Democracy campaigners have argued that the government’s House of Lords reform bill being debated today does not go far enough.

In a joint statement, 10 democracy campaign groups have said that, although the bill getting rid of hereditary peers is a “laudable first step”, the government should launch a consultation on wider Lords reform as soon as possible. They say:

We’re calling on the government to deliver on its manifesto promise of a proper consultation on the future of the Lords, including via a representative citizens’ assembly, to let the people decide who should be holding politicians to account and making sure laws are sensible and fair.

Continuing a system of political appointees risks accusations of cronyism and conflicts of interest. We need a second chamber that makes the most of the views and experience of a much more representative group.

We call on the government to announce a timeline for the public consultation on wider Lords reform, and the means for doing it effectively, as soon as possible.

We believe that a citizens’ assembly as part of a national conversation would help ensure this public consultation would bring together people from all walks of life, to hear from experts, deliberate and make recommendations to be implemented by the government.

The groups that have signed the statement, sent to the Guardian, are: the Democracy Network, Unlock Democracy, Involve, Citizen Network, Community Organisers, the Sortition Foundation, Independent Constitutionalists UK, 38 Degrees, Politics for the Many and Compass.

In a separate move, almost 300,000 people have signed an online petition at Change.org saying the 26 Church of England bishops should be removed from the Lords.

Oliver Dowden, the shadow deputy PM, told MPs that the Conservatives were opposing the bill removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords because they believed in being “cautious about rushing into change”.

In his speech in the second reading debate, explaining why the opposition were against the bill (see 2.07pm), Dowden said:

The checks and balances of the Lords – its tried and tested conventions – work. The Lords does not claim to be a democratic chamber, and that is the key point, this elected house has primacy.

Now, of course, the British constitution does and should continue to evolve, but we should only fix what is broken and be cautious about rushing into change. Our evolution should start with questions of efficacy, not optics.

Just as with the Blair and Brown governments before, this government seems obsessed with change for change’s sake. We’ve seen it all before, rebranding spun to give the impression of progress.

He also accused Labour of being willing to tolerate MPs getting into the Commons on the basis of family links.

Now, one of the central arguments evinced by the paymaster general [Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Labour minister opening the debate] is that no one in parliament should be there by, quote, ‘an accident of birth’. Yet today’s Labour party reeks of the hereditary principle.

The elevation of the nepo babies of north London, the coronation of the red princes… the Falconers, the Kinnocks, the Benns, the Eagles, the Reeves – many of them distinguished members, but under Labour’s closed shop, it’s hereditary peers out, hereditary MPs in.

The Labour MPs Hamish Falconer, Stephen Kinnock and Hilary Benn are all the sons of former Labour cabinet ministers, while Angela and Maria Eagle, and Rachel and Ellie Reeves are sisters. They all became MPs by being selected in the normal way. Hereditary peers just inherit their titles when a parent, normally their father, dies. The ones who get into the House of Lords now do get elected in, by other peers, but only hereditary peers can stand, and so the competition is very limited.

Dowden also said in his speech that he did not expect to remain in the shadow cabinet after the new Tory leader is elected.

In his speech, Thomas-Symonds defended the bill. He said:

In the 21st century there should not be places in our parliament, making our laws, reserved for those born into certain families.

In fact, we are one of only two countries that still retain that hereditary element in our legislatures, a clear sign the time has come to see through this long overdue change.

And it’s a matter of principle for this government, committed to fairness and equality.

Rachel Reeves has been urged to abandon Labour’s manifesto promise and raise national insurance for workers in the budget – by her former boss at the Bank of England, Mervyn King.

In an article for the Independent, King says that it was “reckless” for the Tories to cut national insurance before the general election, that both main parties were “irresponsible” when they said they would not reverse those cuts and that it would be best for the government to put it back up.

King was governor of the Bank of England from 2003 to 2013, and in his article he recalls a conversation with Reeves at the bank when she worked there in her first job after university.

Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative chancellor, cut employees’ national insurance from 12% to 10% in his autumn statement last year, and then he cut it again to 8% in his spring budget before the election. Taken together, the two cuts are worth around £18bn in the current financial year.

In his article, King says:

Before the general election, both major parties were irresponsible in either making, or promising not to reverse, cuts in national insurance contributions. It was a reckless increase in the future national debt – an attempt to bribe voters with their children’s and grandchildren’s pocket money.

An honest approach would be to say that such a commitment now appears a mistake and to return national insurance contributions to their previous level. You might be surprised by how many citizens would accept such honesty; better to tackle the problem now and not a year or so before the next general election.

King also says that he accepts the case for higher government borrowing in the short term.

If you believe that the UK requires higher investment to overcome the perception that “nothing works any more” – and I do not disagree – then you should argue for the merits of that … even if it means higher borrowing for a while.

Reeves has signalled that in her budget she intends to keep the government’s debt rule (that it should be falling in the fifth year of the forecast) but change the definition of debt used for this purpose. In his article, King says the rule itself should be changed.

The current fiscal rule, that the ratio of debt to national income is projected to fall in the fifth year of the forecast horizon, makes little sense. It is Augustinian – make me fiscally stable… but not yet. But not even Saint Augustine believed in a five-year rolling horizon.

The problem with the current rule is that it is too loose – not too tight (do read the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report on debt published last month). Your challenge is to justify a temporary Augustinian deviation from the objective of a falling debt to national income ratio, because of the need to finance higher investment without cutting day-to-day public spending.

Only a convincing and credible strategy for raising investment while achieving fiscal sustainability by the end of this parliament will help to reduce the upward pressure on long-term interest rates, resulting from higher borrowing.

King ends his article by calling a conversation with Reeves at the bank.

I remember your telling me one day that the reason you enjoyed working at the Bank of England was the opportunity to work with other very bright young people. Your generation is now in charge.

Be courageous, be bold, and ensure that the economic inheritance we leave to our grandchildren is one of which both they and we can be proud. One day, you will look back on your time as chancellor and you will want to remember the far-reaching changes you made – not the political compromises that others will urge on you.

Reeves may appreciate King’s advice, but she has repeatedly made it clear that she won’t abandon Labour’s pledge not to put up employees’ national insurance. Politicians who have to face the electorate tend to take manifesto promises more seriously than unelected officials like King.

As Jessica Elgot reports, the Labour MP Josh MacAlister is introducing a private member’s bill designed to limit the extent to which under-16s can access addictive social media content on their phones.

The bill has various components, and one of them would require schools in England to be mobile phone free zones.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson indicated that the government would not back this aspect of the bill. He said:

Headteachers already have the power to ban phones in school and many have chosen to exercise this right. So we don’t have plans to legislate in that particular area.

Asked if the government thought the current law on schools and phones was adequate, the spokesperson said:

That is the government’s position on the question of banning phones in schools.

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, told cabinet colleagues this morning that the government could not “turn around 14 years of decline in one year or one budget”. With the budget taking place two weeks tomorrow, Keir Starmer held a political cabinet this morning (a cabinet for party political discussion, not debate on government business), and the Labour party has sent out a readout saying Reeves had a difficult message for her follow ministers.

A Labour spokesperson said:

The prime minister said that the first Labour budget in 14 years would prioritise stabilising the economy, fixing the foundations, and growing our way to a better Britain. He added that prioritising growth is vital to break the country out of the low growth, high tax doom loop it has been stuck in for the past 14 years.

The chancellor updated the cabinet on preparations for the budget and the spending review, which she said is an opportunity to put the country on a firmer footing.

The chancellor highlighted the £22bn black hole inheritance from the previous government that needed to be filled just to keep public services standing still.

The chancellor said that the scale of inheritance meant there would have to be difficult decisions on spending, welfare, and tax – and that the long-term priority had to be unlocking private sector investment to drive economic growth.

The chancellor told cabinet the budget would focus on putting the public finances on a strong footing and being honest with the British people about the scale of the challenge.

The chancellor said the government could not turn around 14 years of decline in one year or one budget. However, the budget would deliver on the government’s priorities to protect working people, fix the NHS, and rebuild Britain.

In the Commons MPs have just started debating the second reading of the House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill – the legislation removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to stay in the Lords.

The Conservatives are going to vote against. They have set out their reasons is an amendment that says:

That this house declines to give a second reading to the House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill because it is not an acceptable or effective method of enacting major constitutional change, because it proposes a significant alteration to the composition of the House of Lords which should not be considered in isolation from other changes, having regard to the undertakings given by the then government in 1999, because it drip-feeds changes that hinder proper scrutiny of measures that could change the relationship between the two houses, because it risks unintended consequences, does not reflect the lack of political consensus on House of Lords reform and does not provide for full consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny which would give the opportunity to consider the case for overall reform, seek cross-party engagement on proposals, and review the implications of all proposals.

The SNP has also tabled an amendment saying the bill should not be passed because it would be better to abolish the House of Lords altogether but, unlike the Tory amendment, this one will not be put to a vote today.

Downing Street has rejected suggestions that Keir Starmer received Taylor Swift tickets as a “thank you” after she was given taxpayer-funded police security while performing in London, PA Media reports. PA says:

No 10 would not say whether the prime minister was confident that perceptions of a conflict of interest had been avoided but insisted “operational decisions” were “ultimately” up to Scotland Yard and not the government.

Last week it emerged that London mayor Sadiq Khan and home secretary Yvette Cooper were involved in talks around the security for Swift’s sell-out summer shows at Wembley before the singer was granted a blue-light escort.

The Sun reported that she was given the motorbike convoy on the way to the stadium despite initial police reservations, with her mother Andrea Swift also negotiating arrangements directly with No 10 aide Sue Gray.

Asked today whether it was the prime minister’s view that there was no perception of a conflict of interest, his official spokesperson said: “Operational decisions are for the Met. That’s the bottom line.”

Downing Street cited the terror threat faced by Swift in Vienna, which had forced her to cancel gigs on the Austria leg of her Eras tour, as one of the reasons government was involved in security talks round her London shows.

Senior Labour politicians including the prime minister and Cooper have accepted free tickets to the singer’s concerts, which came under intense scrutiny in recent weeks amid a row over freebies given to ministers.

The PM announced he would cover the cost of around £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality he received received since entering office following the donations backlash, as well as committing to changing ministerial hospitality to improve transparency.

Among the declarations he paid back were four tickets to see Swift at Wembley Stadium which were received on 20 August from UMG, the musician’s record label.

Asked whether No 10 could rule out Starmer having been given the tickets as a “thank you” after discussions between government and the force were followed by Swift getting security while in London, the spokesperson said: “I completely reject that characterisation because it’s ultimately up to the police to take operational decisions in relation to the security of these major events.”

A Met Police spokesperson said: “The Met is operationally independent. Our decision-making is based on a thorough assessment of threat, risk and harm and the circumstances of each case. It is our longstanding position that we don’t comment on the specific details of protective security arrangements.”

Military veterans will be able to use their veteran card as photographic ID when they vote, the government has announced.

The previous government introduced the veteran card, to enable veterans to show that they qualify for services and benefits offered to veterans, but there was criticism of the fact that it was not included in the list of photographic ID documents that prove someone is entitled to vote under another law introduced by the Tories.

Alex Norris, the minister for elections, has said that secondary legislation will be used to ensure that in future the veteran card will be acceptable ID. The change will be in force in time for the local elections in May next year.

A wider review of the photo ID rules is also underway. Critics claim that they are skewed in favour of older people (because of the cards deemed acceptable), unnecessary (because electoral fraud of this kind is rare anyway) and political motivated (because of claims they were introduced to reduce the chances of younger, left-inclined people voting).

In a news release, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said:

This government is also making our democracy stronger than it has ever been and the addition of the veteran card is only the first step in delivering on our commitments to encourage participation in our elections.

The Liberal Democrats are urging the government to rule out raising employers’ national insurance. In a statement issued after Keir Starmer’s interview this morning, Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem Treasury spokesperson, said:

The chancellor needs to think again if the government is considering hiking taxes on small businesses, who have already suffered from eye-watering tax rises under the last Conservative government.

The burden of this budget should fall on the likes of big banks, social media giants and oil and gas firms, instead of our local community businesses. The chancellor should be protecting these smaller businesses, who are the backbone of our economy and the heartbeat of our communities.

Now is not the time to raise national insurance rates on our high streets, local businesses and dynamic entrepreneurs.

The Conservatives are claiming that a comment by Rachel Reeves from 2021 justifies their claim that raising employers’ national insurance would be a breach of Labour’s 2024 manifesto promise.

In a fresh statement released by CCHQ this morning after Keir Starmer’s interview, Laura Trott, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said:

In 2021, the chancellor said increasing employer national insurance was a tax on ‘workers’. That’s why even in her own words it breaks Labour’s manifesto promise not to increase tax on working people.

In a Commons debate on 19 October 2021, Reeves said:

Despite all their election promises to cut national insurance contributions, [the Conservatives] are actually raising them against the strong advice of businesses and trade unions.

The Conservative government’s actions will make each new recruit more expensive and increase the costs to business. The decision to saddle employers and workers with the jobs tax takes money out of people’s pockets when our economic recovery is not yet established or secure and only adds to the pressure on businesses after a testing year and a half. When all other costs are going up—the costs of energy and of supplies—these tax rises are only hitting them harder.

As mentioned earlier, during the election Trott criticised Labour explicitly for not ruling out raising employers’ national insurance. (See 9.28am.)

David Cameron has rejected the suggestion that the Tory leadership contest shows that his party modernisation project has been abandoned.

When Cameron became party leader in 2005, he was younger than other candidates, and past leaders, and he deliberately sought to modernise the Tories. Partly this was about changing its culture, but partly it was about adopting policies that appeared more “centrist”.

But now the two candidates left in the Tory leadership contest, Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick, are well to the right of Cameron. Unlike Cameron, they are both now pro-Brexit and anti-immigration, and neither of them has been very positive about his record in government.

But, in an interview on the Today programme, when it was put to him by Nick Robinson that his showed the Cameron modernisation projected had been “binned”, Cameron replied: “Not at all.”

He went on:

When you look at the makeup of the candidates that were running for the leadership, the idea that there would be British black and minority ethnic candidates running for the leadership of the party, having just had Britain’s first British Indian prime minister, would have been unthinkable when I became leader of the party in 2005.

So the change in the makeup of the party, quite apart from anything else, has definitely endured.

One of Cameron’s priorities as Tory leader was getting a more diverse group of candidates elected.

When it was put to him that the politics of the leadership candidates were very different to his, Cameron said he did not agree. He said it was important for the candidates to debate issues. They would have “good days and bad days”, he said. He said he would “stay out of” the contest, but support the winner.

David Cameron has claimed that he does not recall telling Boris Johnson he would fuck him up for ever if he backed leave in the 2016 referendum campaign.

Johnson makes the claim in his recently-published memoir, where he recalls telling Cameron that he was thinking of backing leave. Johnson writes:

‘If you do that,’ [Cameron] said – and these were his exact words – ‘I will fuck you up for ever.’

Johnson implies the threat carried some weight (although not enought to make him change his mind). In his memoir he goes on:

I had to admit that the threat sounded serious. Did I want to be fucked up? For ever? By a prime minister equipped with all the fucking-up tools available to a modern government, and thousands of fucker-uppers just waiting to do his bidding?

In an interview with Times Radio this morning, asked about Johnson’s account, Cameron replied:

I find that hard to believe.

What I do remember saying is, Boris, you’ve never backed Britain leaving the EU before, you’ve always said, let’s reform it, let’s change it. I said, why back it now when we got a better deal? You might not like my deal. You might think you can do better when you become prime minister, as you probably will in a few years time. But don’t suddenly back something you’ve never backed before.

That was the argument I remember having.

And I don’t remember any language any fruitier than that. But you know, memories, recollections differ, as they say.

Cameron also said it was “a spirited conversation”.

This is a classic non-denial denial. And, in fact, it is not even hard to believe that Cameron did threaten Johnson like this using the f-word. Although mostly genial in public, as PM Cameron was well known for having a temper, and his command of Anglo-Saxon was impressive.

David Cameron, the former prime minister and former foreign secretary, has revealed he had been planning to impose sanctions on two extremist members of the Israeli government over their support for violent settlers and calls to block aid entering Gaza, Patrick Wintour reports.

The Conservatives say raising employers’ national insurance contributions (NICs) would break a Labour manifesto promise. (See 8.24am.) Keir Starmer says it wouldn’t. (See 9.12am.) Who’s right?

Starmer says Labour’s manifesto was “very clear”. It says:

Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase national insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of income tax, or VAT.

This is not “very clear” about the distinction between employees’ NICs and employers’. If anything, it is the opposite – intentionally ambiguous.

But, during the election campaign, the Tories repeatedly challenged Labour politicians to explicity rule out increasing employers’ NICs – and Labour shadow ministers repeatedly refused to give that commitment. Instead, they just stuck to the wording in the manifesto.

As a result, CCHQ repeatedly put out press releases during the campaign asserting as fact that Labour did intend to raise various taxes, including employers’ national insurance. For example, on 14 June it released one with the heading “Labour’s 18 tax rises” that started:

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, has laid out a raft of new taxes Britain will face under a Labour government.

Trott outlined the 18 new tax rises Labour will hit the country with - everything from your home to your car and from your work to your pension.

The press released then listed 18 tax rises that it said the Tories had ruled out but that Labour hadn’t, including “extending national insurance to employer pension contributions” and “increasing employers’ national insurance (the ‘jobs tax’)”.

This is the same Trott who, having told voters during the campaign that Labour’s policy platform involved an implicit admission that employers’ NICs would go up, is now saying Labour’s promise in the campaign was the opposite. (See 8.24am.) The Conservatives are being opportunist and inconsistent.

UPDATE: At a press conference during the election campaign Trott also made a point of specifically highlighting Labour’s decision not to rule out raising employers’ national insurance. She said:

[Labour] also matched us on on income tax, and not raising employee national insurance. But that is where they have very conspicuously stopped. We openly challenge Labour to match the other tax guarantees in our manifesto. Their response? Silence.

This is what Keir Starmer said when Henry Zeffman asked him if Labour’s manifesto ruled out increasing any rate of national insurance, or if it was just ruling out increasing the employees’ rate.

Starmer replied:

We were very clear the manifesto that we wouldn’t be increasing tax on working people. We expressly said that that was income tax, that was NICs [national insurance contributions] etc, so we set that out in the manifesto.

Asked again if it was saying NICs just for employees, Starmer went on:

It was very clear from our manifesto that what we were saying is we’re not to raise tax for working people. It wasn’t just the manifesto. We said it repeatedly in the campaign, and we intend to keep the promises that we made in our manifesto.

So I’m not going to reveal to you the details of the budget. You know that that’s not possible at this stage. What I will say is where we made promises in our manifesto we’ll will be keeping those promises.

This is going to be a budget that’s going to be tough, of course, but the focus will be on rebuilding our country and ensuring that we get the growth needed in economy.

Q: Did the manifesto rule out increasing any rate of national insurance? Or was it just employees’ national insurance?

Starmer claims it was “very clear” in the manifesto that Labour would not raise taxes on working people. He says Labour will be keeping those promises.

But he says he will not discuss what is in the budget.

This is consistent with that Rachel Reeves said yesterday about employers’ national insurance not being covered, although Reeves was more explicit.

Good morning. Conventional wisdom (often citing George Bush, and his “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge) says that it is fatal for politicians to break election promises. In reality, that is not always the case. David Cameron never came close to meeting his 2010 commitment to get net migration below 100,000, and that did not stop him being re-elected in 2015 (although it did help him lose the 2016 Brexit referendum). There were many reasons why Boris Johnson was forced out of office, but raising national insurance in breach of a 2019 manifesto promise is not usually seen as one of his career-ending mistakes.

Nevertheless, breaking a promise is a huge risk, and that is why the very strong hints that Rachel Reeves will raiser employers’ national insurance in the budget has opened up a key debate. As Richard Partington and Kiran Stacey report, Labour is arguing that its pledge not to raise national insurance only covered employees’ national insurance, because the party repeatedly talked about taxes on working people.

But the Conservatives are saying people clearly took the promise to cover all national insurance. Laura Trott, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, issued this statement last night, after Reeves gave an interview clarifying her interpretation of the Labour pledge. Trott said:

The chancellor has chosen Labour’s first investment summit to sow further uncertainty and chaos for businesses who are now braced for Labour’s Jobs Tax.

Regardless of what they say, it’s obvious to all that hiking employer national insurance is a clear breach of Labour’s manifesto. Rachel Reeves herself previously called it anti-business and we agree, it is a tax on work that will deter investment, employment and growth, and the OBR says it will lower wages.

Keir Starmer is giving an interview to BBC Breakfast at 8.30am, so we are likely to hear his take then.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Keir Starmer chairs a meeting of political cabinet.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

11.30am: Wes Streeting, the health secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

After 12.30pm: MPs debate the second reading of the House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill, which will remove the right of remaining hereditary peers to sit in the Lords.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line (BTL) 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. I’m still using X and I’ll see something addressed to @AndrewSparrow very quickly. I’m also trying Bluesky (@andrewsparrowgdn) and Threads (@andrewsparrowtheguardian).

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.