Here are comments from two pollsters on who might benefit most from votes at 16.

From Luke Tryl, director of More in Common UK

Given young voters tend to lean to the left, we should expect the Greens and Labour to be the bigger winners of extending the vote to 16 and 17 year olds, with Reform doing well among young men, and the Tories the big losers. But 16-17 year old voters would only make up a small proportion of the electorate, so are unlikely to shift the dial politically at a national level. That said in a fragmented political landscape, even small changes can have big effects locally

Beyond the electoral impact, the bigger question is whether this change will be popular. The public opposes lowering the voting age by a 48% to 27% margin, and it is not near the top of many Britons’ priorities. So the government will have to set out a clear message to the public about why they are pursuing this policy if they are to bring the public on board.

From Patrick English, director of polling analytics at YouGov

The narrative that Farage/Reform are popular among young people is false - they’re on ~10% with 18-24s, compared to ~30% for Labour.

Labour are most popular choice for young voters.

I don’t see any reason why 16-17 year olds would be any different (to 18-24s) in this regard so I don’t see why Reform, rather than Labour (who lead with that group), would be punching the air.

It’s certainly true that Greens will be happy though - they’re 2nd among young voters

I think the whole “Reform are popular among young people” false narrative is spun up from the fact that Reform are probably more popular among young people *than we may expect*, and that there are young men wearing suits happy to go on the media to talk about their Reform support

But that doesn’t actually reflect the polling reality - Labour still leads among young voters, Reform are way, way behind. Basically level with the Conservatives.

I fully expect votes at 16 to definitely benefit Labour most, as well as Greens and even Lib Dems. Not Reform.

(The caveat being… the size of said benefit is very much to be determined. We aren’t *actually* talking about a huge number of people, here. Even fewer still when you consider turnout propensity among younger voters. So this won’t be an electoral silver bullet.)

This morning the Daily Telegraph splashed on a story saying several cabinet ministers in the last government strongly opposed the then government’s plan to set up a secret resettlement scheme for some of the Afghans named in the list that was leaked of people asking for help because they had worked with the British.

Reading the story, it implies that senior Tories were queuing up to disown the policy. In his report, Gordon Rayner said:

Multiple sources have told The Telegraph that the plan to airlift thousands of Afghans to the UK – codenamed Operation Rubific – caused a major row within government, with senior Cabinet ministers objecting to it on the grounds of security, cost and practicality.

Among those who raised objections were Sir James Cleverly, who was foreign secretary and then home secretary during the time the row was raging; Suella Braverman, who preceded Sir James in the Home Office; Michael Gove, the communities secretary, and Laura Trott, the chief secretary to the Treasury, it is understood.

Rayner says Suella Braverman, the former home secrtary, also opposed the plan.

Mrs Braverman, who had been attorney general before her elevation to the Home Office, “got into serious arguments” with the Ministry of Defence, one source said, telling [defence minister James Heappey] she “just didn’t believe” that all of the people on the leaked list were genuine claimants.

This afternoon Heappey, who was armed forces minister when the leak happened, has posted a thread on social media giving his side of the story. He suggests some of his former colleagues who are now telling the Telegraph how hard they fought this particular scheme may be having memory problems. Ministers were opposed to the other schemes to resettle Afghans at risk, he says. But he says there was no fierce opposition to the secret scheme set up after the leak, because people accepted it was needed.

Here are two of his posts.

Some reporting around dynamics of Govt meetings & decision making is inaccurate in that it conflates meetings on lots of other elements of our offer to those who worked with us in Afghanistan with the response to the data breach, known until now by the codeword RUBIFIC. [3/25]

The anger across Govt at the MOD over the breach was palpable & justified. There were some pretty choice words offered in meetings. But the suggestion I was driving a new entitlement for those not eligible for ARAP or ACRS [two other Afghan resettlement schemes, operating before the secret one was set up] but affected by the breach is untrue. [21/25]

Given strain the system was under already, the Domestic & Economic Affairs (DEA) Committee tried to extend entitlements by smallest number possible. This was led by legal advice & I don’t recall fierce opposition. There was frustrated resignation that it was necessary. [22/25]

And this is what Keir Starmer said during his press conference defending the decision to withdraw the whip yesterday from four rebel MPs.

Look, we are elected in to change this country for the better, and that means we’ve got to carry through that change, and we’ve got to carry through reforms, because we inherited a broken economy and broken public services.

No government has inherited both of those ever before, and I’m determined that we will change this country for the better, for millions of working people, and I’m not going to be deflected from that.

And therefore we had to deal with people who repeatedly break the whip, because everyone was elected as a Labour MP on the manifesto of change and everybody needs to deliver as a Labour government. This is about what we’re doing for the country, and that’s why I’m so determined to press forward with the reforms and the change that we need to bring about.

In his opening remarks during the press conference with Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz said that he deplored Brexit. He said:

The United Kingdom, and I personally deplore this deeply, decided to leave the European Union.

He added that “it is together that we respond to the major challenges of our time”.

Q: [From Bloomberg] What do you think of the EU budget, and were you sufficiently informed in advance? Will there be a conflict between Brussels and Berlin?

Merz says this was discussed at the last European Council meeting. He says he was surprised. The proposal on the table now changes the weighting on different positions.

He says he cannot accept a tax on companies by the EU. If necesssary, they will have a unanimous vote. He is opposed to creating the burden on companies.

He says the debt issues faced are “the new normal”.

It will be a tough struggle for the next two years, he says.

Q: How realistic is it to talk of a European peacekeeping force for Ukraine. Will it involve boots on the grounds?

Starmer says it is important to show how this all fits to together.

First, they must get Putin to the table. That is why Ukraine must be in the strongest possible position.

If there are peace talks, “it must then be a lasting peace”, he says.

That was the thinking behind having a coalition of the willing.

He says he is glad plans started months ago. Those plans cover, air, sea ‘“and, yes, land”, he says.

A land element is included, he says.

He thinks the plans are “completed as far as they can be”. They could be operationalised now, he says.

He says it would have been a mistake to have delayed planning until the the ceasefire started.

And a command structure is in place, he says.

And that is the end of the press conference.

UPDATE: See 4.46pm for the full quote.

Q: [From Anne McElvoy at Politico] How long will it take to get new weapons to Ukraine? Will there be further economic sanctions?

Starmer says the treaty signed this morning was a “work plan” that can kick in straight away.

As other European countries increase their spending, they must cooperate more on procurement and production, he says.

Q: You promised to deliver Taurus weapons to Ukraine. Why has that not happened yet?

Merz says he and Starmer discussed military support for Ukraine in great deal today. They won’t talk about the details in public. But Ukraine will be “much better positioned”, he says.

Q: It is Angela Merkel’s birthday today? Have you sent her congratulations?

Of course he sends her his best wishes, Merz says.

Merz is now answering Beth Rigby’s two questions to him, about illegal migration and President Trump.

He starts by joking about how long her questions were. He has all day to answer, he jokes.

He says the German government has taken a further step to deal with this problem.

He says they are looking at a joint deal with the UK and France on this issue.

Starmer intervenes, to say he is very grateful to Merz for the changes being made on migration rules.

UPDATE: Merz said:

Our objective is to closely co-operate with the United Kingdom.

The co-operation between the United Kingdom and France that was agreed last week has to be complemented by an agreement that we aim to achieve, between the three of us – UK, Germany, France.

We want to stand up and trust to and drastically reduce illegal migration in Europe.

We are on a good path, but we haven’t reached the target yet.

And Starmer said:

Last week, we obviously dealt with what’s happening in the north of France in relation to maritime tactics and our ability to return people through the returns agreement that we agreed last week to France.

But for a long time, I’ve been very concerned about the fact that engines, in particular, but component parts of the boats that are being used are travelling through and being stored in Germany, but they can’t be seized because the law didn’t accommodate for a country which had left the EU and therefore needed to be amended.

And I am very grateful for the chancellor, and we’ve discussed this at great length on a number of occasions, he’s now going to change the law, introduce the necessary legislation, so that we can intervene in that place.

The opening remarks are open, and now they are taking questions.

Q: [From Beth Rigby from Sky News] Will the UK be involved in the Trump plan to sell arms to Ukraine?

Starmer says this offer is really important. Germany and the UK are working together on that, he says. It shows the strength of Germany, France and the UK working together.

Q: When 47 Labour MPs rebelled against Tony Blair over welfare in his first year, he did not suspend any of them. Why are you so rattled by this? Doesn’t this make you look weak?

Starmer says Labour was elected to change the country for the better. It inherited a broken economy and broken public services. No new government has had both those problems. He says he has to deal with people who “repeatedly break the whip” because the government needs to implement change.

UPDATE: See 4.50pm for the full quote.

Keir Starmer and Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, are holding their press conference at the Airbus factory in Stevenage.

There is a live feed here.

Michelle O’Neill, the Sinn Féin first minister of Northern Ireland, has urged the UK government to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in elections to councils and to the Northern Ireland assembly in 2027. In a post on social media she said:

I welcome the news that the British Government is to introduce votes from the age of 16 for elections.

This is a step forward for democracy and will enable young people to have a say in their future.

I’ll now be contacting the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, urging him to ensure that the right to vote at 16 applies to the 2027 Assembly and Council elections in the north.

In Scotland and Wales 16 and 17-year-olds can already vote in devolved elections. The UK government is responsible for election rules in Northern Ireland, and in its modern elections strategy published today it says: “Where we jointly believe it makes sense, we will aim to align the rules and processes for elections reserved to the UK government with devolved elections in Scotland and Wales.”

As the BBC reports, the Electoral Commission has said the voting age in Northern Ireland will be lowered to 16 for all elections – but that this is “unlikely” to be implemented in time for the 2027 council and Stormont elections.

The DUP has opposed lowering the voting age, but other parties at Stormont are in favour.

Unlock Democracy, which campaigns for a “vibrant, inclusive democracy” has welcomed the measures set out in the government’s modern election strategy. But it says the changes to political donation rules do not go far enough. Shaun Roberts, its campaigns director, said:

The government’s proposed changes to donation rules don’t pass ‘the Musk test’, in that they would still allow foreign business owners to make big money donations, providing they have ‘sufficient’ income generated in the UK. The public already thinks rich donors massively shape what parties and politicians do and say. Labour’s unwillingness to consider capping donations will leave millions of voters still wondering, ‘who’s pulling their strings?’

Roberts also said Labour should have reversed the changes introduced by the Tories giving the government more say over what the Electoral Commission does. He said:

When the last government took away the Electoral Commission’s independence, Labour loudly condemned it. Labour’s silence now [on Electoral Commission independence] is deeply concerning.

During the UQ in the Commons Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the business committee, said that elections bill planned by the government should also include a ban on cryptocurrency donations to political parties. He said:

[The government plans to tighten the rules on foreign donations] will mean nothing unless we move forward aggressively to ban cryptocurrency donations into British politics. They are used for money laundering. They are used to disguise our money. They have no role in British politics.

Rushanara Ali, the democracy minister, would not give that commitment, but she said cryptocurrency gifts would be covered by the changes being made that will tighten rules affecting donations.

This is another issue with particular relevance to Reform UK. There is a prominent “Crypto” tab at the top of the Reform UK website and the party explictly invites donations in crypto, saying:

Reform UK is committed to upholding the values of Freedom, Choice, and Opportunity. Cryptocurrency represents these core values.

At the start of the year there was speculation in some papers that Elon Musk might donate a multi-millon sum to Reform UK. The figure of $100m quoted in reports, although both sides dismissed that. As a foreigner, Musk could not donate as an individual, but some of his companies operate in the the UK and it was claimed a legitimate donation could be made via that route.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing this morning the No 10 spokesperson denied suggestion that the government was tightening the rules on foreign donations to stop Refom getting Musk’s money. He said:

It’s not about specific individuals or parties. The current status quo means that a new company registered today, owned by anyone and funded from anywhere, can donate and have influence in British politics.

That leaves our democracy vulnerable, it undermines trust in our politics, and that’s why we’re placing strict new requirements on donations from organisations.

The Labour party has said it is looking “incredibly seriously” at an interview in which Diane Abbott said she had no regrets about comments on racism that led to her year-long suspension from the party, Eleni Courea reports.

Keir Starmer and Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, have signed what is being described as the first bilateral agreement between the UK and Germany since the second world war. As they signed what it being described as a friendship and cooperation treaty at a ceremony in the V&A museum in London, Starmer told the chancellor:

It’s a privilege to have you here today, particularly to sign this Kensington Treaty, which is a very special treaty, because it’s the first of its kind ever, if you can believe it, between our two countries.

The SNP and the Green party have both welcomed the move to allow votes at 16 in UK parliamentary elections.

Pete Wishart, the SNP deputy leader at Westminster, said:

We welcome this long-overdue change to the UK voting age, which comes more than a decade after the SNP lowered the voting age to 16 in Scotland - and follows years of campaigning by SNP MPs, activists and younger people.

Thousands of 16 and 17 year olds have voted in Scottish elections since the SNP changed the law in 2015. It is good to see the UK government finally following the SNP government’s lead - so that younger people can have their say at the next UK election.

And the Green MP Ellie Chowns said:

On this one, Labour have got it right. Giving 16- and 17-year-olds the vote is a long-overdue step towards a stronger, more inclusive democracy. Young people have powerful voices and a vital stake in decisions about their future — it’s only right that they have a say at the ballot box.

In the Commons Sarah Olney, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson, welcomed the plans set out in the modern elections strategy document. The Lib Dems had been in favour of votes at 16 “for many years”, she said. But she went on:

I am concerned that this strategy shows nowhere near the kind of ambition that we need to fix a system of elections which has left large swathes of the public feeling like their vote simply doesn’t count.

Last year’s general election turned out the most disproportionate result in history, with nearly 60% of people who voted not represented in parliament by the candidate that they voted for.

Olney urged the government to go further and introduce proportional representation.

In response, Rushanara Ali said the government had no plans to change the voting system for UK parliamentary and local elections. She said, when they Lib Dems were in coalition, they had the chance to push for electoral reform. (There was a referendum on switching to the alternative vote, but that was defeated by more than 2:1.)

In Britain political parties are not allowed to accept donations from abroad. But if individuals or companies own a business based in Britain, the UK-based company can donate – even if it does not generate enough money in profits here to cover those costs.

The government is going to close this loophole. In its modern elections strategy document, it says:

A new company could be registered today, owned by anyone and funded from anywhere and, without even a single day of trade, it could still [the test for political donations to be allowable]. These companies are commonly called ‘shell companies’. This is an unacceptably low threshold and a vulnerability in our system highlighted by many independent experts, including the Electoral Commission, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the National Crime Agency.

We will therefore be bringing forward measures to ensure that in future, ‘shell companies’ will not be permitted to make political donations to UK political parties. To achieve this, we will require companies to have made sufficient UK (or Ireland) generated income in order to donate. This check will close loopholes to prevent foreign interference by ensuring that only companies carrying out genuine commercial activity in the UK or Ireland can donate to political parties.

In her response to Paul Holmes in the Commons, Rushanara Ali, the democracy minister, accused the Conservatives of doing “nothing” to close the loopholes allowing foreign donations to influence British elections. She told her Tory shadow:

It was his party that sat in government for 14 years and did nothing to close the gaping loopholes allowing foreign interference and foreign money to enter our system. This is despite independent experts calling for change. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report exposed malign efforts to channel foreign money into UK politics. Both the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission have called for strengthened regulations and greater transparency in political donations, alongside modernised enforcement.

We make no apologies for finally taking the tough choices and to protect Britain’s democracy from malign foreign interference.

The real question for [Holmes] is, will his party finally end their addiction to donations from shell companies?

Under these new laws, they might not have a choice. And we won’t stop there. They will finally have to update their weak due diligence checks and conduct enhanced checks.

Keir Starmer has defended giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in UK parliamentary election on the grounds that teenagers pay tax. He told ITV News:

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.

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.

So I’m really pleased we are able to bring more young people into our democracy and give them a chance to have a say over how their taxes are paid and what they are going to be used for.

Although the headline story out of the modern elections strategy is about votes at 16, another proposal that is as significant, or even more, is the move towards automated voter registration.

The public debate about the state of democracy tends to focus on turnout – the percentage of registered voters who turn out in general elections. It has been declining seriously over the past 30 years, and at the last election turnout was just 59.7%, which was the lowest level since 2001 (which in turn was the lowest level since 1918).

But there are many potential voters who are not even registered. In 2023 an Electoral Commission report said as many as 8 million people might not be registered.

In its document today the government says:

Everyone who is entitled to vote should be able, supported and encouraged to do so. However, the Electoral Commission estimates that as many as 7-8 million otherwise eligible citizens are either incorrectly registered or not registered at all. Addressing this registration gap must be a priority in order to increase participation in our elections.

Our ambition is to transform our registration practices, harnessing data and moving towards an automated system so voters can easily and simply be registered to vote. This requires a multifaceted approach through both immediate improvements in data sharing and integration of digital services, and, for the longer-term, testing innovative approaches before permanently implementing those changes that prove successful.

The Electoral Commission has welcomed this plan. In a comment on all the reforms announced today, Vijay Rangarajan, its chief executive said:

These reforms will improve the resilience and integrity of our electoral system, tackling many of the threats it faces and should improve the experience for voters, campaigners, parties and administrators.

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.

While Rushanara Ali is answering the urgent question in the Commons, Keir Starmer is speaking at the event where he is announcing a “civil society covenant”.

There is a live feed here.

Paul Holmes, a Conservative, tabled the urgent question on elections strategy paper published today. (An earlier post mistakenly said he was Lib Dem – sorry.)

Holmes complained that the government was not announcing these measures through a formal statement.

On votes at 16, he claimed this proposal was not consistent with other policy about when people become adults. He said:

Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket or an alcoholic drink, marry or go to war, or even stand in the elections they’re voting? It isn’t the government’s position on the age of maturity just hopelessly confused?

In the Commons Rushanara Ali, democracy minister in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, is answering an urgent question on the government’s strategy for elections published today.

Here is the department’s news release on the strategy, focusing on the proposal to allow votes at 16.

And here is a written statement from Ali on the plans.

The voting age will be lowered to 16 in England and Northern Ireland by the next general election in a major change of the democratic system, Rowena Mason reports.

Reform UK has told Britain’s biggest wind and solar developers it will end their access to a clean energy subsidy scheme if it wins power, PA Media reports. PA says:

Deputy leader Richard Tice has written to firms giving them “formal notice” that the party would axe deals aimed at offering sustainable generators protection against market volatility.

The Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme sees developers guaranteed a fixed price for electricity – independent of the wholesale price – in the hope of encouraging companies to invest in renewable projects.

In a letter to companies including Octopus Energy and SSE Renewables , Tice claimed “there is no public mandate for the real-world consequences” of the clean power agenda. If Reform won an election, he said “we will seek to strike down all contracts signed under AR7” – the upcoming allocation round for CfDs.

“Let me be clear: if you enter bids in AR7, you do so at your own risk. The political consensus that has sheltered your industry for nearly two decades is fracturing.”

He added that participation in the upcoming CfD auction “carries significant political, financial and regulatory risk” for company shareholders.

Climate analysts said the move would drive away investment and put British jobs in jeopardy.

Commenting on the move, a Labour party spokesperson said:

Reform are now actively trying to discourage businesses from investing in clean energy in the UK - leaving bills higher for families, threatening hundreds of thousands of good jobs across the country and putting our energy security at risk. They are disgracefully trying to undermine the UK’s national interest.

This Labour government is cutting energy bills for millions of families, schools, and hospitals, and creating good jobs in our industrial heartlands, to put more money in working people’s pockets. Reform are trying to put all of this at risk.

And Jess Ralston, an analyst at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a thinktank promoting informed debate on climate issues, said:

The aim of the letter appears to be to put good, well-paid British jobs in jeopardy, driving away investment in the economy and denying people the opportunity to make a living. Polling shows the public see clean energy as the number one growth sector for the UK.

Arguing against British renewables is arguing for more foreign gas, which will increasingly come from abroad as the North Sea continues its inevitable decline - a geological fact. Gas has cost the UK £140bn over the last few years and is set to remain more expensive than pre-crisis levels in the long term. So building more renewables means energy security and shielding households from volatile international gas markets, which the voting public are keen to see.

Unemployment climbed and wage growth slowed in the three months to May, according to official figures that will pressure the Bank of England to cut interest rates next month. Phillip Inman has the story.

Rachael Maskell, one of the four Labour MPs suspended from the parliamentary party yesterday, tabled the reasoned amendment that would have killed off the welfare bill. She pushed it to a vote even after a last-minute concession from the government that ripped out the clauses that would have cut eligibility for Pip, a disability benefit.

In an interview on the Today programme this morning, Maskell defended her actions. She said:

I don’t see myself as a ringleader, I joined with other colleagues who had similar concerns about this legislation. We ultimately do believe that cutting money from some of the poorest in our society is not what a Labour government should be doing.

Of course I brought to parliament the voices of my constituents, in fact I told stories within the debate about their fragile mental health and the implications of losing money and the reforms would have on them.

Quite frankly, disabled people are very invisible in our society, they don’t have agency and voice. What was so important about that debate was the recognition of that.

Asked repeatedly if she was willing to change her behaviour so she could be readmitted to the parliamentary Labour party, Maskell said she was Labour “through and through” and that she hoped the party would learn. When Nick Robinson, the presenter, put the question for the third time, Maskell replied: “It’s not about my behaviour.” Robinson said it was, because that was why she was suspended. He then asked Maskell to confirm that she would not change her behaviour, and Maskell replied: “I will continue to advocate for my constituents, of course.”

Eleni Courea has more on the interview here.

Diane Abbott has said she has no regrets about comments on racism that led to her year-long suspension from the Labour party, Eleni Courea reports.

Good morning. Chief whips tends to be quite secretive, and when four Labour MPs had the whip suspended yesterday, there was no detailed, public explanation as to why they were being punished for rebelling when so many other backbenchers, who have also voted against the party, have not been singled out. As Eleni Courea and Jessica Elgot report in our overnight story, we were just told they were regular rebels.

But the best explanation came from the Labour party source who told Geri Scott from the Times that the four MPs – Rachael Maskell, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman and Chris Hinchliff – were being punished for “persistent knobheadery”.

This is problematic because, if “persistent knobheadery” is a crime, then some of the greatest parliamentarians of all time were also guilty of it. Winston Churchill is regarded as a hero, but he twice switched parties and in the 1930s, when he was leading a lonely fight against his party and over self-government for India and appeasement, “knobhead” would have been one of the politer things colleagues would have said about him. The same is true of Aneurin Bevan during the second world war, and again in the 1950s. And Tony Benn in the 1970s and 1980s. There are countless others.

The four MPs disciplined yesterday are not necessarily in the same category as most of these figures, but some Labour MPs are unhappy at the precedent that has been set.

Jess Phillips, the minister for safeguarding, has been doing interviews this morning. She was meant to be talking about measures announced today that the Home Office says will mean “more women and children will be better protected from domestic abuse through the direct targeting of perpetrators”, but inevitably she ended up defending the decision taken yesterday.

All four MPs suspended voted against the government’s welfare bill, even after the government announced two sets of major concessions, and one of them, Rachael Maskell, ended up leading the opposition on the day of the final vote. But Phillips claimed the four were not being punished for their opposition to the cuts in sickness and disability benefits. She told the Today programme:

I don’t think that the discipline that has been meted out over the last 24 hours is linked to [the welfare bill] because many more people voted against the government than these four people.

But when asked why they were being disciplined, Phillips claimed not to know the full story. Asked what the reasons were for the MPs being suspended, she replied:

I actually don’t know because I’m not part of the disciplining team.

But “a level of persistence” was probably a factor, she said.

And she said discipline was important.

The reality is there has to be an element of discipline, otherwise, you end up not being able to govern.

I am a plain speaker and I will tell you that I disagree often with directions that are going on, and I spend time working with colleagues, both on the back and front benches, ensuring that we discuss those things.

I think that constantly taking to the airwaves and slagging off your own government, I have to say, what did you think was going to happen?

Here is the agenda for the day.

10.30am: Keir Starmer is due to launch a Civil Society Covenant at an event in London.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

Lunchtime: Starmer welcomes Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, to Downing Street.

Afternoon: Starmer and Merz visit a factory in Hertfordshire, where they will speak to the media.

Around 4pm: Wes Streeting, health secretary, holds a meeting with the BMA’s resident doctors committee.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.