UK Politics

The UK faces a “very significant” volume of cyber attacks every year, the security minister has warned as new laws aim to deter hackers from “extorting” businesses amid a spate of recent incidents.Dan Jarvis said new measures send a signal to cyber criminals that ransom demands will not be tolerated.Proposals from the Home Office would ban public sector bodies and operators of critical national infrastructure from paying hackers.It would also mean private sector companies not covered by the ban would be required to notify the Government if they intended to pay a ransom.“The UK is not alone in this regard, along with our international allies, we are subjected to a very significant number of cyber attacks every year,” Mr Jarvis told the PA news agency.“But from a UK Government perspective we are crystal clear that these attacks are completely unacceptable.“There’s more that we need to do to guard against them and that’s why we’re introducing these measures.”Mr Jarvis said the measures mean cyber criminals will be “less incentivised” to target UK institutions because of the clarity the ban on ransom payments brings.“We think these proposals will provide a powerful deterrent, and what we’re wanting to do is break the business model of the cyber criminals who think that they can get away with extorting money from UK-based institutions,” he told PA.He stressed the Government would ensure “cyber criminals, whether they’re in Russia or wherever they might be, face the full weight of the UK law”.Ransomware refers to software used by cyber criminals to access the computer systems of its victims, which can then be encrypted or data stolen until a ransom is paid.It comes after four young people were arrested for their suspected involvement in damaging cyber attacks against Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and Harrods in recent months.Microsoft also said on Tuesday night that Chinese hackers had breached its SharePoint document software servers in a bid to target major corporations and government agencies.Furthermore, under the proposals, a mandatory reporting regime would mean companies and institutions that are targeted by ransomware attacks are required to report it.Mr Jarvis said the Government was going to “look very carefully at the precise details” of the regime but that it would provide more clarity and intelligence to government agencies.M&S chairman Archie Norman told MPs earlier this month that UK businesses should be legally required to report major cyber attacks as he claimed two recent hacks involving “large British companies” had gone unreported.Mr Norman said the retailer believed an Asia-based ransomware operation, DragonForce, had been involved in the attack – but refused to say whether or not a ransom was paid. More

Children could face two-hour limits on social media like TikTok and Snapchat as part of a government plan to crack down on “compulsive” phone use, the science and technology secretary has said.Peter Kyle, who is due to make an announcement in the autumn, warned of the effects on young people’s sleep and their ability to focus on studying for exams, saying he was concerned about “the overall amount of time kids spend on these apps” as well as their content. Among the ideas being seriously considered are a two-hour cap per platform, while a night-time or school-time curfew has also been discussed, according to reports. Last year Australia passed a law to ban all under 16s from social media, although the UK is not expected to go that far. It comes as a new survey showed one in five children spend at least seven hours a day using phones and tablets.Mr Kyle said he was “looking very carefully about the overall time kids spend on these apps”.”I think some parents feel a bit disempowered about how to actually make their kids healthier online,” he told Sky News.”I think some kids feel that sometimes there is so much compulsive behaviour with interaction with the apps they need some help just to take control of their online lives and those are things I’m looking at really carefully.”We talk a lot about a healthy childhood offline. We need to do the same online. I think sleep is very important, to be able to focus on studying is very important,” he added.He added that he wanted to stop children spending hours viewing content which “isn’t criminal, but it’s unhealthy, the overuse of some of these apps”.”I think we can incentivise the companies and we can set a slightly different threshold that will just tip the balance in favour of parents not always being the ones who are just ripping phones out of the kids’ hands and having a really awkward, difficult conversation around it,” he added.Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle (Stefan Rousseau/PA) More

London’s status as a global financial hub has been left “fragile” by Brexit, the boss of Goldman Sachs has warned. David Solomon, chairman and chief executive of the bank, said it is diverting staff away from London to rival cities such as Paris, Frankfurt and Munich.Speaking to Sky’s The Master Investor Podcast with Wilfred Frost, he said: “The financial industry is still driven by talent and capital formation, and those things are much more mobile than they were 25 years ago.”London continues to be an important financial centre. But because of Brexit, because of the way the world’s evolving, the talent that was more centred here is more mobile.Goldman Sachs chief executive David Solomon said Brexit has put London’s status at risk More

Reform UK councillors have come under fire over plans to spend £150,000 on political advisers despite vowing to cut costs. George Finch, the 19-year-old leader of Warwickshire county council, put forward the plans, which were narrowly approved, on Tuesday.The money would pay for publicly funded political advisers for Reform and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, the two next largest parties on the council.Despite losing a vote over climate change, Reform pushed through the £150,000 spending plans. George Finch pushed the spending plan through on Tuesday More

Angela Rayner has issued an ultimatum to Sir Keir Starmer, warning that the UK faces a repeat of last year’s summer riots unless “the government shows it can address people’s concerns”.In a dramatic intervention in the final cabinet meeting before the summer recess, the deputy prime minister said economic insecurity, immigration, the increasing time people spend online, and declining trust in institutions were having a “profound impact on society”.She warned ministers that it was “incumbent on the government to acknowledge the real concerns people have and to deliver improvements to people’s lives in their communities” amid growing concerns that there could be a repeat of the unrest that scarred communities in the wake of the Southport murders.Her words come days after violent protests broke out outside an asylum hotel in Epping, Essex, which has pushed the community to “boiling point”, according to local Tory MP Neil Hudson.Deputy PM Angela Rayner More

Grieving families will be forced to pay inheritance tax (IHT) on pensions after ministers decided to press ahead with reforms despite a fierce backlash. Rachel Reeves announced in last year’s Budget that unspent pensions would be added to estates from April 2027 in a move that is expected to raise more than £1bn a year for the Exchequer by the end of the decade.However, while it previously thought that pension providers would be responsible for calculating and paying any death duties, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has confirmed this will instead be the responsibility of the “personal representative”, or executor, of the estate.Death in service payments, meanwhile, will be exempt, ministers confirmed as they published the results of a consultation on how the scheme will work. The government estimates that around 10,500 estates will become newly liable for inheritance tax under the changes in 2027. Polling earlier this month found the move was the most unpopular tax measure announced by Labour since entering office. Just a fifth of Britons (21 per cent) supported the policy, while 44 per cent were opposed. Sir Steve Webb, a former pensions minister, told the Times: “Life is tough enough when you have just lost a loved one without having extra layers of bureaucracy on top. In future, the person dealing with the estate will need to track down all of the pensions held by the deceased which may have any balances in them, contact the schemes, collate all the information and put it into an online calculator and then work out and pay the IHT bill.“Complications will no doubt arise where the family member cannot track down all of the deceased’s pensions or where providers are slow to supply the information needed to work out the IHT bill.”He called for “serious thought” to be given to changing the rules around penalties for late payment. Pete Maddern from the insurer Canada Life said death in service benefits “provide a critical short-term financial lifeline for loved ones following the death of a working-age earner. Including them in the changes risked much wider repercussions not only for grieving families, but also for the employers that provide these benefits for their workforce.”It was released just a day after cabinet minister Liz Kendall warned Britain faces a “tsunami of pensioner poverty” without major reform to the system, as she launched a review of the state pension age, opening the door for it to be increased. Age UK warns those looking to retire in 2050 are already on course to receive £800 per year less than current pensioners. The state pension age is currently 66 but is already set to rise to 67 in 2028 and 68 by 2046.Labour has already come under fire for the so-called ‘tractor tax’, an inheritance tax raid which critics warn could sound the death knell for family farms in England.Under those changes farms valued at £1m or more will be liable for 20 per cent inheritance tax for the first time. More

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party has put a teenager in charge of a major county council, overseeing hundreds of millions of pounds of public spending.George Finch, 19, took over temporarily after the previous council leader, also a member of Reform, resigned just weeks after being elected.Now he has been voted in as the leader of Warwickshire County Council, which has £1.5bn of assets and a budget of around £500m.George Finch More

The government’s decision to lower the voting age to 16 has sparked intense debate among Independent readers, with opinions sharply divided over whether the move strengthens democracy or serves party politics.A poll of readers found that 38 per cent believe it’s fair for 16-year-olds to vote, while 62 per cent said they are too young to head to the polls.Critics were quick to dismiss the reform as politically motivated, arguing that most teenagers lack the life experience or political understanding needed to make informed decisions. “Why not let 13-year-olds vote next?” one reader scoffed, describing the move as “blatant gerrymandering” by Labour to win over idealistic young voters.Supporters, however, hailed the change as long overdue. Many pointed out that 16-year-olds in the UK can already marry, work, pay taxes and even join the armed forces – so it’s only fair they have a say in how the country is run.“They’re more mature than most adults I know,” said one commenter, while others noted that political education in schools has left many young people well-informed and engaged.Some readers proposed a middle ground – such as lowering the age to 17 or linking voting rights to leaving full-time education.Here’s what you had to say:If they can marry and work, they should vote Of course they should. If they don’t get the vote, they should pay no tax or National Insurance, be banned from joining the military, become a NEET or do anything the government tells them to do at that age. You can get married at 16, have sex at 16, ride a moped at 16, drive a car at 17 (16 for some severely disabled people), and yet Tories do not wish them to have a say in their futures. LadyCrumpsallShould 16-year-olds be trusted with the vote – or is it a step too far? Share your views in the comments below.Most adults don’t know what they’re voting for So much nonsense about how sixteen-year-olds don’t have the experience, wisdom, knowledge, etc., etc., etc., to have the vote. Having been politically active for most of my life, the lesson of decades of canvassing is that the majority of adults don’t really have the faintest idea what they’re voting for, or why. You’d be amazed, for instance, at the number of people who say that they’re going to vote for X Party because they think that they’ll be the election winners – as if they’re backing a horse race. bottlebank16-year-olds can be more mature than adults Many 16-year-olds I know are more mature than many adults; not all, I appreciate that, but to say they aren’t mature enough is ludicrous. If they’re allowed to get married, then they’re old enough to vote. I welcome this move – it’ll modernise the voting system and bring in more points of view. The voting population will be getting older and older, and we’ll end up with a load of pensioners making decisions based on ‘what’s good for me’ rather than what’s good for the up-and-coming generations. deadduckThey’ve studied politics – they’re clued up At the age of 16, students have studied politics as part of community studies. I am old so don’t talk to many teenagers, but those that I have spoken to – serving staff in cafés, relatives, etc. – are all pretty clued up and invested in what is their future. They can join the forces at 16, get married at 16 – surely if they are mature enough to do that, they are mature enough to vote? DafBZero life skillsA very small minority are politically aware, most aren’t. They have zero life skills, experience of bills, home or car ownership etc. Some will argue they are old enough to join the forces. Yes, where you are told what to do by others. It is clearly an idea of Labour, backed up by the Liberals and Greens, to gain a potential two million more votes – all three being poor or struggling in the polls. SooperhooperMost kids don’t care – but neither do adults I don’t think most kids today give a darn about politics or are educated well enough to know what’s at stake. I’d even go so far as to say that many adults aren’t educated well enough to understand the same things. We’re at a critical junction in world history and politics. We must make wise choices and hope those who make the laws are of good heart and want to represent their actual constituents. At the moment, and with a somewhat cynical eye, it doesn’t look that way. AwareReaderWait until they’ve left school My thoughts are they could have the voting age dropped to 17 years after they have left school and found out what the world of work is all about. Also, in the final year at secondary school they have education in politics and the voting system. BillydesOpen to influenceIn my experience, teenagers have little in the way of original thought when it comes to politics. Lacking experience, they’re still malleable and open to influence, and it would be easy to see how their thinking could be influenced by others who have a darker agenda. RickCFive reasons forYes 16-year-olds should vote. Why? Because:It should encourage an interest in politics and democracy. It might stop some claiming, “What’s the point – no-one listens to us…” It seemingly only has a marginal effect on outcomes in any case. It’ll focus politicians on our future – our yoof. Although our youngsters are often a tad idealistic – i.e. leftish – that’s fair enough, as it should help counter the barmy rightie oldies. 🙂 DevsAd They live with the consequences Young people have the most to vote for, as they are voting for their future. They are the ones who will have to live through the impact of their vote, which will mostly impact (though not entirely) those who are of working age. Legally, people aged 16 can work, pay taxes, join the military, have children, etc. – then it is only right that they get a say in the running of the country. Those complaining are all moaning about “woke leftie kids voting”, but I can assure you they won’t be voting Labour!SoMrHarrisElectoral gerrymanderingIf 16, why not 15? If 15, why not 14? If 14, why not 13? Where is the cut-off? My 7-year-old pays taxes in the form of VAT every time she uses her pocket money to buy something. Should she be allowed to vote? Labour simply has no convincing logical argument in favour of extending the franchise to 16-year-olds, especially given that we as a society currently think they are too immature to buy fireworks, get tattoos, open a bank account, gamble, pawn something in a pawn shop, and view pornography. Yet we are supposed to buy into the notion that they should be allowed to help choose the next government “because they can pay taxes”. It is blatant and desperate electoral gerrymandering of the most partisan kind, from a man who promised to “put country before party”. Labour appears to have belatedly bought into the idea that there is an emerging crisis of legitimacy in politics that has been brewing for decades. Their publicly-stated analysis of the cause of this crisis is frankly laughable. Do they seriously believe that this crisis can be fixed by managerial tinkering with the electoral process? That people think politicians are duplicitous troughers only because 16 and 17-year-olds are not more engaged with politics? It is nonsense. The issue is that people see politicians continually lying, gaslighting, claiming they will do one thing while literally doing the exact opposite, and generally serving their own agenda rather than that of voters, who they treat with barely disguised contempt. Will giving 16-year-olds the vote solve that? Of course not. It will make it worse. sj99I trust my teenage son more than some voters My son was 17 this week. He is sane, smart, sober, politically aware and I would back his judgement in a polling booth ahead of any Reform UK voter of any age. SteveHillWhy not? They are at least as intelligent and mature as the pensioner gammons who voted for Brexit. I suggest that as well as lowering the voting age, we should insist on a mental competence test for people over seventy – just like you need to renew your driving licence beyond that age – and I speak as a seventy-two-year-old. RedRooster Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More