Here’s where things stand on Thursday 17 July 2025:

• The voting age will be lowered to 16 for all elections across the UK in time for the next general election, the government has confirmed
• Labour’s election manifesto last year pledged to lower the voting age to 16 – in line with Scottish and Welsh elections
• Keir Starmer says 16 and 17-year-olds are “old enough to go out to work, they are old enough to pay taxes”
• But the Conservatives question why 16-year-olds will be able to vote but not “marry, go to war, or even stand in elections”. Reform are against lowering the voting age – but the Lib Dems say it’s a “no-brainer”
• In other changes, people will also be able to use bank cards as voter ID

‘Opportunity for us to have more of a say in our future’

We’ve been hearing from some young people who have been speaking to the Reuters news agency.

“I think it’s a really good thing” 23-year-old business consultant Leo Lardi tells Reuters, as the move gives the younger generation “an opinion and a vote on a lot of the issues that are facing the UK today”.

He says if he had the chance it would’ve made him think more about the issues that affect him.

“The future really affects those who are younger than us,” he adds.

Student Hannah McCullagh, 20, says it’s a “good opportunity for us to have more of a say in our future”.

“At the end of the day we decide who we vote in,” and they make the decisions that will affect young people through healthcare, jobs and education, she explains.

Mayor of London approves, but other political figures unimpressed

There’s ringing endorsement for today’s proposals from the Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan.

In a social media post he says lowering the minimum age to 16 is “long overdue”, adding that “young people deserve a greater say in their future”.

Ex-Conservative MP Simon Clarke, who was previously a cabinet member, doesn’t agree.

He shares a chart from think tank More in Common, which suggests that the public opposes the idea of lowering the voting age.

As a result, Clarke calls the proposals “shameless gerrymandering”, and asks: “If we don’t think 16 is the age of adult maturity, why is the Government doing this?”

Conservative MP James Cleverly has also responded, saying “the cynicism is breathtaking”.

He observes that the plans to lower the minimum voting age were “dropped from the King’s Speech” and suggests they were only announced now that the Labour government is “tanking in the polls”.

Other countries that allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote

Several other countries around the world allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in all elections, while some others allow them to vote in specific circumstances.

According to Unicef, external, countries and territories where young people aged 16 and/or 17 are allowed to vote in all elections include:

• Argentina
• Austria
• Brazil
• Cuba
• Ecuador
• Guernsey
• Greece
• Indonesia
• Isle of Man
• Jersey
• Nicaragua
• North Korea
• Timor-Leste

Some countries and territories, such as Estonia, Germany, Israel, Puerto Rico, Scotland, and Wales allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in at least some elections, such as local or state elections.

Young people aged 16 in Belgium, Austria, Germany and Malta, and those aged 17 in Greece are allowed to vote in European elections.

In the US, 17-year-olds can vote in the presidential or congressional primaries or party caucuses in some states if they turn 18 before the general election.

When is the next general election?

The new rules mean that 16 and 17-year-olds can now vote in general elections, starting from the next one.

That is due to be held by August 2029 at the latest, as the maximum term for parliament is five years from when it first formed.

But the prime minister does have the option of calling one early if they choose to.

‘Landmark moment for democracy’ – National Union of Students

The National Union of Students (NUS) has welcomed today’s announcement to lower the voting age, describing it as a “landmark moment for democracy”.

Vice President Further Education at NUS UK, Qasim Hussain, says the decision has been achieved “by the tireless campaigning of generations of 16 and 17-year-olds who missed out on their chance to have a say in major democratic moments in the UK”.

“The young people who have been empowered today pay taxes if they work and are significantly impacted by political decisions on education, the minimum wage, climate and more. They will now have a say on these issues and how their taxes are spent,” Hussain says.

Labour policy ‘hopelessly confused’ – shadow minister

We can now bring you more comments from Conservative shadow minister for Housing Paul Holmes reacting to today’s announcement.

Speaking in the Commons, he says the government’s position on the voting age was “hopelessly confused”.

“Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they’re voting in?” he asks.

He also suggests that allowing bank cards as voter ID could “undermine the security of the ballot box”.

Voting age plan was in Labour manifesto – but not in first King’s Speech

Labour’s manifesto for the 2024 general election pledged to give “16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections”.

Of course, Labour won that election – but there was some doubt the commitment would be fulfilled when the changes weren’t included in the 2024 King’s Speech, which outlined the government’s early priorities.

Pressed on why lowering the voting age wasn’t in the speech, minister Lucy Powell said at the time there were “plenty of big bills that didn’t make it”.

She stressed it remained a manifesto commitment – and now the government says “an elections and democracy bill during this Parliament” will deliver the changes before the next general election.

‘Reforms open the door for millions more to get involved in elections,’ Electoral Commission

The CEO of the Electoral Commission has hailed the reforms which will “improve the resilience and integrity of our electoral system”.

Vijay Rangarajan adds: “Registration reform would open the door for millions more to get involved in elections, and the proposed changes to the political finance rules would strengthen the checks on money coming into UK politics and ensure a more proportionate and effective enforcement regime.

“We are ready to work with the electoral community to build understanding and compliance with any new requirements, and to support voters with information and education resources.”

At a glance: Four key changes proposed by the government – including bank cards as ID

We have been poring over the details of what is in today’s government announcement.

Here are the key takeaways:

• Voting age: Around 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds will be eligible to vote at the next general election
• Expansion of acceptable IDs: UK-issued bank cards will become legitimate forms of voter ID in Great Britain, providing the bank card displays the elector’s name
• Improving postal votes: The government is proposing a change to the deadline in Great Britain to apply for a postal vote, from 11 to 14 working days before a poll. This will align with the existing deadline in Northern Ireland. The idea is to get an “improved likelihood” of people getting their ballot in good time
• Changes to party donations: To tackle foreign interference, the government says it plans to tighten rules on political donations including on checks on contributions over £500 from unincorporated associations and closing loopholes used by shell companies

‘It’s only right’ to give 16-year-olds right to vote, Rayner says

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner says they are “delivering on our promise” on the lower voting age.

“Young people already contribute to society by working, paying taxes and serving in the military,” she writes in a post on X.

“It’s only right they can have a say on the issues that affect them.”

Lib Dems welcome proposals but fear ‘Elon Musk-shaped hole’ in plans

We’ve some reaction to bring you from the Liberal Democrats, who say changing the minimum voting age to 16 is a “no-brainer”.

MP Sarah Olney says her party has campaigned for this change for “well over 30 years” and so welcomes the decision.

But, she says there is an “Elon Musk-shaped hole” in the proposed changes, and suggests that the government should “go much further to close the door to foreign oligarchs interfering in British politics”.

For context: Tesla and X owner Elon Musk has been accused of intervening in UK politics after he shared a number of unsubstantiated claims on grooming gangs, and asked whether America should “liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government” in one social media post.

Farage says he’s against lowering voting age

Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, says he doesn’t support lowering the voting age to 16 “even though we get lots of votes”.

Speaking to ITV News, Farage says someone shouldn’t be able to vote in an election unless they’re able to stand as a candidate. A candidate must be at least 18 to stand for election.

“I’m really encouraged by the number of young people that are coming towards us,” he adds.

Voting at 16 was nerve wracking, but empowering

Unlike most of my colleagues in the BBC newsroom sitting next to me, I have the perspective of voting at 16, as I grew up in Scotland.

I voted in my first Scottish parliamentary election in 2016, a year after they changed the law to lower the age.

It’s one of the few countries in the world that has the lower age for voting, along with Wales, Argentina and Belgium, to name a few.

I remember the nervousness of holding my ballot paper and walking into the village hall, asking my mum for help on what to do and where to go.

But, it was exciting too. I could put my thoughts somewhere to try and make a difference, to be taken seriously.

School was fun – we discussed politics among ourselves, something I’m not sure we had really done before outside of the classroom.

Not everybody voted, but a lot of us did.

And it taught me from a younger age to learn about the people in charge, and to take it seriously.

What other measures are being introduced?

As well as lowering the voting age to 16, the government is also planning a host of other changes to the electoral system as part of a new Elections Bill.

These include expanding forms of voter ID to include UK- issued bank cards which display the voter’s name.

Some 4% of people who did not vote at last year’s general election said this was because of voter ID rules, according to the Electoral Commission.

Democracy Minister Rushanara Ali said the government would ensure this was done gradually “to make sure there aren’t any risks of abuses or things going wrong”.

The changes also include moving towards automatic voter registration, and tightening rules on political donations to protect against foreign interference.

Currently political parties can only accept donations from individuals registered on a UK electoral register or UK-registered companies which carry out business in the country.

However, there have been concerns that foreign nationals could get around the rules by donating through a foreign company that is registered in the UK.

No chance for Parliament to scrutinise changes until September, Tory MP says

Tory MP Paul Holmes has hit back at the government’s announcement while speaking in the Commons this morning.

“There will be no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny until September due to the recess,” Holmes says.

He also asks the democracy minister why the policy was not announced in the Commons.

Rushanara Ali reiterates Labour ran on a manifesto which pledged to give voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds, adding: “The truth is young people deserve to have a stake.”

Starmer: If you ‘pay in’ you should get a say on how your money is spent

Prime Minister Keir Starmer says lowering the voting age to 16 across the UK will give young people a chance to have their say on what their taxes are used for.

“I think it’s really important that 16 and 17-year-olds have the vote, because they are old enough to go out to work, they are old enough to pay taxes, so pay in,” he tells ITV News.

“And I think if you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on, which way the government should go.”

Voter ID to be extended to UK bank cards under plans

More now from Democracy Minister Rushanara Ali, who confirms the government is planning to lower the voting age to 16 in time for the next general election.

This is due to take place by 2029, but could be called earlier.

“At 16, a young person can work, they pay taxes, they can join the Army. So there’s no reason why from that age, they shouldn’t have a say in who governs our country,” she says.

Other changes announced today include expanding forms of voter ID to include UK-issued bank cards, moving towards automatic voter registration and tightening rules on political donations to protect against foreign interference.

We’ll bring you more details on those changes shortly.

Biggest change to the electorate since 1969

A pledge to lower the voting age to 16 was included in Labour’s election manifesto but it did not feature in last summer’s King’s Speech, which sets out the government’s priorities for the months ahead.

The minimum voting age is already 16 for local council elections in Scotland and Wales and elections to the Senedd and Scottish Parliament.

However for other elections, including to the UK Parliament, local elections in England and all elections in Northern Ireland, it is 18.

Lowering the voting age to 16 across the UK would be the biggest change to the electorate since it was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1969.

Voting age to be lowered to 16 by next general election

Around 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote at the next general election, under government plans to lower the voting age.

Democracy Minister Rushanara Ali tells the BBC the “seismic” change will ensure young people’s voices are heard.

She confirms the pledge will be part of a raft of measures introduced through a new Elections Bill.

We’ll bring you live updates, analysis and reaction, so stay with us.

The UK prime minister said any agreement to stop the fighting between Russia and Ukraine would “only be lasting” if there were “security arrangements in place”.

He was speaking at a military base in Northwood, north-west London, where more than 20 countries gathered on Thursday to discuss proposals for troops in Ukraine to help guarantee the country’s security as part of any peace deal.

Sir Keir said the UK and its allies were moving from “political momentum” to “military planning”, which he said had “to be done now” before a deal was agreed.

He said: “It is vitally important we do that work because we know one thing for certain, which is a deal without anything behind it is something that Putin will breach.

“We know that because it happened before. I’m absolutely clear in my mind it will happen again”.

UK Defence Secretary John Healey was at the closed meeting of military leaders from countries that form part of what Sir Keir has dubbed the “coalition of the willing”.

The UK called the meeting of military chiefs after a summit earlier this month attended by 26 countries.

The potential deployment of troops should be described as a “reassurance force” rather than a “peacekeeping force”, defence and diplomatic sources say.

Earlier, Sir Keir visited the Port of Barrow, in Cumbria, north-west England where the UK’s nuclear submarines are built.

He told reporters the talks were focussing on how to “keep the skies, and the seas, and the borders safe in Ukraine”.

Meanwhile during a visit to Norway, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Russia “must stop making unnecessary demands that only prolong the war”.

Calls between US President Donald Trump, Putin and Zelensky, have failed to produce the 30-day ceasefire envisaged by the White House.

On Thursday Zelensky said Ukrainian officials would meet their US counterparts in Saudi Arabia next Monday, after the Kremlin confirmed US-Russia talks there the same day.

Without directly referring to Vance’s comments, Sir Keir opened Prime Minister’s Questions by remembering those who “died fighting for Britain alongside our allies”.

On Tuesday, Vance was criticised for saying a US stake in Ukraine’s economy was a “better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.

The UK and France have said they would be willing to put troops in Ukraine as part of a peace deal – although the vice-president later insisted he did not mention either country.

The prime minister told the Commons: “Tomorrow marks 13 years since six young British soldiers were on patrol in Afghanistan when their vehicle was struck by an explosive tragically killing them all.”

He added: “These men fought and died for their country, our country. And across the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, 642 individuals died fighting for Britain alongside our allies, many more were wounded.

“We will never forget their bravery and their sacrifice, and I know the whole House will join me in remembering them and all those who serve our country.”

It is not standard practice for the prime minister to mark the anniversaries of the deaths of soldiers.

Vance’s comments were later raised by Liberal Democrat MP Richard Foord, who suggested the vice-president should have more respect for those who lost their lives.

He asked the PM whether he would remind the US government the UK supported the country in Iraq following the 9/11 attacks.

In response, Sir Keir said: “He speaks for the whole house.

“We do remember the role we played historically with our allies and we particularly remember those that made the ultimate sacrifice in that duty for their country and for our allies and that’s why it’s so important that we make that point today.”

Although Vance did not specify which country or countries he was referring to in his interview with Fox News’s Hannity programme, he later stressed that he did not mention the UK or France.

In a social media post, he said: “But let’s be direct: there are many countries who are volunteering (privately or publicly) support who have neither the battlefield experience nor the military equipment to do anything meaningful.”

So far only the UK and France have publicly committed troops towards policing any potential peace deal in Ukraine, although Sir Keir has previously said a “number of countries” have agreed to.

Vance’s original comments drew criticism from opposition MPs in the UK, as well as the French armed forces minister.

The UK joined the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, following the 9/11 attacks, with France also sending forces to the country.

The UK was also part of a US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, with British forces in the country peaking at 46,000.

During Prime Minister’s Questions, Sir Keir was also asked about reports that the US had told the UK to suspend intelligence-sharing with Ukraine, after it paused military aid to the country this week.

The PM did not respond directly but said: “We work very closely with the United States on defence, on security and on intelligence.”

He also insisted the US was still “a reliable ally” despite the move to suspend aid to Ukraine.

Earlier, the head of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), John Ratcliffe, appeared to confirm the US had also cut off intelligence sharing with Ukraine alongside aid.

Following the session in the Commons, Sir Keir’s official spokesman was asked whether the UK would still be allowed to pass on American intelligence to Kyiv.

“It does remain a long-standing position not to comment on intelligence, but what I would say is that we have been clear previously that we will do everything to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position across all aspects of our support, particularly around defence and security, and that position hasn’t changed,” he said.

It was an unusually quiet PMQs, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch restrained in her exchanges with Sir Keir.

While she praised the prime minister’s efforts during his visit to Washington last week, Badenoch also pressed him over what further steps were been taken to obtain a US security guarantee for Ukraine.

In response, Sir Keir said he did discuss security guarantees with Donald Trump and the president made clear his commitment to the Nato principle that if one member of the alliance is attacked, others will come to their aid.

He added that the US “would have our backs” and Trump agreed to further talks over the issue.

Sir Keir has said US security guarantees – such as air cover – will be needed to deter Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine again, if there is a deal to end the war.

However, Trump has so far refused to pledge this, instead arguing that US workers in Ukraine as part of a minerals deal could provide such assurances.

The government’s announcement that it will crank up defence spending and shrivel the international aid budget amounts to a big shift in strategy, posture and political positioning.

Take a look at the Labour Party’s election manifesto, written less than a year ago, if you would like proof of that.

On page 125, it says: “Labour is committed to restoring development spending at the level of 0.7 per cent of gross national income as soon as fiscal circumstances allow.”

The party is now committing to doing the precise opposite – cutting development spending by the same amount by which it had promised to raise it.

There is nothing like an outspoken American president and an imminent visit to the White House to sharpen the mind – and hey presto, along came this announcement just as the prime minister packs his shirts for his trip across the Atlantic.

Along came the thumbs-up from the Trump administration not long later.

But it is also true that there has been a growing recognition for some time and across several parties that more money had to be spent on defence.

The prime minister has taken to recalling how the Berlin Wall coming down made him feel. “It felt as if we were casting off the shackles of history, a continent united by freedom and democracy,” as he puts it – contrasting that with the reality of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A wider critique along these lines has been crystallising for some time: the sense that the 1990s were a holiday from history, as Jonathan Freedland called it, and that the end of the Cold War had created a peace dividend where defence budgets could atrophy and the money could be spent on hospitals and schools, for instance.

Instead, not only is there war in Europe, there is an occupant of the White House with seemingly little regard for the American security umbrella this continent has relied upon since World War Two.

Little wonder, then, that we have seen a blitz of the jitters in European capitals as presidents and prime ministers try to work out what it may or may not mean.

The task facing Starmer – the second strand of the European tag team of leaders to visit Washington, after President Emmanuel Macron on Monday – is to attempt to mould President Donald Trump’s position.

Over the coming weeks and months, can a deal be done where the war stops, Ukraine does not feel defeated, Europe does not feel imperilled and transatlantic relations are as near to conventional as possible?

It is not going to be easy.

The prime minister’s trip to the White House is but one building block in developing answers to these questions.

And then, over the following weekend, Starmer will host a gathering of European leaders to reflect on where the conversations so far have taken us.

President Volodymyr Zelensky is expected in Washington soon too.

The next few weeks could prove crucial.