Latest news with #HaroldWilson
Spectator
2 days ago
- Business
- Spectator
The problem of striking a defence deal with the EU
The UK-EU summit in London in May at which a new relationship between the parties was agreed seems a long time ago now. In fact, it is barely eight weeks, but we live in a world which has supercharged Harold Wilson's mordant dictum that 'a week is a long time in politics'. They seem like aeons now. One major subject at the summit was the EU's financial instrument Security Action for Europe (Safe). This is a fund of €150 billion (£130 billion) which will provide loans for member states to undertake urgent, large-scale defence procurement projects, with the aim of addressing capability gaps and boosting the European defence industry's production capacity. However, Brussels makes clear that 'beneficiary member states will have to carry out, in principle, common procurements involving at least two participating countries to qualify for the loans'. It is now clear that the UK will need to pay a fee to participate in this scheme. The amount has not yet been fixed, but EU diplomats reason that 'since British businesses would receive EU money to create jobs and expand capacity under the scheme, London should recompense Brussels'. France is said to be pushing for a significant contribution, while others, including Germany, are keen not to set the tariff so high that the UK does not participate at all. This should come as no surprise. The prima facie terms of the Safe scheme, initially excluding the US and the UK (between them home to ten of the world's twenty biggest defence contractors), left French and German manufacturers like Thales, Rheinmetall and KNDS at the head of the queue to benefit from new spending. Thales and KNDS, as well as Naval Group and Safran, are, as it happens, part-owned by the French state. In these circumstances, the question of who benefits was not a particularly challenging one. Surely this wasn't supposed to happen? At the summit in May, Sir Keir Starmer said that the UK-EU agreement would 'open the door to working with the EU's new defence fund – providing new opportunities for our defence industry, supporting British jobs and livelihoods'. That was, I argued at the time, one of the main motivating factors behind the agreement. After all, the rules for Safe make it clear: Safe will also allow acceding countries, candidate countries, potential candidates and countries that have signed a security and defence partnership with the EU, such as the United Kingdom, to join common procurements. Alas, there was a brief cautionary note that Britain's participation would be 'subject to a separate negotiation and conditions, including a financial contribution from the UK'. The European Commission's spokesman for defence, Thomas Regnier, told the Financial Times that, under the terms of the agreement, UK-based companies could provide up to 35 per cent of the value of procurement through Safe, but going beyond that would depend on 'an agreement with the EU on the precise modalities on aspects such as budget contribution and security of supply'. This was inevitable. The EU is a fundamentally protectionist organisation which seeks to gain as much advantage as possible for the economies of its member states. That is not a criticism, merely an observation: but it has highlighted the disadvantages of pursuing defence policy through the EU, of which we are not a member, rather than Nato, a dedicated military alliance of which we have been part for more than 75 years. (It is true the overlap between the EU and Nato is not complete: although acting through the latter would include the US, Canada and Turkey, it would exclude the military superpowers of Austria, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus.) The Cabinet Office has offered bland, reality-defying reassurance: 'It is in all our interests for the UK and EU to bring together our unique capabilities and expertise to make Europe a safer, more secure, and more prosperous place'. Indeed so, but perhaps that is a message better directed towards the French government, while there still is one. There have been pious expressions of hope that 'parochial national interests' do not undermine Safe's potential to contribute to Europe's overall security. But this is the EU, the bare-knuckle fight club of national interests. It has weak defence institutions but strong ambitions to accrete more competencies to the centre. And the hard-edged realpolitik of Brussels is showing the relative emptiness of the clutch of bilateral agreements Starmer has concluded. There is a clear choice. What is Europe's overriding priority: building the continent's defence capabilities or strengthening national defence industrial bases? The rules governing Safe effectively choose the latter; that is a matter for member states. But perhaps the British government should not have so eagerly chased a mechanism that was bound to work to our disadvantage. The Strategic Defence Review set out a 'Nato First' policy – perhaps we should have focused more closely on that mantra.
North Wales Chronicle
6 days ago
- Politics
- North Wales Chronicle
What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?
The Representation of the People Act 1969 was a major milestone in the development of modern democracy, as the UK became the first country to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The Act triggered change elsewhere as other democracies soon followed suit. The economic and social conditions in the late 60s have clear parallels with those facing the current Labour Government, while the announcement of its intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been described as the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969. Sir Keir Starmer said it was 'important' to lower the voting age, as 16-year-olds were old enough to work and 'pay in' through tax, so should 'have the opportunity' to say how they wanted their money spent. Polling suggests Labour stand to gain the most from reform, with 33% of 16 and 17-year-olds polled by ITV news saying they would back the party, while 20% said they would choose Reform UK and 18% the Greens. Therefore, while ministers will not accept that electoral advantage is a motivating factor for the changes, some opponents may argue that this is the case. Some historians suggest an expectation of a boost in vote share was not a factor in decision making within Harold Wilson's administration at the time. This, it is claimed, was because the voting intentions of younger people were far from clear. But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed the lowering of the voting age was 'less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative'. While today some argue that lowering the voting age will counter political apathy or disenchantment among the young, research by the University of Huddersfield found no evidence that this fuelled demands for reform in the 1960s. It highlighted that there was no significant difference in turnout between young and older voters prior to the 1969 Act, with large numbers of young people joining youth organisations linked with the main political parties. However, amid contemporary concerns about radicalisation, the push for voting at 18 in the 1960s has been linked in part to growing concern that social alienation among the young could lead to 'widespread antidemocratic embrace of either far-left or nationalist causes'. The path to reform was set when the government in 1965 announced that a committee chaired by Justice John Latey would examine at what age individuals are considered an adult. Published in 1967, the committee concluded that young people aged 18 should have adult rights, including owning property and being able to marry without the consent of their parents. The report said: 'This Committee is convinced that we must ensure that the young go out into the world as fully prepared for their adult responsibilities as possible, and that in giving them adult status at 18 we are doing no more than recognising the simple facts.' Some in Harold Wilson's cabinet were against reform, but the matter was resolved in favour of change and the government published a white paper. Some of the subsequent arguments against reform at the time were said to focus on what can be considered the appropriate age of 'maturity' and contained 'assertions over the extent to which young people were competent, sentient humans, capable of voting', according to the University of Huddersfield research. However, advocates at the time echoed arguments regularly heard today under the principle of 'no taxation without representation'. Conservatives repeatedly requested a free vote on the issue, but the Labour government – with an overall majority of 67 – whipped its MPs, suggesting a nervousness over the depth of commitment to reform. The Representation of the People Bill passed into law in July 1969, but by the following year the Labour Party had lost a total of 16 seats in by-elections. The economy was showing signs of improvement, boosting Labour's standing in the polls and prompting Mr Wilson to call a general election. But, in what many observers considered a surprise result, Labour was defeated by the Conservatives led by Edward Heath. In the context of arguments then and now about political engagement and lowering the voting age, it is notable that the 72% turnout at the election was the lowest since 1955. Census data suggested that although about 800,000 newly-enfranchised 18 to 20-year-olds were due to be added to the electoral register for the general election, only 464,000 were actually registered. Lowering the voting age was also considered under the last Labour government led by Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown. Neither leader formally declared a commitment to enfranchising 16-year-olds, but the issue was debated in Parliament and supported by some Labour MPs. However, there was not widespread cross-party backing for reform at the time, with many Conservatives either opposed or unenthusiastic about reform, raising the prospect of legislation facing a difficult passage through Parliament. Competing policy priorities have also been cited as a factor in electoral reform being sidelined, with issues such as constitutional reform, health and the economy taking up political bandwidth. Historians have also referenced concerns over potential controversy due to doubts over public support, while the lack of a prominent campaign for change is said to have prevented votes at 16 gaining momentum.
Glasgow Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Glasgow Times
What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?
The Representation of the People Act 1969 was a major milestone in the development of modern democracy, as the UK became the first country to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The Act triggered change elsewhere as other democracies soon followed suit. The economic and social conditions in the late 60s have clear parallels with those facing the current Labour Government, while the announcement of its intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been described as the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969. Sir Keir Starmer said it was 'important' to lower the voting age, as 16-year-olds were old enough to work and 'pay in' through tax, so should 'have the opportunity' to say how they wanted their money spent. Sir Keir Starmer faces similar challenges to Harold Wilson in the late 1960s (Frank Augstein/PA) Polling suggests Labour stand to gain the most from reform, with 33% of 16 and 17-year-olds polled by ITV news saying they would back the party, while 20% said they would choose Reform UK and 18% the Greens. Therefore, while ministers will not accept that electoral advantage is a motivating factor for the changes, some opponents may argue that this is the case. Some historians suggest an expectation of a boost in vote share was not a factor in decision making within Harold Wilson's administration at the time. This, it is claimed, was because the voting intentions of younger people were far from clear. But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed the lowering of the voting age was 'less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative'. While today some argue that lowering the voting age will counter political apathy or disenchantment among the young, research by the University of Huddersfield found no evidence that this fuelled demands for reform in the 1960s. It highlighted that there was no significant difference in turnout between young and older voters prior to the 1969 Act, with large numbers of young people joining youth organisations linked with the main political parties. Former Labour prime minister Harold Wilson lowered the voting age to 18 (Alamy/PA) However, amid contemporary concerns about radicalisation, the push for voting at 18 in the 1960s has been linked in part to growing concern that social alienation among the young could lead to 'widespread antidemocratic embrace of either far-left or nationalist causes'. The path to reform was set when the government in 1965 announced that a committee chaired by Justice John Latey would examine at what age individuals are considered an adult. Published in 1967, the committee concluded that young people aged 18 should have adult rights, including owning property and being able to marry without the consent of their parents. The report said: 'This Committee is convinced that we must ensure that the young go out into the world as fully prepared for their adult responsibilities as possible, and that in giving them adult status at 18 we are doing no more than recognising the simple facts.' Some in Harold Wilson's cabinet were against reform, but the matter was resolved in favour of change and the government published a white paper. Some of the subsequent arguments against reform at the time were said to focus on what can be considered the appropriate age of 'maturity' and contained 'assertions over the extent to which young people were competent, sentient humans, capable of voting', according to the University of Huddersfield research. The Conservatives, led by Edward Heath, won the general election in 1970 (PA) However, advocates at the time echoed arguments regularly heard today under the principle of 'no taxation without representation'. Conservatives repeatedly requested a free vote on the issue, but the Labour government – with an overall majority of 67 – whipped its MPs, suggesting a nervousness over the depth of commitment to reform. The Representation of the People Bill passed into law in July 1969, but by the following year the Labour Party had lost a total of 16 seats in by-elections. The economy was showing signs of improvement, boosting Labour's standing in the polls and prompting Mr Wilson to call a general election. But, in what many observers considered a surprise result, Labour was defeated by the Conservatives led by Edward Heath. In the context of arguments then and now about political engagement and lowering the voting age, it is notable that the 72% turnout at the election was the lowest since 1955. Census data suggested that although about 800,000 newly-enfranchised 18 to 20-year-olds were due to be added to the electoral register for the general election, only 464,000 were actually registered. Lowering the voting age was also considered under the last Labour government led by Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown. Neither leader formally declared a commitment to enfranchising 16-year-olds, but the issue was debated in Parliament and supported by some Labour MPs. However, there was not widespread cross-party backing for reform at the time, with many Conservatives either opposed or unenthusiastic about reform, raising the prospect of legislation facing a difficult passage through Parliament. Competing policy priorities have also been cited as a factor in electoral reform being sidelined, with issues such as constitutional reform, health and the economy taking up political bandwidth. Historians have also referenced concerns over potential controversy due to doubts over public support, while the lack of a prominent campaign for change is said to have prevented votes at 16 gaining momentum.
Leader Live
6 days ago
- Politics
- Leader Live
What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?
The Representation of the People Act 1969 was a major milestone in the development of modern democracy, as the UK became the first country to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The Act triggered change elsewhere as other democracies soon followed suit. The economic and social conditions in the late 60s have clear parallels with those facing the current Labour Government, while the announcement of its intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been described as the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969. Sir Keir Starmer said it was 'important' to lower the voting age, as 16-year-olds were old enough to work and 'pay in' through tax, so should 'have the opportunity' to say how they wanted their money spent. Polling suggests Labour stand to gain the most from reform, with 33% of 16 and 17-year-olds polled by ITV news saying they would back the party, while 20% said they would choose Reform UK and 18% the Greens. Therefore, while ministers will not accept that electoral advantage is a motivating factor for the changes, some opponents may argue that this is the case. Some historians suggest an expectation of a boost in vote share was not a factor in decision making within Harold Wilson's administration at the time. This, it is claimed, was because the voting intentions of younger people were far from clear. But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed the lowering of the voting age was 'less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative'. While today some argue that lowering the voting age will counter political apathy or disenchantment among the young, research by the University of Huddersfield found no evidence that this fuelled demands for reform in the 1960s. It highlighted that there was no significant difference in turnout between young and older voters prior to the 1969 Act, with large numbers of young people joining youth organisations linked with the main political parties. However, amid contemporary concerns about radicalisation, the push for voting at 18 in the 1960s has been linked in part to growing concern that social alienation among the young could lead to 'widespread antidemocratic embrace of either far-left or nationalist causes'. The path to reform was set when the government in 1965 announced that a committee chaired by Justice John Latey would examine at what age individuals are considered an adult. Published in 1967, the committee concluded that young people aged 18 should have adult rights, including owning property and being able to marry without the consent of their parents. The report said: 'This Committee is convinced that we must ensure that the young go out into the world as fully prepared for their adult responsibilities as possible, and that in giving them adult status at 18 we are doing no more than recognising the simple facts.' Some in Harold Wilson's cabinet were against reform, but the matter was resolved in favour of change and the government published a white paper. Some of the subsequent arguments against reform at the time were said to focus on what can be considered the appropriate age of 'maturity' and contained 'assertions over the extent to which young people were competent, sentient humans, capable of voting', according to the University of Huddersfield research. However, advocates at the time echoed arguments regularly heard today under the principle of 'no taxation without representation'. Conservatives repeatedly requested a free vote on the issue, but the Labour government – with an overall majority of 67 – whipped its MPs, suggesting a nervousness over the depth of commitment to reform. The Representation of the People Bill passed into law in July 1969, but by the following year the Labour Party had lost a total of 16 seats in by-elections. The economy was showing signs of improvement, boosting Labour's standing in the polls and prompting Mr Wilson to call a general election. But, in what many observers considered a surprise result, Labour was defeated by the Conservatives led by Edward Heath. In the context of arguments then and now about political engagement and lowering the voting age, it is notable that the 72% turnout at the election was the lowest since 1955. Census data suggested that although about 800,000 newly-enfranchised 18 to 20-year-olds were due to be added to the electoral register for the general election, only 464,000 were actually registered. Lowering the voting age was also considered under the last Labour government led by Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown. Neither leader formally declared a commitment to enfranchising 16-year-olds, but the issue was debated in Parliament and supported by some Labour MPs. However, there was not widespread cross-party backing for reform at the time, with many Conservatives either opposed or unenthusiastic about reform, raising the prospect of legislation facing a difficult passage through Parliament. Competing policy priorities have also been cited as a factor in electoral reform being sidelined, with issues such as constitutional reform, health and the economy taking up political bandwidth. Historians have also referenced concerns over potential controversy due to doubts over public support, while the lack of a prominent campaign for change is said to have prevented votes at 16 gaining momentum.
South Wales Guardian
7 days ago
- Politics
- South Wales Guardian
What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?
The Representation of the People Act 1969 was a major milestone in the development of modern democracy, as the UK became the first country to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The Act triggered change elsewhere as other democracies soon followed suit. The economic and social conditions in the late 60s have clear parallels with those facing the current Labour Government, while the announcement of its intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been described as the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969. Sir Keir Starmer said it was 'important' to lower the voting age, as 16-year-olds were old enough to work and 'pay in' through tax, so should 'have the opportunity' to say how they wanted their money spent. Polling suggests Labour stand to gain the most from reform, with 33% of 16 and 17-year-olds polled by ITV news saying they would back the party, while 20% said they would choose Reform UK and 18% the Greens. Therefore, while ministers will not accept that electoral advantage is a motivating factor for the changes, some opponents may argue that this is the case. Some historians suggest an expectation of a boost in vote share was not a factor in decision making within Harold Wilson's administration at the time. This, it is claimed, was because the voting intentions of younger people were far from clear. But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed the lowering of the voting age was 'less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative'. While today some argue that lowering the voting age will counter political apathy or disenchantment among the young, research by the University of Huddersfield found no evidence that this fuelled demands for reform in the 1960s. It highlighted that there was no significant difference in turnout between young and older voters prior to the 1969 Act, with large numbers of young people joining youth organisations linked with the main political parties. However, amid contemporary concerns about radicalisation, the push for voting at 18 in the 1960s has been linked in part to growing concern that social alienation among the young could lead to 'widespread antidemocratic embrace of either far-left or nationalist causes'. The path to reform was set when the government in 1965 announced that a committee chaired by Justice John Latey would examine at what age individuals are considered an adult. Published in 1967, the committee concluded that young people aged 18 should have adult rights, including owning property and being able to marry without the consent of their parents. The report said: 'This Committee is convinced that we must ensure that the young go out into the world as fully prepared for their adult responsibilities as possible, and that in giving them adult status at 18 we are doing no more than recognising the simple facts.' Some in Harold Wilson's cabinet were against reform, but the matter was resolved in favour of change and the government published a white paper. Some of the subsequent arguments against reform at the time were said to focus on what can be considered the appropriate age of 'maturity' and contained 'assertions over the extent to which young people were competent, sentient humans, capable of voting', according to the University of Huddersfield research. However, advocates at the time echoed arguments regularly heard today under the principle of 'no taxation without representation'. Conservatives repeatedly requested a free vote on the issue, but the Labour government – with an overall majority of 67 – whipped its MPs, suggesting a nervousness over the depth of commitment to reform. The Representation of the People Bill passed into law in July 1969, but by the following year the Labour Party had lost a total of 16 seats in by-elections. The economy was showing signs of improvement, boosting Labour's standing in the polls and prompting Mr Wilson to call a general election. But, in what many observers considered a surprise result, Labour was defeated by the Conservatives led by Edward Heath. In the context of arguments then and now about political engagement and lowering the voting age, it is notable that the 72% turnout at the election was the lowest since 1955. Census data suggested that although about 800,000 newly-enfranchised 18 to 20-year-olds were due to be added to the electoral register for the general election, only 464,000 were actually registered. Lowering the voting age was also considered under the last Labour government led by Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown. Neither leader formally declared a commitment to enfranchising 16-year-olds, but the issue was debated in Parliament and supported by some Labour MPs. However, there was not widespread cross-party backing for reform at the time, with many Conservatives either opposed or unenthusiastic about reform, raising the prospect of legislation facing a difficult passage through Parliament. Competing policy priorities have also been cited as a factor in electoral reform being sidelined, with issues such as constitutional reform, health and the economy taking up political bandwidth. Historians have also referenced concerns over potential controversy due to doubts over public support, while the lack of a prominent campaign for change is said to have prevented votes at 16 gaining momentum.
