Demonstrators, campaigners and parliamentarians gather outside the Department of Health and Social Care to protest against the planned clinical trial to assess the risks and benefits of puberty blockers in gender questioning children (Alamy)

4 min read8 min

Last week, the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) wrote to King’s College London, the trial’s sponsor, urging the university to suspend the trial due to concerns over the participants’ well-being. The government agreed to pause the Pathways trial while clinicians scrutinise further evidence.

The study looks at the possible prescription of puberty blockers among young people with gender incongruence. It was set to enrol 226 children aged between 11 and 15. However, the MHRA said it wanted to introduce a minimum age of 14 for participants, and expressed concern about potential long-term harms.

“This trial will only be allowed to go ahead if the expert scientific and clinical evidence and advice conclude it is both safe and necessary,” a Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said in response.

As The House magazine reported last month, Health Secretary Wes Streeting is faced with groups of Labour MPs with strongly-held, opposing views on the subject.

For Labour MPs who support the trial, it is an important route to gender-affirming healthcare that will improve the quality of life of children with gender dysphoria and alleviate mental health problems that arise from it.

However, those opposed to the trial, which make up a smaller cohort of Labour MPs, say it is unethical and that not enough is known about the lasting impact of the hormone injections.

MPs in the latter group are making a renewed push to stop the trial altogether.

PoliticsHome understands that Preet Kaur Gill, who is a Parliamentary Private Secretary to technology secretary Liz Kendall, is organising a meeting with Streeting alongside several clinicians and Labour MPs to raise concerns over the Pathways trial. In January, Gill endorsed Blue Labour — the Labour caucus which promotes more socially conservative positions.

Jonathan Hinder, Labour MP for Pendle and Clitheroe, said blocking puberty in young children was “profoundly unethical” and that the trial should be banned over the MHRA concerns.

“It beggars belief that the government ever gave the go-ahead for this trial,” he told PoliticsHome. “A ‘pause’ will not do. The government must cancel the whole trial altogether.”

He added: “Children struggling with their gender identity need love, support and compassion, but they must not be medicalised in this way.”

David Smith, Labour MP for North Northumberland, who also opposes the trial being resumed, added: “To quote it [the MHRA letter] directly, it says, ‘unlike patients with precocious puberty, the proposed cohort in this trial have normal biological hormonal and sexual development but a psychological condition of gender dysphoria’.

“It goes on to raise concerns about the possible long-term harms, such as irreversible bone structural change in participants, raises concerns about cognitive effects, and the long-term potential loss of their fertility.”

Streeting banned the sale of puberty blockers for gender-questioning under-18s indefinitely soon after Labour entered government in 2024. He pointed to the review carried out by Baroness Cass into gender identity services, which raised safety concerns around the lack of evidence for the hormone treatments.

The same review recommended the Pathways trial as a means of research into whether or not puberty-suppressing hormones helped children with gender dysphoria.

Cass told The Observer she was “disappointed” by the MHRA’s intervention and believed that the regulator had bowed to political pressure. Gender-critical campaigners like author JK Rowling have publicly pressured ministers to cancel the trial.

“There are no new research findings and the MHRA hasn’t presented any new evidence,” she told the newspaper. “It feels to me like they are responding to political pressure rather than to science.”

A Labour MP who sits in the party’s LGBT+ caucus said they would be “absolutely furious” if they were Streeting. 

“[He] has been put in an extremely awkward position by this massive and unfounded change of heart by a supposedly impartial regulator,” they told PoliticsHome.

“This decision by the MHRA, taken without new evidence, only makes that task harder and undermines public confidence that the system is acting in the best interests of patients.”

Sean Ridley is Energy & Environment Researcher at the Centre for Policy Studies

Years of government intervention have rendered Britain’s energy market effectively incapable of operating on a truly competitive basis – entangled by a web of subsidies, taxes and guarantees.

The fault here lies with Labour and Conservative governments alike.

It was a Labour government that passed the Climate Change Act, paving the way for emissions targets and the decarbonisation of our grid. It established the Climate Change Committee, carbon budgets and the Renewables Obligation (RO) and Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) schemes. But it was the Conservatives that introduced a direct price control to the market – the Energy Price Cap, an idea stolen directly by Theresa May from Ed Miliband – and who enshrined Net Zero into law.

These were all seen as necessary in a time of acute climate awareness. Coal has duly been eliminated from our energy mix, while renewables capacity has been greatly expanded: solar, for instance, barely existed in 2011 but now accounts for 21 GW of capacity.

However, the initial government schemes found themselves to be the progenitors of unintended consequences, necessitating further action to compensate for their shortcomings. The Renewables Obligation proved to be financially unsustainable and was closed in 2017, replaced by the more viable Contracts for Difference (CfDs). The FiT scheme was similarly found too expensive and concluded in 2019. But we’re still paying the costs for both of them on our bills.

The Energy Price Cap, brought in to protect vulnerable consumers from being gouged by volatile tariff prices, became the default price of power after the Russian invasion of Ukraine sent wholesale prices soaring, effectively ending price competition in the retail energy market. Today, six firms make up 91 per cent of the market – more than 20 percentage points higher than 2020. Just 18 suppliers operate today; down from 49 pre-energy crisis.

In a new report, the Centre for Policy Studies shows that the price of government intervention is borne by British consumers – and not just in terms of those legacy renewables bills. Britain now has some of the highest energy prices in the developed world, putting the squeeze on households and leaving industry uncompetitive. British households on average pay 20 per cent more for their electricity than their European neighbours do. British industrial firms have it worse – paying 90 per cent more than their competitors on the continent.

Unfortunately, this top-down government direction is set to accelerate: Ed Miliband treats our energy mix like it’s a game of SimCity, and is explicit in his ideological intent to increase the state’s control.

He has set up Great British Energy (GBE) to increase public ownership of the country’s energy assets, appealing to national sovereignty to create a champion capable of matching other state-owned enterprises like France’s EDF and Sweden’s Vattenfall. Yet though GBE had the backing of 62% of the public at the last election, it will likely disappoint their expectations – with an £8 billion capitalisation that is far short of the £40 billion it would have required in this parliament alone to meet its original vision, it seems to spend most of its time handing out uncommercial grants to the public sector to put solar panels on roofs.

GBE will have a supporting role in Ed Miliband’s other grand venture, Clean Power 2030, which aims to rapidly expand renewables capacity further and squeeze out gas – that greatly demonised commodity – by 2030.

But there are problems. Aside from the intermittency issues – the sun isn’t always shining; the wind isn’t always blowing – renewables are not energy-dense forms of generation. For instance, to match the 3.2 GW capacity of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant, a solar farm would need to span the entirety of the Isle of Wight.

This doesn’t mean that we should pay much attention to the scare stories about solar farms destroying our agricultural sector: we’ve got plenty of room for both, and in fact you can have solar farms and grazing on the same land. But with all these solar and wind farms dotted across the country, our transmission and distribution networks – the wires and cables that will transport that electricity – will need to be upgraded and expanded. This comes at a cost: the most recent price cap saw network costs rise by £66 per annum.

Then there’s the whole architecture of the CfD scheme – which effectively embeds subsidy as a permanent part of the energy mix. Though not as expensive as the RO was, the scheme effectively acts as a revenue guarantee. So even though gas prices are now falling, and expected to fall further, these new turbines and solar farms will effectively receive a subsidy to meet their strike prices rather than the market price of energy. This is not limited to renewables: Hinkley Point C secured a strike price that is approximately £130 today, far higher than the current £81 wholesale price.

The result is a perverse cycle. CfDs are agreed in order to secure more generating capacity, which lowers wholesale costs, which reduces the return for generators, which increases the subsidies to procure more capacity. And these contracts will have a long-term effect, lasting for 20 years – on top of the legacy costs of the RO and FiT schemes that are still being paid off.

And, as Claire Coutinho has pointed out repeatedly, all of these costs are being stacked on to consumer bills. Of the £963 that made up the average household electricity bill in 2025, £186 was the cost of paying for these schemes, with another £207 going towards network costs. Combined, that is greater than the share of wholesale electricity (£324).

Yes, Labour have opted to move 75 per cent of the cost of the Renewables Obligation on to general taxation, but all this does is pay into one pocket while picking another, with generation subsidies still contributing more than £100 to an average bill.

It is not a comforting picture, but there is some hope. Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) are private contracts between a corporate buyer and generator and/or supplier for electricity. The UK’s largest solar farm (373 MW) has two-thirds of its power funded by Tesco through a PPA contract. And the second largest? It’s entirely financed through a PPA, without a CfD in sight.

Not only is this energy being procured on a genuinely commercial basis, it addresses one of the obvious and justified criticisms of renewables: that they can only be built with subsidy. If people are happy to build them without subsidy, why not let them?

All of this matters because we need an awful lot more energy – and currently, we are on track to buy it at a very high price indeed. Last year saw an Octopus Energy executive state to a parliamentary committee that even if wholesale costs fell, policy and network costs would still push bills up. This is especially worrying at a time when energy demand is rising for the first time in 20 years. By 2050, it could be 175 per cent higher than it is today.

The EVs, heat pumps and data centres that will drive that demand will not materialise if prices continue as they are. The only answer is for government to get out the way, make mature technologies stand on their own financially and stop socialising the costs of Ed Miliband’s follies via consumers’ bills.

Return power to the markets, and energy abundance can be a reality in the UK.

Labour is clearly desperate in the Gorton and Denton by-election. No wonder, since it’s running a poor third according to the latest polling.

So with polls opening today, 26 June, it was clearly time for the liar-led party to break out its latest scam: make up a completely fake ‘tactical voting organisation’ that ‘says’ local people need to vote Labour. Then post leaflets with the fake company’s name on – and a fake website.

It’s almost certainly illegal, regardless what ‘imprint’ the party puts in tiny print on the edge. It’s definitely illegal if it hasn’t put one. It’s definitely lying, either way.

Labour are beyond desperate

Labour has made up – plucked from thin air or the diseased brain of some PR slimer, or perhaps Labour Together, as it would fit with that slimy outfit’s record – a supposed organisation called “Tactical Choice”. And, surprise surprise, the non-existent tactical voting organisation made up by Labour recommends that Gorton and Denton needs to – drum roll…. vote Labour:

Got this through my door in the last two hours and was actually taken aback by how far they’ve gone out of their way to make it look like a leaflet from an independent tactical voting org https://t.co/mrqkvEC2Db pic.twitter.com/QWwdJ34WHm

— RopesToInfinity (@RopesToInfinity) February 25, 2026

The fake organisation even has a fake logo – although it looks like one that Labour bought off the shelf for pennies, like Starmer did with his ‘Great British Energy’ scam. And that was definitely a scam. In fact, the party may not even have spent pennies: Google’s AI suggested that the image had been created with children’s wax crayons:

The image displays squares that closely resemble Stockmar Beeswax Block Crayons. These are known for their luminous colors, flat shape, and use in Waldorf education.

And the Greens have noticed, with Green leader Zack Polanski taking Mancunian MP and Labour deputy leader personally and publicly to task for the scam:

Dear Lucy,

On the eve of the by-election, your Labour party spokesperson has admitted to the Huffington Post that a Labour party leaflet has been delivered through doors with your imprint recommending a vote for Labour by a tactical voting organisation which does not exist.

Advertisement

This is deeply troubling, it is actually lying to voters. ​ Did you approve this? ​ Do you feel the Labour Party in government should be held to different standards in terms of honesty to the British public? ​

In your last letter to me you mentioned your ‘very extensive data’ and ‘having spoken to over a third of eligible voters’ which led you to an understanding that the by-election ‘was a contest between Labour and Reform’. ​ Clearly this latest development only tells voters one thing – you will employ any type of political deception (or in Urdu “Dhoka”) to win. ​

You will be very aware that all three real tactical voting organisations are recommending a vote for the Greens as the best way to stop Reform. ​ Lying to the voters, as you have been caught doing, raises the real prospect that Reform will be the beneficiaries, something you have said that you don’t want. ​

As this is such an important issue, for the sake of your own reputation, I would strongly urge you to apologise to the voters of Denton and Gorton before the polls open in the morning. ​

Advertisement

Kind regards,

Zack Polanski
Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales

But the leaflet isn’t all. The website it contains is also a scam. It uses an address that sounds like a general democracy website: iwillvote.org.uk. But the small print – right at the bottom where it will probably only be noticed by the sharp-eyed who know to look – shows that the website is operated by Labour:

Labour lies and it lies and it lies. Then it lies some more. Keir Starmer conned Labour members into voting for him by lying and breaking every promise he ever made. Now he’s trying to con voters in Gorton and Denton. He fully deserves the electoral kicking that the pollsters are predicting.

Featured image via the Canary

Nadiya Hussain has labelled the TV industry as “broken” in an interview with the Guardian, where she exposed the racist and sexist system, which she explains is paying Black and Brown women less than their white counterparts.

Nadiya Hussain speaks out on gaslighting

Nadiya rose to fame in 2015 when she was crowned champion of the Great British Bake Off. She quickly became a much-loved cultural fixture, publishing cookbooks and children’s books, and making TV shows.

In Summer 2025, Nadiya posted a video on Instagram saying that the BBC had decided not to commission another cookery show. Earlier that year, she published a cookery book titled ‘Rooza’. It was inspired by dishes from across the Islamic world, especially at Ramadan and Eid.

She knew it would not be attached to a TV series. However, the BBC then told her they would not be making her next book, Nadiya’s Quick Comforts, into a series, either.

The BBC then said:

After several wonderful series, we have made the difficult decision not to commission another cookery show with Nadiya Hussain at the moment.

Nadiya then discussed gaslighting in the industry on Instagram without naming the BBC. She emphasised that as a Muslim woman, she rarely felt supported and TV bosses did not allow her to fulfil her potential.

Soon after, Nadiya left her agent and manager.

Nadiya told the Guardian:

The last year has been intense, really exposing, but it has been really enlightening at the same time.

She told the Guardian that she had been feeling uncomfortable in her job for a while, along with dealing with health issues, which included an autoimmune diagnosis. She said:

I started to feel like a caricature of myself. I’d become a version of myself that was manufactured and comfortable for everybody.

I’d become this palatable version of a Muslim that could be on television, that could write cookbooks. I’d become this really comfortable version of myself that was easy to digest.

‘Overwhelming whiteness’

Nadiya has spoken publicly many times about the “overwhelming whiteness” of TV and publishing.

Over the last year, she has realised how broken the system really is, and that she can’t change a broken industry.

She added that:

It’s always been really difficult to be the only person like me in a room.

And understandably, she’s tired of people asking if things have changed or “are we doing better?”

She told the Guardian that she:

has no evidence that it was Rooza that meant some brands no longer wanted to work with her, but this is the feeling she can’t shake.

She continued:

It was really interesting, because I felt like people had just twigged, ‘Oh, she’s a Muslim’, and suddenly I wasn’t palatable any more. Suddenly I wasn’t the same Nadiya that I was before, because before I was writing cookbooks that were for everybody, and now I wrote this book that didn’t feel inclusive.”

But her faith and culture are a huge part of who she is, and she thinks that made people uncomfortable.

Nadiya realised that she had very little control over her career. She said the feeling intensified when she saw the world not embrace her new book, Rooza, as it had previous books, especially when she was so “immensely proud” of this one.

She said:

I know how many people felt seen and heard with a cookbook like that. I write something that is really close to my heart, and suddenly I’m losing brand deals and people don’t want to work with me any more.

A neat little box

Nadiya felt as if the TV and publishing industries had put her into a neat little box. But suddenly, she didn’t fit. Quite beautifully, she realised:

I have to be the most authentic version of myself.

I just softened my edges enough to fit in. Even things like I changed the way I wore my headscarf because it felt more modern to wear it a different way. I did that without even realising it. I much prefer to wear it this way [covering her neck, as opposed to wrapping only her hair], but this makes me somehow look more Muslim.

The people around her also suggested that she should not post anything political on social media, such as Israel’s genocide in Gaza. She complained many times about people making misogynistic or racist comments, but bosses always told her:

‘That’s just the way they are’, or ‘just ignore them’.

She wished she hadn’t let stuff go. However, she knew the higher-ups would see her as “difficult” if she complained. Which tells you all you need to know about the state of the industry.

She added that, as a woman of colour, she felt she should be “endlessly grateful”. Which, of course, she should not. This means she has come to expect criticism, especially on social media – she cannot escape it.

To make matters worse, the racist comments have become “noticeably worse and more frequent”.

She said:

I think people are braver and just think they can say whatever they want. The world feels like it’s on fire at the moment. It’s hideous what’s happening right now, and it feels like no amount of speaking out is doing anything. But I think we must not forget that even one voice is better than no voice at all.

It took Nadiya a long time to realise she was good at what she does – and actively silenced herself in the process of realising that. She believes:

I get paid less to do the same job as the white version of me.

Nadiya Hussain has talked at length about the racism, her mental health, and the trauma she experienced in childhood, but she told the Guardian:

One thing I’ve learned in the last year is that it’s really important to always speak your truth.

Featured image via Loose Women/YouTube

Nigel Farage at a press conference in Westminster (Alamy)

7 min read7 min

Reform UK’s foreign policy is, it is fair to say, a work in progress. While Nigel Farage recently nominated spokespeople for the economy, home affairs, business and education, the identity of the person who would serve as his foreign secretary remains unknown.

Farage likes room for manoeuvre and has trimmed and tacked his way around big foreign policy questions for decades. But, as he seeks to project his outfit as a government-in-waiting, pressure is increasing on him to define how he would lead Britain on the world stage.

The Reform leader does not start with a blank page, however. And while support for Donald Trump and Israel and opposition to the EU and China might be givens, Farage faces persistent attacks from his enemies over his past support for Vladimir Putin.

I think the ECHR is going to take up the majority of Reform’s thinking around foreign policy

In 2014, asked about the world leader he admired most, he cited the Russian President: “As an operator, but not as a human being”. A decade later, the Reform UK leader suggested to the BBC that the West had provoked the Ukraine invasion, saying it was clear that “the ever-eastward expansion of Nato and the European Union was giving this man a reason to his Russian people to say, ‘They’re coming for us again,’ and to go to war”.

Farage does his best to disavow these past positions, for example, telling The House that President Trump had finally seen Putin was “not anyone you can do business with” last July. But they remain a drag on his support. Polling by More in Common found only 26 per cent think that Farage sides with Ukraine in its conflict, the lowest of any mainstream party leader.

In seeking a reset, Reform has turned to Alan Mendoza, executive director of The Henry Jackson Society, and now the party’s chief adviser on global affairs.

Speaking to The House magazine, Mendoza was keen to stress that Reform does not have an official formulated foreign policy as it develops. But his insights are a useful indicator of where the party is moving.

“The Elizabethan age gives a sense of what Britain is beyond just its immediate confines,” he says, referring to a time when Britain had an “expansive” trading relationship and presence with the outside world.

 “Now, you could say that the date we stopped doing that was the east of Suez decision in 1967 onwards,” he says, referring to Harold Wilson’s decision to cut Britain’s military presence in Singapore, Malaysia, and the Persian Gulf.

“When you ally that to entering the European Union, which brought its own complexities in terms of our foreign policy positioning, and suddenly you no longer necessarily had a global British outlook. You had more a parochial Britain as part of the European Union outlook.”

He adds: “I think it’s fair to say that sometimes what we have done in recent years is put, for example, alliance interests above necessarily strict British interests.

“And now it’s about a time of rediscovering what British interests actually are. That’s the key thing. What are British interests? What are they overseas? What should this country be doing in a post-European age?”

One early concrete step in this effort to reassert national interest over alliances would be taking the country out of the ECHR. Invoking Article 58 of the ECHR, which would start a six-month countdown to leave the convention, would require consequent changes to the UK’s trade agreement with the EU and the Good Friday Agreement.

“I think the ECHR is going to take up the majority of Reform’s thinking around foreign policy,” predicts Fred de Fossard, director of strategy at the Prosperity Institute.

The Prosperity Institute, highly rated by Reform insiders, published a paper on withdrawing from the ECHR last year, with a foreword from new recruit Suella Braverman.

“It’s what their voters will care about,” Fossard adds. “They will get credit in the bank for stopping the boats, fixing the borders, ensuring proper deportations, no longer having to pay money into the European Union.”

The United Nations has come under pressure from much of the British right, but it appears Reform UK has no plans to leave the organisation, despite raising serious concerns over the Human Rights Council (HRC) and UNRWA.

Then there is the question of the US – and a relationship with Trump that is, by turns, a help and a hindrance. “Farage’s foreign policy is probably a natural outgrowth of his personal links and issues over the years,” Jonathan Brown, an ex-foreign office diplomat and former chief operating officer of Reform UK, says. “So, that’s both with American and Europe, moderated by concern for what’s electorally popular.”

Another constant is the party’s relationship with Israel, with many of its MPs and members holding strong pro-Israel views. “Nigel Farage’s party have openly supported Israel, and we’re really grateful for it,” Sharren Haskel, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, told The House in December.

“It shows quite a lot of courage and backbone to [stand] by the right side of history, talking in depth and not in slogans, not to populism and not to the surrender to very radical and loud voices.” Reform Friends of Israel has sent two delegations to the Jewish state, which have included party chairman David Bull and board member Dan Barker.

“What is there to be nuanced on the pro-Israel question? What, be pro-Hamas? That’s your nuance on that? Of course, Reform is not going to be a pro-Hamas party,” Mendoza tells The House. “Reform is going to be a party and is a party that is very supportive of a democratic state fighting Islamist terrorists.”

I’m not sure anyone wants to pay a billion dollars to [sign up to the Board of Peace]

Advertisement

Despite these twin pillars – Trump and Israel – Mendoza is sceptical that Farage would join the Board of Peace, not least because of the cost. “I’m not sure anyone wants to pay a billion dollars to do that, but I suspect we might have some input because of our traditional relationships in the region.”

Mendoza faces competition for influence over foreign policy. Reform UK MP Danny Kruger and Farage’s senior adviser James Orr both met with vice-president JD Vance on his holiday to the Cotswolds in August. Although Kruger tells The House he is “not very close” with Vance, he describes himself as “a great admirer of his”.

The MP, who heads Reform’s preparing for government unit, says of the vice-president: “I know he’s not very popular among all sections of our population, but I think he is a decent, thoughtful man who – by the way – loves this country.”

The party also continues to pursue relationships with individuals from other parties around the world. Gawain Towler, a Reform UK board member, met with New Zealand First and Australia’s Liberal Party recently. He has also increased the party’s outreach and developed contacts with Danish and Hungarian embassies.

“Broadening our scope – as we must, as a responsible party that may be in government – it is essential we build those links,” Towler says. “[Farage] went to Davos to say, ‘I am here!’”

He adds: “We are not isolationists in any way; we understand that geopolitics is not going away, we can’t live in a small bubble.”

As PM, Farage might find his biggest headaches are closest to home. “I can’t imagine the UK-French relationship is going to be as close,” Ed Arnold, fellow of defence think tank Rusi, tells The House. “The UK-German relationship might be difficult; the UK-Poland relationship will also be pretty difficult.”

One of the architects of Brexit might be about to be confronted with the task of building Britain a new home in the world.

200th anniversary of the Stockton and Darlington Railway Gala, 2025 (Alamy Live News)

8 min read20 min

That was the motto of the Stockton and Darlington Railway company, which in 1825 ran the world’s first steam engine carrying passengers. It changed the world forever, turbocharged the industrial revolution, and my town is rightly proud of the role we played in shaping the future as we know it today.

The choices before those grappling with the might of the steam engine then and the choices facing us as we contend with new digital technologies may be centuries apart, but they are more alike than you would think.

Being constantly connected is fundamentally changing what it means to be a child for the worse

Advertisement

The consequences of the steam engine included the creation of the factory system and a complete reordering of what it meant to work. “Steam engines set the conditions of possibility for this development. They weren’t themselves a ‘problem’, of course; they gleamed and were precise and powerful. Who could see them operate without awe?” as Princeton historian of technology D Graham Burnett and other members of The Friends of Attention coalition recently wrote in The Guardian.

But a “problem” arose as a by-product of the technology: a generation of children being exploited. The positives of these machines were felt by many, in one way or another, but the lack of regulation was felt mostly by working-class children.

Those children were let down by a ruling class sluggish to react, inefficient and uncaring. Yet the sometimes-fatal harms were entirely known and predictable. And the harms were not just from what they spent their days doing, but from what they spent their days not doing. Their childhoods were sacrificed on the altar of booming industry. While campaigners banged on the doors of Parliament, begging it to act, arguments for child protection were smeared as moral panic and those calling for change were painted as anti-business, anti-innovation luddites.

Sound familiar? In our time, in the face of the digital world’s own gleaming, precise and powerful steam engines, we must do better. Being constantly connected is fundamentally changing what it means to be a child for the worse, and it is our job in Parliament to act.

The first meeting I had after I was elected was with secondary headteachers from all of Darlington’s schools. I asked them to help me set up an Online Safety Forum, to hear from local teenagers about exactly what life was like for them online.

The responses I got from my forum members were clear. While most of them didn’t want to be offline, they agreed there should be changes. More than three-quarters of 14- to 16-year-olds in Darlington who took part in my forum had been contacted by a stranger online. “It’s not us that’s the problem, it’s the weirdos,” one told me. He was right: we must protect young people from predators, bad actors and all “weirdos”.

Our response must involve enforceable and evergreen legislation. We could use statutory instruments to age-gate VPN apps to 18 and change the age of digital consent from 13 to 16 under GDPR legislation. This would help prevent age-gate workarounds via VPN and strengthen the tool (or “bot”) regulatory framework by bringing the Information Commissioner’s Office into the online safety space. These two changes alone would also force algorithms and suggested content functionalities to change, and they would help prevent the marketing and monetisation of children online.

We could go further and make a register of children’s broadcasters, organisations and charities that are trusted providers of online content to children. We could make any new or existing social media functionality 18+ age-gated by default. We could empower parents and carers by running a national “five-a-day”-style campaign covering online risks and harms. We could force social media companies that want child users to prove via a licence system that their products are safe for children. They should have to complete a dynamic risk assessment and only after approval of their licence could they allow child users.

These licences would allow us to regulate functionalities used by online technology companies to harvest information, drive behaviour and advertise. By age-gating online products (and their functionalities), requiring proactive highly effective age verification, and creating a licensing regime for products used online, we could replicate the approach we take in the offline world towards age-inappropriate harms or spaces.

Some functionalities are clearly unsuitable for under-16s. There is no reason, for example, for under-16s to have any access to strangers. This has already caused too many children too much harm, and young people have told me they don’t need or want it.

We should ban all functionalities for under-16s that pose the most risk to children, either from strangers, from themselves or from habitual damage. For example, an under-16-year-old shouldn’t be able to publish their own content. Nobody deserves something they said or did as a child to potentially be discoverable for the rest of their lives. These functionalities should never be available to under-16s, and it should be a criminal offence to enable or facilitate that happening.

Look at these harms as if they were offline

We prevent anyone from driving under 17, not because all 16-year-olds are dangerous behind the wheel but because it is our responsibility to reduce the likelihood of children and young people coming to harm by being given too great a responsibility for their own and others’ safety. We must replicate this approach and remove the level of personal responsibility we’re putting on our children online.

There are lots of other functionalities that have been raised with me that seem to be destroying childhood and turbocharging the normal challenges of adolescence. We need to decide on the suitability of generative AI, short-form scrolling and viewing unregulated influencer content. Mass group chat, broadcast and mass sharing functions are causing very real damage.

Look at these harms as if they were offline. Imagine a new state-of-the-art community centre opens round the corner from your house. Everyone in the area goes; you see old friends and make new ones; they offer lots of free activities for young people; your children love it, as do all their friends.

But then you find out one of the sports coaches is bullying some of the children and showing others horrible gruesome images. Another member of staff is popping into sessions and spouting hate against women, and your child has started repeating it. Another is telling your child to try diet pills, stop eating or try a life-threateningly dangerous challenge. Then you find out your child is sneaking out at night to hang out at the community centre with adults asking them for pictures. Your child’s behaviour has changed, and they only want to go to the community centre.

When you complain, you get an automatic response from a robot. Then you find out nobody knows the staff members’ real names or anything about them. You discover the community centre is owned by overseas billionaires who take no responsibility for what happens there, and nobody is legally responsible for what children are told at the centre.

With no other choice, you go to the police, thinking surely they can step in. But they say the staff were using fake names, live in other countries and even the international addresses they’ve provided turn out to be fake, so there’s nothing they can do. So, you decide to stop your children going there.

But it’s not that simple. Your children get bullied for not going, left out of their social circles and, besides, people tell you it’s safe, it’s been great for your business, and they have some useful adult and child education sessions.

After a bit of research, you find out this is happening in almost every community centre like this across the country. At this stage, you and your other friends with children go to MPs and say they’ve all got the same issues; that their children’s mental health is severely deteriorating and child development in early years is suffering too. You say it’s happening all over the country, all over the world, and some children have been groomed. Some have even taken their own lives.

At that point, you’d expect your government to take action to make the community centre safe for children or shut it down.

It is critical that, following the consultation, the action taken by this government must work to make the internet safe for children. It must be uniform, robust and enforceable.

We have reached crisis point. Inpatient numbers at children’s mental health units have risen dramatically since 2012. Our school readiness figures are poor and the Young People’s Survey for England found this generation to be the most connected but the loneliest on record. The minister for violence against women and girls recently said 91 per cent of all child sexual abuse images are made by children themselves. That is horrifying. Parents and children need our help.

Platforms and big tech will (and already do) protest any friction to their services, just as the mill owners, the car manufactures, the tobacco companies, alcohol producers and all age-restricted industries have done before them. But ultimately, just as their predecessors did, these companies will have no choice but to act in a way that protects children and creates the internet that our children deserve.

Internet safety is a modern problem, but the solution is over 200 years old: Periculum privatum utilitas publica. The Stockton and Darlington Railway had it right – the greatest private innovations must be used for public good. Join us and win the fight to protect our children and deliver that public good, for the benefit of all.

Lola McEvoy is Labour MP for Darlington

The announcement by Reform UK that they will “restore Britain’s Christian heritage” and that the nation must “uphold its Christian values” captures the contradictory essence of modern populist politics. Politicians of various faiths and none scrambling to weaponise a religious identity that the British public themselves have left behind and show no sign of wanting back.

In The Times, Zia Yusuf argues that reasserting Britain’s Christian heritage is about “respect and continuity”, framing it as a necessary anchor for social cohesion in an increasingly diverse society. He, alongside others in his party, suggests that young men in particular are experiencing a “meaning crisis” and are crying out for cultural confidence. A return to traditional Christian primacy is the only way to satisfy a growing national hunger for meaning.

This diagnosis is false and the proposed cure is a recipe for division rather than unity.

We must ground our political debate and national identity in reality: Britain is not a Christian country. This is not a radical ideological statement; it is a basic demographic fact. Successive social attitudes surveys and the most recent Census data have painted an undeniable picture. The majority of the population, and an overwhelming majority of young people, do not belong to the Christian religion. Our pews are empty, and the moral and social lives of most Britons are entirely detached from Christianity.

Featured

MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’

Featured

Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court