-economic background. The rebelliousness of 25- to 35-year-olds in the Scottish independence referendum was repeated across the UK in the 2019 general election. Photograph: Richard Baker/Because few places had voting at 16 until a decade ago, there is only evidence for its long-term effects up to the age of about 30. Some of that evidence suggests the effect fades with time. Nevertheless, it raises total participation and this has a simple explanation: 16- and 17-year-olds are generally in the care of adults who will assist and cajole them into the habit of voting. By contrast, the few years of flux from 18 onwards are the worst time to acquire civic duties. Merely maintaining a registered address can be a challenge. The importance of family explains why young first-time voters can be surprisingly conservative. They are influenced by their parents, although there is some evidence parents are influenced in turn, especially on issues where teenagers and adults tend to disagree, such as immigration or climate change. The image of a nuclear family discussing politics around the dinner table is a cliche that will infuriate the left, which ironically helps explain why the left is not as popular as it believes. All this points to business as usual in Northern Ireland, where politics is largely seen to be hereditary. The rebelliousness of 25- to 35-year-olds in the Scottish independence referendum was repeated across the UK in the 2019 general election, when that age group backed Labour under Jeremy Corbyn far more than the younger voters he was predicted to win over. It turns out that what radicalises voters is not youth but the struggles of settling down. The implication for Northern Ireland is that relatively affordable housing may be more crucial to the union than appreciated. Voting at 16 has focused attention in Scotland and Wales on better civic education in the classroom. This can cause contention and be a lose-lose situation, with schools accused either of not doing enough or of propagandising. Northern Ireland's divided education system will have to handle this with care. It could look to Scotland and Wales for models and warnings. But first, it will have to remember the other devolved regions exist.
RNZ News
24-07-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Govt orders Sport NZ to scrap transgender inclusion guidelines
money sport 31 minutes ago NZ First's spoken about defunding sporting bodies that support trans inclusion - but its 2023 manifesto also spoke about making people healthier by promoting exercise and sport programmes including 'assisting people into sport that can't be involved' - surely those two sentiments juxtapose each other.
Daily Mail
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Opinion: Why giving the vote to 16-year-olds will backfire
Picture the scene in No 10. The mood is gloomy. The Prime Minister's personal ratings are plumbing new lows. Labour is limping behind Reform UK in every poll. So what can Starmer do? There is a lot of head scratching. Then someone – perhaps it is the master strategist Sir Keir himself – has a brainwave. Why not dust off Labour's 2024 manifesto pledge to give votes to 16 and 17-year-olds? Surely it's a winner! It worked for the Scottish Nationalists, who slyly lowered the voting age to 16 in Holyrood elections in the knowledge that younger people north of the border tend to be keener on independence than older ones. Labour thinks it will work for them in general elections throughout the United Kingdom when around 1.6 million 16 and 17-year-olds are added to the voting register. As a general rule, younger people have been more likely to back Left-wing parties. For reasons I'll explain later, I believe that Labour's cynical and self-serving calculation may well backfire, and that younger voters won't rally to Starmer's tattered flag in anything like the numbers he expects. But in any event this is as egregious an example of low politics as you are ever likely to encounter. There is absolutely no case for giving votes to 16 and 17-year-olds. A majority of people are against it. They know that 16 is simply too young to make an informed decision about who should govern the country. Even among 16 and 17-year-olds, almost half don't think they should be allowed to vote, according to a recent poll of 500 respondents by Merlin Strategy. Some 49 per cent didn't support lowering the voting age to 16, while 51 per cent did. The young aren't marching down Whitehall to demand the vote. Starmer claimed last year that the issue is one of fairness. He said: 'If you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your armed forces, then you ought to be able to vote.' This is downright misleading. A 16-year-old is only allowed to join the Army with parental consent, and until the age of 18 won't be deployed on combat operations. As for tax, a vanishingly small proportion of this age group earns more than £12,570 a year, which is the threshold at which you start paying money to the Government. There are plenty of things that 16-year-olds aren't allowed to do because the State regards them as children. Before the age of 18 they can't legally buy alcohol in a pub or in a supermarket, or purchase cigarettes. You can't drive a car or donate blood before the age of 17. In the eyes of the State, people below the age of 18 on trial for a crime are treated as minors, and their names are not published in the media except under the special direction of a judge. Not long ago, the legal age of marriage actually rose to 18 in England and Wales. It is not just a matter of law. We all of us know – remembering our own childhood and observing young people today – how big a gap in intellectual sophistication there is between most 16-year-olds and most 18-year-olds. No, Labour knows very well that in all kinds of ways the State and society rightly regard people under the age of 18 as children. Why, then, should they be allowed to vote? The only answer is because Sir Keir Starmer believes that they will overwhelmingly support Labour. But will they? The poll by Merlin Strategy that I have already mentioned found that 33 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds said they would vote Labour versus 20 per cent for Reform, 18 per cent for the Greens, 12 per cent for the Lib Dems and 10 per cent for the Tories . This suggests that enthusiasm for Labour is stronger among the younger age group than among all voters over the age of 18, where support for the governing party is averaging around 22 or 23 per cent. Still, it is not stratospherically higher. We have only endured one year of Labour misrule. It is a reasonable bet that as things get worse, which I am afraid they undoubtedly will, support for Labour among 16 and 17-year-olds will dwindle from levels that are already not especially high. Which parties will benefit as teenagers share the disillusion with Labour felt by older voters ? The Greens, for sure, and the Lib Dems to some extent. Jeremy Corbyn's new hard-Left party will attract votes from the young, including Muslims unhappy about events in Gaza, who could come under parental pressure. But it is likely that Reform will be the biggest single beneficiary. The old assumption that younger people are more likely to vote for Left-wing parties is probably no longer valid when there is so much social disquiet, particularly about uncontrolled immigration, and voters of all ages are offered a kind of political smorgasbord. The Tories as currently constituted are unlikely to draw much support from younger voters, many of whom see them as distant and unexciting and tarnished by failure. But a manifestly unsuccessful party led by Starmer, who is the epitome of dullness and the dysfunctional status quo, is unlikely to be much of a draw. It's noteworthy that in Germany, where 16-year-olds now have a vote in European elections, younger voters have been drawn to the far-Right AfD. In the European elections last year, 16 per cent of Germans aged 16-24 chose the AfD, only fractionally behind the victorious conservative CDU on 17 per cent. The Greens plummeted to 11 per cent. I'm not of course comparing Reform with the AfD. But I am suggesting that at a time of political volatility and shifting allegiances among all age groups, Nigel Farage is likely to be more attractive to many younger voters than pale, stale Sir Keir Starmer, who by 2029 will be almost universally reviled as the man who brought this country to its knees. I am against giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in all circumstances. It is a cynical manoeuvre on Labour's part, which the general public doesn't want, and which even younger people aren't clamouring for. How richly ironic if Sir Keir's grubby ploy turns out not to deliver the political advantage he covets, but merely confirms his reputation of being one of the most politically inept and ham-fisted politicians ever to occupy No 10.
