Will 18-year-olds at university be exempt or allowed to defer?
No. Everyone will have to do National Service and fit it around their lives. There will be very limited deferments and none for university students.
What if the young person has a job?
There will be no exemption for those who are in work.
What if they already work in the emergency services, prison or care sectors?
The Royal Commission will look at exemptions, including where people are already working in the military. But the starting point remains that all people serve.
What if the young person has unpaid caring commitments?
The Royal Commission will aim to ensure everyone can take part.
Is there any actual evidence about this? A quick Google finds some debates by people with political studies background rather than, say, psychology, and there are loads of anecdotes about individuals who are and are not ready as pre-eighteen year olds.
Once the voting age was twenty one in the UK and before that women couldn't vote at all. I suppose there must be a line but wherever it is it is arbitrary.
Is there any actual evidence about this? A quick Google finds some debates by people with political studies background rather than, say, psychology, and there are loads of anecdotes about individuals who are and are not ready as pre-eighteen year olds.
"Ready" is perhaps challenging to define. You can ask whether young people say that they are ready, but that's not the same thing. You can ask older people whether they would have been ready at 16, which is a different question, but still perhaps not the right one.
I could tell you that, personally, my 16 year old self was an arrogant arse. Aged 18, I would have told you that of course I was ready to vote at 16, and would do a much better job of it that the average voter.
Aged 25, I would have told you that I didn't have anywhere close to a wide enough perspective aged 16 to vote, but would still have probably done a better job of it than the average voter.
You do not have to be "ready" to vote. Voting is not about having mature political judgement. Otherwise the universal franchise would be a very bad thing. (Indeed this argument has been advanced against the universal franchise since Plato's time at least). Voting is about the fact that the interests of those without a voice or a vote can be (and are) ignored by those with power, even with the best will in the world.
You do not have to be "ready" to vote. Voting is not about having mature political judgement. Otherwise the universal franchise would be a very bad thing. (Indeed this argument has been advanced against the universal franchise since Plato's time at least). Voting is about the fact that the interests of those without a voice or a vote can be (and are) ignored by those with power, even with the best will in the world.
Precisely.
I've also long been taken by the suffragist maxim "those who must obey the law should have a say in the making of the law". It seems to me that the logical voting age is the age at which one can be subject to criminal prosecution without having to prove competence - in England that is 13, unless something has changed. Do I trust the political instincts of the average 13 year old? Do I heck as like. But I don't trust the political instincts of the average 70 year old either, looking at what that age group has inflicted on us in the last decade or so.
I agree the voting age should be lowered to at least the age you can drive a car on the road ie 17. (16 if you're entitled to mobility benefits). Politicians might think more about issues other than just national insurance and interest rates, immigration etc.
Will 18-year-olds at university be exempt or allowed to defer?
No. Everyone will have to do National Service and fit it around their lives. There will be very limited deferments and none for university students.
The expected commitment for "voluntary" service is one weekend a month for a year. Whilst there are a lot of tasks that would benefit from additional voluntary labour, they mostly don't just happen at weekends. One example of service given is "local charities supporting elderly and isolated people". What service is to be offered here? If it's just a chat and a bit of human contact, then perhaps a weekend thing is OK. I am reminded that when I was at school, we had a group that would pop round to a local old people's home on a Monday after classes and spend a couple of hours drinking tea, chatting, and playing draughts or cards with the residents. And that was fine, although I don't see that it's worth a "National Service scheme".
If what is required is someone to pop in and help an elderly person with daily living - maybe prepare lunch, do some light cleaning, help someone dress themselves, or whatever, then those needs happen every day, and not just at weekends.
In this poorly-thought-out "plan", is the intended commitment of one weekend a month a statement that everyone has to serve every month, or is this an average commitment, and the requirement will be to offer 192 hours of service over the course of the year?
The article suggests that those travelling for a "gap year" will be expected to fit their service around their travels, which suggests that it must be a total service requirement for the year, rather than "show up on the first weekend of every month".
For students enrolled in intensive and rigorous degree courses, the idea that you could take a weekend off once a month to do some volunteering is ridiculous. Spending a month over the summer, or a half day once a week in term time, would be more feasible.
As others have said upthread, the National Service thing ain't going to happen.
It's a feeble gesture and intended to draw the teeth of the 'If I had my way they'd bring back National Service ...' types who'd be likely to vote Reform unless the Conservatives 'bring back the birch' and restrict the franchise to men who own property ...
Will 18-year-olds at university be exempt or allowed to defer?
No. Everyone will have to do National Service and fit it around their lives. There will be very limited deferments and none for university students.
What if the young person has a job?
There will be no exemption for those who are in work.
What if they already work in the emergency services, prison or care sectors?
The Royal Commission will look at exemptions, including where people are already working in the military. But the starting point remains that all people serve.
What if the young person has unpaid caring commitments?
The Royal Commission will aim to ensure everyone can take part.
Even the old National Service didn’t do that. My late father-in-law (born 1937) was called up for National Service but because he had just been offered a college place they deferred it until he had finished his course. As it happened, during the intervening two years National Service was abolished so he didn’t have to do it in the end
The National Service lads were deployed in exactly the same way as the Regulars.
My Dad was in the Suez Canal Zone when there was low-level but sometimes lethal insurgency. He was then posted to Cyprus which he thought was idyllic until EOKA started blowing up bars and stretching wire across the roads to decapitate despatch riders.
Then, when the Suez Crisis erupted he was on a troop ship heading out of Southampton to form part of a subsequent occupation force to consolidate the initial invasion. I don't think they'd reached the Med' before the Americans put the kibbosh on it in the UN, a move he was disgruntled by but which I applaud.
As @Enoch says, plenty of National Servicemen were killed or injured in Korea.
<snip>It seems to me that the logical voting age is the age at which one can be subject to criminal prosecution without having to prove competence - in England that is 13, unless something has changed. <snip>
It used to be 7, with a rebuttable presumption of incapacity up to age 13. Since 1998 children 10 and over are legally deemed to have criminal responsibility.
<snip>It seems to me that the logical voting age is the age at which one can be subject to criminal prosecution without having to prove competence - in England that is 13, unless something has changed. <snip>
It used to be 7, with a rebuttable presumption of incapacity up to age 13. Since 1998 children 10 and over are legally deemed to have criminal responsibility.
I think I started arguing this around 1996-7, I'd picked up the minimum was now 10, I hadn't realised they'd removed the presumption of incapacity. It's 12 in Scotland, which would mean getting the vote would coincide more or less with starting secondary school, which seems as good a boundary as any.
In fairness, the Conservatives hiding their 'brand' is nothing new.
I remember getting a letter 'from Mrs May' and various other propaganda items about the same time. You had to really search to find 'Conservative' on any of it. Pretty much down there with the printer's address.
We've had that same "It's either X or the SNP" leaflet, but with the local Tory candidate. On the reverse side there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the candidate is a Tory.
On the front, there is the graph showing the previous results, and a purple 4cm x 1cm box saying "Scottish Conservative and Unionist." On a leaflet which, unfolded, measures 29 cm x 32 cm.
The candidate is described, several times, as not-SNP. She's also described once as not-Labour and not-Lib Dem. So by a process of deduction she must be a Tory....
The leaflet includes two news clippings about the SNP, photos of Nicola, Humza and John Swinney looking gormless, and a bit about SNP policies. There is nothing about Tory policies, just stuff about the candidate "promoting Aberdeenshire's hard-working farmers" "upgrading the A96 and A90" and "protecting jobs in Aberdeenshire."
All of which is very well, but the SNP government has produced plans to upgrade the A96, so they're promoting an existing SNP policy there.
In council elections they’ve taken to calling themselves “Local Conservative” and this is how they appear on the ballot paper
So they have - I think they did that in our local council elections last time round (2023), when they lost control, anyway.
Do the tories really think people will be fooled, though? Presumably they think that some will...
Local councils, of course, have little to do with national economic policy or deporting people to Rwanda. It's not unreasonable for a Tory council to want to talk about how it manages local affairs, and not about what the national government has done.
Whereas prospective MPs trying to disguise the fact that voting for them is an implicit endorsement of their party leader for PM is silly. A particular person might well have been an excellent constituency MP, being responsive to their constituents and helping them sort out their problems. That is to that person's credit, of course, but it doesn't alter the fact that they will vote for their party at Westminster. It is entirely reasonable to respect and approve of the work that your MP did as a constituency MP, but not vote for them in the election because you don't want their party in government.
One problem is that Councils have so little real power these days that they have little to talk about. You don't get many votes for proposing to change the colour of park benches. To a very large extent, they are merely the local agents of the state.
It amuses me (for example) that the people who whinge endlessly about new cycle lanes seem quite unaware that the money for these things comes straight from the central government and is mandated funding that cannot be spent on anything else.
One problem is that Councils have so little real power these days that they have little to talk about. You don't get many votes for proposing to change the colour of park benches. To a very large extent, they are merely the local agents of the state.
It amuses me (for example) that the people who whinge endlessly about new cycle lanes seem quite unaware that the money for these things comes straight from the central government and is mandated funding that cannot be spent on anything else.
Councils in Scotland have a lot of power. They are responsible for schools, libraries, planning, waste management. They have multi-million pound budgets.
One problem is that Councils have so little real power these days that they have little to talk about. You don't get many votes for proposing to change the colour of park benches. To a very large extent, they are merely the local agents of the state.
It amuses me (for example) that the people who whinge endlessly about new cycle lanes seem quite unaware that the money for these things comes straight from the central government and is mandated funding that cannot be spent on anything else.
Councils in Scotland have a lot of power. They are responsible for schools, libraries, planning, waste management. They have multi-million pound budgets.
I cannot speak for Scotland, but in England much of that 'power' is illusory.
Most of the Council's services are mandated by law. They cannot decide not to deliver them. They have a small amount of discretion over non-statutory services like libraries. Their budgets are so constrained by decades of government cuts that the discretion grows smaller each year.
If you give me a million pounds, but legally oblige me to spend £999,999 on X, you are not giving me much power. You are using me as your agent.
As for planning - well, that's an interesting one. Big Nasty Developers PLC put in a planning application, the Council had better be darned sure they have very solid grounds to say 'no'. Because Big Nasty Developers PLC can afford better lawyers, and if the Council loses on appeal it has to pay the costs of both sides. That's why applications from big companies rarely get turned down flat. Meanwhile, the local residents will be hopping up and down and talking about imaginary 'brown envelopes'. I've seen it so many times.
Councils in England used to be responsible for all those things, too... theoretically they still are, but with most schools now controlled directly by Westminster and many libraries closed by funding cuts, they don't have much left except for social care (underfunded), waste management (also underfunded) and planning (can be overruled at any point by central government).
Working for a council in Scotland I'm aware that there is a lot of work done at council level but I'm not convinced that much of it is amenable to political direction such that the composition of the elected council makes much difference. Strategic education policy is dictated largely by Holyrood and cash. There is some flexibility in administrative policy but this is overwhelmingly exercised at school or officer level and never reaches a councillor. Councillors might get involved in a decision to close a school but most of the time they're there to rubber stamp budgets and policies outwith their control.
Sir Keir is countering this by giving all 16 year old children the vote.
I think that giving 16 year olds the vote in Scotland has worked really well. It has engaged schoolchildren in the whole process. At the last election, when I went to vote, there was a real buzz as people congratulated voters in school uniform. There were photos on Facebook of school uniformed first voters. It turned it into a rite of passage. I suspect those young voters are likely to continue to engage with future elections.
You can get married at 16 in Scotland (though it's vanishingly rare) so why not be able to vote?
It has worked well for the SNP because these children have been voting for the SNP
It’s barking mad - the military don’t want it, the youth don’t want it - it’s a shore up the vote strategy.
Though personally I don’t believe anyone too young to vote or pay taxes should be sent to war or have to pay taxes, but by the same token intellectually I could be persuaded to align voting age with ‘liability to be sent to war and pay taxes’ age…. So if voting is 16 then everything else should be 16 too. Otherwise you’ve already got young voters (16-18) sending other people to war by voting for governments that do that, whereas at the moment at least those too old have been through the liability zone.
I’d have one age for adulthood at which all privileges and responsibilities are bestowed at once - voting, gambling, driving, drinking, service in the armed forces, marriage, etc
Starmer appears to be thinking along much the same lines:
The Lord may know why (I don’t) but young Tories do exist.
Nevertheless, given a choice between a party seeking to expand the franchise, and a party seeking to make things more difficult for selected groups of voters, I would encourage everyone to vote for the former.
In addition, people reach cognitive maturity around 16, while psychosocial development can complete in their 20s and is more variable - so 16 seems a more robust marker than 18 for the age at which deliberative judgement can be reliable,
Sir Keir is countering this by giving all 16 year old children the vote.
I think that giving 16 year olds the vote in Scotland has worked really well. It has engaged schoolchildren in the whole process. At the last election, when I went to vote, there was a real buzz as people congratulated voters in school uniform. There were photos on Facebook of school uniformed first voters. It turned it into a rite of passage. I suspect those young voters are likely to continue to engage with future elections.
You can get married at 16 in Scotland (though it's vanishingly rare) so why not be able to vote?
It has worked well for the SNP because these children have been voting for the SNP
It’s barking mad - the military don’t want it, the youth don’t want it - it’s a shore up the vote strategy.
Though personally I don’t believe anyone too young to vote or pay taxes should be sent to war or have to pay taxes, but by the same token intellectually I could be persuaded to align voting age with ‘liability to be sent to war and pay taxes’ age…. So if voting is 16 then everything else should be 16 too. Otherwise you’ve already got young voters (16-18) sending other people to war by voting for governments that do that, whereas at the moment at least those too old have been through the liability zone.
I’d have one age for adulthood at which all privileges and responsibilities are bestowed at once - voting, gambling, driving, drinking, service in the armed forces, marriage, etc
Starmer appears to be thinking along much the same lines:
What he meant to say.....“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 Labour,”
What policies do you think the Tories are offering that would appeal to young people, never mind young people under 18? They seem to me to be designed to mandate that young people "take one for the team" and financially help those over 70.
Sir Keir is countering this by giving all 16 year old children the vote.
I think that giving 16 year olds the vote in Scotland has worked really well. It has engaged schoolchildren in the whole process. At the last election, when I went to vote, there was a real buzz as people congratulated voters in school uniform. There were photos on Facebook of school uniformed first voters. It turned it into a rite of passage. I suspect those young voters are likely to continue to engage with future elections.
You can get married at 16 in Scotland (though it's vanishingly rare) so why not be able to vote?
It has worked well for the SNP because these children have been voting for the SNP
Yes, 16 and 17 year olds vote SNP. They also vote Green, Labour, LibDem, even Conservative and Alba. Just the same as the 18+ population vote for a variety of parties. It is true that younger members of the population (under 40) are more likely to support independence, but that doesn't always result in voting SNP.
Under 24 year olds are least likely to vote (47%), over 65 most likely (74%).
So the scaremongering about giving under 18 the vote is a load of all balls anyway. If there was something for which to vote then maybe more of them would.
The evidence so far from Scotland is that those who first have a chance to vote aged 16-17 continue to vote and this has boosted voter turnout for people in their 20s, compared to those who first have a chance to vote aged 18+. (Of course, the majority who gain a right to vote at 16 don't actually vote until they're at least 18 anyway, simply because of the time between elections, which gives two otherwise matched cohorts for study). Reducing voting age boosts turnout at elections, but doesn't seem to increase participation in politics in other ways (eg: petitioning MPs/MSPs, attending protests). Also, reducing voting age hasn't changed the socio-economic disparity in political engagement - those who are from poorer backgrounds are less likely to vote (and, sign petitions etc) than those from wealthier backgrounds, for all ages. Political engagement is to a large extent family driven - children of parents who vote are more likely to vote than those of parents who don't vote. There's a need for improved civic education and greater opportunities for political engagement, both in schools and workplace, to increase participation - especially from less wealthy communities.
Under 24 year olds are least likely to vote (47%), over 65 most likely (74%).
So the scaremongering about giving under 18 the vote is a load of all balls anyway. If there was something for which to vote then maybe more of them would.
It's the poor turnout of under 24s which giving the vote at 16 seems to help reverse. This is just anecdotal, but I have seen quite a few photos on social media of school age voters captioned "first vote" much like the photos of 17 year olds clutching their driving pass certificate.
When I voted, there was a buzz when a voter in school uniform came in, people were smiling and congratulating him.
There's no comparable "welcome to the electorate!" when someone votes at 18 plus, because without the school uniform, there's nothing to mark them out as a first time voter.
Making that first vote a rite of passage ought to have a knock on effect.
Suppose you are going to restrict the franchise to those with the cognitive ability to understand national politics and the associated issues. In that case, you are going to take an awful lot of people, of all ages, off the ballot.
Democracy is a theory that you give everyone the vote, whether they know how to tie their shoelaces or not, with rare exceptions like convicted criminals and the extremely insane. So I struggle to grasp the argument against enfranchising 16-year-olds, a mixed bag like the rest of us.
I'm not sure that disenfranchising criminals is right. I remember my father (no liberal snowflake) telling me off as a callow pre-teen for suggesting that employment should be a precondition for the vote: "what if you're unemployed because of something the government has done?". Likewise, if the government has passed an unjust law you may unjustly become a felon - in fact, this is a favoured way of discrediting political opponents. And even if you are a felon you are still a citizen and should still be entitled to vote IMO.
Sir Keir is countering this by giving all 16 year old children the vote.
I think that giving 16 year olds the vote in Scotland has worked really well. It has engaged schoolchildren in the whole process. At the last election, when I went to vote, there was a real buzz as people congratulated voters in school uniform. There were photos on Facebook of school uniformed first voters. It turned it into a rite of passage. I suspect those young voters are likely to continue to engage with future elections.
You can get married at 16 in Scotland (though it's vanishingly rare) so why not be able to vote?
It has worked well for the SNP because these children have been voting for the SNP
It’s barking mad - the military don’t want it, the youth don’t want it - it’s a shore up the vote strategy.
Though personally I don’t believe anyone too young to vote or pay taxes should be sent to war or have to pay taxes, but by the same token intellectually I could be persuaded to align voting age with ‘liability to be sent to war and pay taxes’ age…. So if voting is 16 then everything else should be 16 too. Otherwise you’ve already got young voters (16-18) sending other people to war by voting for governments that do that, whereas at the moment at least those too old have been through the liability zone.
I’d have one age for adulthood at which all privileges and responsibilities are bestowed at once - voting, gambling, driving, drinking, service in the armed forces, marriage, etc
Starmer appears to be thinking along much the same lines:
What he meant to say.....“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 Labour,”
What policies do you think the Tories are offering that would appeal to young people, never mind young people under 18? They seem to me to be designed to mandate that young people "take one for the team" and financially help those over 70.
No that’s true. Maybe when the manifesto comes out they won’t be proposing this ridiculous national service scheme or enriching better off pensioners. Maybe it will turn out that these much-trumpeted schemes will turn out to have been a pack of lies after all. Surely then it will be all right to vote the liars back into office.
No that’s true. Maybe when the manifesto comes out they won’t be proposing this ridiculous national service scheme or enriching better off pensioners. Maybe it will turn out that these much-trumpeted schemes will turn out to have been a pack of lies after all. Surely then it will be all right to vote the liars back into office.
They all tell lies. It comes down to which lies one prefers
No that’s true. Maybe when the manifesto comes out they won’t be proposing this ridiculous national service scheme or enriching better off pensioners. Maybe it will turn out that these much-trumpeted schemes will turn out to have been a pack of lies after all. Surely then it will be all right to vote the liars back into office.
They all tell lies. It comes down to which lies one prefers
The following is my thought-through analysis. I will remain nervous until the votes are counted. Partly because I remember 1992 and partly because I fear just how bad things could be if the Tories don't finally lose after all that's gone on these past few years.
Anyway:
The Conservatives are going to lose.
The question is how big a loss.
Labour needs around a 7% lead to get a majority. Current polling is quite erratic but the lead is ~13-25%. On these numbers, we're talking a Labour landslide.
Two factors to consider:
1. There's a high chance of tactical voting being really important with Labour picking up a handful of extra seats and the LibDems quite a few more. 2. Conventional wisdom is that the polls will narrow as we get closer to the election. For various reasons, I think conventional wisdom is wrong and I think the polls will widen slightly.
So here's a range prediction:
The best the Tories can hope for is a small Labour majority with around 200 Tory MPs left.
My central prediction is a big Labour majority with only ~150 Tory MPs.
The other outlier is really dramatic with tactical voting and a Conservative/Reform vote split leading to fewer than 100 Tory MPs: a wipeout.
Labour Lead in Polls with Fieldwork since GE2024 date was announced:
Techne: 🌹 LAB +26 (+3)
WeThink: 🌹 LAB +25 (+2)
More in Common: 🌹 LAB +17 (+1)
Gap has widened, not narrowed...
AFZ
Two thoughts.
Firstly the 6-7% lead for a majority (for Labour) is out of date. It seems to be 3% in the modelling I've seen this week. It's all an approximate guess because of how our FPTP system distorts the numbers.*
So, it we take this as read. The Labour lead is probably around 20%. Even the most positive poll for the Conservatives puts it at a very safe 12%.
It does come down to how big a win it is going to be?**
I remain of the view that there will be ~150 Tory MPs after the election. The spread I have is about 100-200.
Is there anything in the campaign so far that might change that?
No.
Sunak is as poor a campaigner as I expected. Starmer is warmer when set free than his public image. That's not to say that people like him. They just think he's a little better than they expected. Which is enough.
I agree that the Diane Abbott thing is the biggest problem for Labour at this point. It seems that someone has really messed up behind the scenes in the way it's been handled. However, I do not think it matters. I think it has no cut-through with the voters who will decide this election. It will only really become a problem for Labour if it runs and runs and the Labour incompetence vibe comes to dominate. Even then, it is difficult to imagine it being enough to change a 20pt lead.
Oh, one other thought. There is some evidence that there will be more tactical voting than ever before. We shall see, but it is conceivable to make the difference of 50 seats for the Tories. So the current governing party could easily end up with fewer than 100 seats. At the extreme end of that range (by which I mean around a 5-10% probability, if the 20pt lead is correct and there's tactical voting) is a scenario whereby the Liberal Democrats have around 80 seats and the Conservatives 70, making the LibDems the Official Opposition. I am not predicting that but it's not a crazy scenario at this point. Especially if the polls widen.
AFZ
*Traditionally it's higher for Labour than the Conservatives because of voting efficiency. In simple terms, in good years for Labour, they run up big numbers in safe seats which make no difference to the actual result.
**I will be very nervous at 10pm on 4th, waiting for the exit poll to come out. I will not fully relax until Labour have 326 MPs confirmed.
Thanks @alienfromzog . The Diane Abbott affair seems to be making the headlines again, so I hope Labour will soon resolve this. I suspect that there is more to it than meets the eye.
Thanks @alienfromzog . The Diane Abbott affair seems to be making the headlines again, so I hope Labour will soon resolve this. I suspect that there is more to it than meets the eye.
Yes, the BBC seems to be giving that story a huge amount of publicity, nearly as much as it seems to give Farage. I can't help suspecting the story has been set going on her behalf by friends and supporters to try to make sure she doesn't get stopped from standing.
If I was 70, would know that I could therefore be still in Halitosis Hall until I was 75, and reputed not to be in that good health, I'd have taken the opportunity this time round to retire in a theatrical huff.
She has had the whip restored, and so is once again a serving Labour MP.
It's hard to see what all the fuss is about - surely, all that is needed is for Starmer to confirm that she can stand for re-election, and for her to then retire gracefully.
However, Starmer seems reluctant...one is tempted to wonder why...
She is absolutely a trailblazer. That's not opinion, it's just a fact. She has an interesting back story and is very loved by her constituents. When she was elected in '87, she had a majority around 7000, it's now over 30,000. Research into abuse aimed at female MPs a few years ago showed that she received half (YES HALF) of all the abuse aimed at women MPs. She also upsets some people who really should be upset.
Her media coverage is nowhere near fair. I suspect that if 'Boris' was reported with the same slant as she is, he would never have won any elections.
However, she has said some very stupid things. She is potentially a liability to the party, especially in an election fight.
There is rumour and counter rumour about the investigation into her letter to the Observer and what was happening at this election. My best guess is that Starmer was not blocking her from standing at all. Rayner's comment in her recent Sky interview would be very odd if the leadership actually wanted to block her. Probably someone close to the leadership leaked it to the Times, thinking it would be helpful. It wasn't. My other guess is that she wanted to get the whip back and then stand down as a Labour MP. I don't think she wanted to run. However, no one can blame her for feeling hurt by all this. And that may have made her do something different. In the TV appearance, I saw, she did not look well, and probably shouldn't run. If she does run, whether for Labour or as an independent, I think she'll win.
All of which is important for her. For the national party, they just need to solve it quickly.
I must admit I didn't realise that Diane Abbott is over 70, though she seems to have been around forever (and I say that with admiration and respect, and not snarkily).
I hope she does stand for Labour, and that she wins with an increased majority. If she then decides to stand down, some way into the first (please gods) Labour government term of office, she could retire with dignity and no hassle.
As you say, the fact that Angela Rayner says she would like to see Diane Abbott standing for re-election, for Labour, is significant. There is clearly some tension between Starmer and his deputy, but that tension does not have to be something negative.
For Starmer to take no position on whether Abbott should stand seems the worst possible thing for him to do though. It pleases nobody. I think either decision would be defensible but he should do one or the other!
I've never been keen on Abbott, I find her often incoherent, and well, daft. I'm not sure that voters have strong feelings about her. I don't know whether Starmer is strong-arming people.
For Starmer to take no position on whether Abbott should stand seems the worst possible thing for him to do though. It pleases nobody. I think either decision would be defensible but he should do one or the other!
I thought his position was that the appropriate committee would decide on Tuesday. If he pre-empted it, he would get slated.
Comments
The Telegraph has some more 'details' on how it would 'work':
https://archive.ph/Ol5D6
Once the voting age was twenty one in the UK and before that women couldn't vote at all. I suppose there must be a line but wherever it is it is arbitrary.
"Ready" is perhaps challenging to define. You can ask whether young people say that they are ready, but that's not the same thing. You can ask older people whether they would have been ready at 16, which is a different question, but still perhaps not the right one.
I could tell you that, personally, my 16 year old self was an arrogant arse. Aged 18, I would have told you that of course I was ready to vote at 16, and would do a much better job of it that the average voter.
Aged 25, I would have told you that I didn't have anywhere close to a wide enough perspective aged 16 to vote, but would still have probably done a better job of it than the average voter.
Precisely.
I've also long been taken by the suffragist maxim "those who must obey the law should have a say in the making of the law". It seems to me that the logical voting age is the age at which one can be subject to criminal prosecution without having to prove competence - in England that is 13, unless something has changed. Do I trust the political instincts of the average 13 year old? Do I heck as like. But I don't trust the political instincts of the average 70 year old either, looking at what that age group has inflicted on us in the last decade or so.
The expected commitment for "voluntary" service is one weekend a month for a year. Whilst there are a lot of tasks that would benefit from additional voluntary labour, they mostly don't just happen at weekends. One example of service given is "local charities supporting elderly and isolated people". What service is to be offered here? If it's just a chat and a bit of human contact, then perhaps a weekend thing is OK. I am reminded that when I was at school, we had a group that would pop round to a local old people's home on a Monday after classes and spend a couple of hours drinking tea, chatting, and playing draughts or cards with the residents. And that was fine, although I don't see that it's worth a "National Service scheme".
If what is required is someone to pop in and help an elderly person with daily living - maybe prepare lunch, do some light cleaning, help someone dress themselves, or whatever, then those needs happen every day, and not just at weekends.
In this poorly-thought-out "plan", is the intended commitment of one weekend a month a statement that everyone has to serve every month, or is this an average commitment, and the requirement will be to offer 192 hours of service over the course of the year?
The article suggests that those travelling for a "gap year" will be expected to fit their service around their travels, which suggests that it must be a total service requirement for the year, rather than "show up on the first weekend of every month".
For students enrolled in intensive and rigorous degree courses, the idea that you could take a weekend off once a month to do some volunteering is ridiculous. Spending a month over the summer, or a half day once a week in term time, would be more feasible.
It's a feeble gesture and intended to draw the teeth of the 'If I had my way they'd bring back National Service ...' types who'd be likely to vote Reform unless the Conservatives 'bring back the birch' and restrict the franchise to men who own property ...
They are clutching at straws.
Even the old National Service didn’t do that. My late father-in-law (born 1937) was called up for National Service but because he had just been offered a college place they deferred it until he had finished his course. As it happened, during the intervening two years National Service was abolished so he didn’t have to do it in the end
My Dad was in the Suez Canal Zone when there was low-level but sometimes lethal insurgency. He was then posted to Cyprus which he thought was idyllic until EOKA started blowing up bars and stretching wire across the roads to decapitate despatch riders.
Then, when the Suez Crisis erupted he was on a troop ship heading out of Southampton to form part of a subsequent occupation force to consolidate the initial invasion. I don't think they'd reached the Med' before the Americans put the kibbosh on it in the UN, a move he was disgruntled by but which I applaud.
As @Enoch says, plenty of National Servicemen were killed or injured in Korea.
https://x.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1795146032856121582
I think I started arguing this around 1996-7, I'd picked up the minimum was now 10, I hadn't realised they'd removed the presumption of incapacity. It's 12 in Scotland, which would mean getting the vote would coincide more or less with starting secondary school, which seems as good a boundary as any.
One of the Tory MPs (standing down this election) has today backed the Reform candidate in her Telford constituency…
Campaign leaflets with little or no party branding
ISTM that tory candidates can't really expect us to take them seriously any more on a national scale, so to speak.
Concentrating on vague, or more local issues, may fool some people into thinking that the tories can, after all, Save The World.
I remember getting a letter 'from Mrs May' and various other propaganda items about the same time. You had to really search to find 'Conservative' on any of it. Pretty much down there with the printer's address.
In council elections they’ve taken to calling themselves “Local Conservative” and this is how they appear on the ballot paper
We've had that same "It's either X or the SNP" leaflet, but with the local Tory candidate. On the reverse side there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the candidate is a Tory.
On the front, there is the graph showing the previous results, and a purple 4cm x 1cm box saying "Scottish Conservative and Unionist." On a leaflet which, unfolded, measures 29 cm x 32 cm.
The candidate is described, several times, as not-SNP. She's also described once as not-Labour and not-Lib Dem. So by a process of deduction she must be a Tory....
The leaflet includes two news clippings about the SNP, photos of Nicola, Humza and John Swinney looking gormless, and a bit about SNP policies. There is nothing about Tory policies, just stuff about the candidate "promoting Aberdeenshire's hard-working farmers" "upgrading the A96 and A90" and "protecting jobs in Aberdeenshire."
All of which is very well, but the SNP government has produced plans to upgrade the A96, so they're promoting an existing SNP policy there.
So they have - I think they did that in our local council elections last time round (2023), when they lost control, anyway.
Do the tories really think people will be fooled, though? Presumably they think that some will...
Local councils, of course, have little to do with national economic policy or deporting people to Rwanda. It's not unreasonable for a Tory council to want to talk about how it manages local affairs, and not about what the national government has done.
Whereas prospective MPs trying to disguise the fact that voting for them is an implicit endorsement of their party leader for PM is silly. A particular person might well have been an excellent constituency MP, being responsive to their constituents and helping them sort out their problems. That is to that person's credit, of course, but it doesn't alter the fact that they will vote for their party at Westminster. It is entirely reasonable to respect and approve of the work that your MP did as a constituency MP, but not vote for them in the election because you don't want their party in government.
Fixed code - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
It amuses me (for example) that the people who whinge endlessly about new cycle lanes seem quite unaware that the money for these things comes straight from the central government and is mandated funding that cannot be spent on anything else.
Councils in Scotland have a lot of power. They are responsible for schools, libraries, planning, waste management. They have multi-million pound budgets.
I cannot speak for Scotland, but in England much of that 'power' is illusory.
Most of the Council's services are mandated by law. They cannot decide not to deliver them. They have a small amount of discretion over non-statutory services like libraries. Their budgets are so constrained by decades of government cuts that the discretion grows smaller each year.
If you give me a million pounds, but legally oblige me to spend £999,999 on X, you are not giving me much power. You are using me as your agent.
As for planning - well, that's an interesting one. Big Nasty Developers PLC put in a planning application, the Council had better be darned sure they have very solid grounds to say 'no'. Because Big Nasty Developers PLC can afford better lawyers, and if the Council loses on appeal it has to pay the costs of both sides. That's why applications from big companies rarely get turned down flat. Meanwhile, the local residents will be hopping up and down and talking about imaginary 'brown envelopes'. I've seen it so many times.
I just saw a video by the Tory candidate in a neighbouring constituency. In it he describes his party as “Local Consertvantives”.
Interesting.
Nevertheless, given a choice between a party seeking to expand the franchise, and a party seeking to make things more difficult for selected groups of voters, I would encourage everyone to vote for the former.
In addition, people reach cognitive maturity around 16, while psychosocial development can complete in their 20s and is more variable - so 16 seems a more robust marker than 18 for the age at which deliberative judgement can be reliable,
What policies do you think the Tories are offering that would appeal to young people, never mind young people under 18? They seem to me to be designed to mandate that young people "take one for the team" and financially help those over 70.
So the scaremongering about giving under 18 the vote is a load of all balls anyway. If there was something for which to vote then maybe more of them would.
It's the poor turnout of under 24s which giving the vote at 16 seems to help reverse. This is just anecdotal, but I have seen quite a few photos on social media of school age voters captioned "first vote" much like the photos of 17 year olds clutching their driving pass certificate.
When I voted, there was a buzz when a voter in school uniform came in, people were smiling and congratulating him.
There's no comparable "welcome to the electorate!" when someone votes at 18 plus, because without the school uniform, there's nothing to mark them out as a first time voter.
Making that first vote a rite of passage ought to have a knock on effect.
Democracy is a theory that you give everyone the vote, whether they know how to tie their shoelaces or not, with rare exceptions like convicted criminals and the extremely insane. So I struggle to grasp the argument against enfranchising 16-year-olds, a mixed bag like the rest of us.
I haven't seen the manifesto yet.
They all tell lies. It comes down to which lies one prefers
Ah ok, thanks. Good to know.
Two thoughts.
Firstly the 6-7% lead for a majority (for Labour) is out of date. It seems to be 3% in the modelling I've seen this week. It's all an approximate guess because of how our FPTP system distorts the numbers.*
Secondly, here's some serious research which explains why the polls haven't narrowed and why they probably won't: https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-email/issue-86/
So, it we take this as read. The Labour lead is probably around 20%. Even the most positive poll for the Conservatives puts it at a very safe 12%.
It does come down to how big a win it is going to be?**
I remain of the view that there will be ~150 Tory MPs after the election. The spread I have is about 100-200.
Is there anything in the campaign so far that might change that?
No.
Sunak is as poor a campaigner as I expected. Starmer is warmer when set free than his public image. That's not to say that people like him. They just think he's a little better than they expected. Which is enough.
I agree that the Diane Abbott thing is the biggest problem for Labour at this point. It seems that someone has really messed up behind the scenes in the way it's been handled. However, I do not think it matters. I think it has no cut-through with the voters who will decide this election. It will only really become a problem for Labour if it runs and runs and the Labour incompetence vibe comes to dominate. Even then, it is difficult to imagine it being enough to change a 20pt lead.
Oh, one other thought. There is some evidence that there will be more tactical voting than ever before. We shall see, but it is conceivable to make the difference of 50 seats for the Tories. So the current governing party could easily end up with fewer than 100 seats. At the extreme end of that range (by which I mean around a 5-10% probability, if the 20pt lead is correct and there's tactical voting) is a scenario whereby the Liberal Democrats have around 80 seats and the Conservatives 70, making the LibDems the Official Opposition. I am not predicting that but it's not a crazy scenario at this point. Especially if the polls widen.
AFZ
*Traditionally it's higher for Labour than the Conservatives because of voting efficiency. In simple terms, in good years for Labour, they run up big numbers in safe seats which make no difference to the actual result.
**I will be very nervous at 10pm on 4th, waiting for the exit poll to come out. I will not fully relax until Labour have 326 MPs confirmed.
If I was 70, would know that I could therefore be still in Halitosis Hall until I was 75, and reputed not to be in that good health, I'd have taken the opportunity this time round to retire in a theatrical huff.
It's hard to see what all the fuss is about - surely, all that is needed is for Starmer to confirm that she can stand for re-election, and for her to then retire gracefully.
However, Starmer seems reluctant...one is tempted to wonder why...
She is absolutely a trailblazer. That's not opinion, it's just a fact. She has an interesting back story and is very loved by her constituents. When she was elected in '87, she had a majority around 7000, it's now over 30,000. Research into abuse aimed at female MPs a few years ago showed that she received half (YES HALF) of all the abuse aimed at women MPs. She also upsets some people who really should be upset.
Her media coverage is nowhere near fair. I suspect that if 'Boris' was reported with the same slant as she is, he would never have won any elections.
However, she has said some very stupid things. She is potentially a liability to the party, especially in an election fight.
There is rumour and counter rumour about the investigation into her letter to the Observer and what was happening at this election. My best guess is that Starmer was not blocking her from standing at all. Rayner's comment in her recent Sky interview would be very odd if the leadership actually wanted to block her. Probably someone close to the leadership leaked it to the Times, thinking it would be helpful. It wasn't. My other guess is that she wanted to get the whip back and then stand down as a Labour MP. I don't think she wanted to run. However, no one can blame her for feeling hurt by all this. And that may have made her do something different. In the TV appearance, I saw, she did not look well, and probably shouldn't run. If she does run, whether for Labour or as an independent, I think she'll win.
All of which is important for her. For the national party, they just need to solve it quickly.
AFZ
I must admit I didn't realise that Diane Abbott is over 70, though she seems to have been around forever (and I say that with admiration and respect, and not snarkily).
I hope she does stand for Labour, and that she wins with an increased majority. If she then decides to stand down, some way into the first (please gods) Labour government term of office, she could retire with dignity and no hassle.
As you say, the fact that Angela Rayner says she would like to see Diane Abbott standing for re-election, for Labour, is significant. There is clearly some tension between Starmer and his deputy, but that tension does not have to be something negative.
I thought his position was that the appropriate committee would decide on Tuesday. If he pre-empted it, he would get slated.