There is an ongoing investigation by Ofcom into the GrokAI chatbot on X (Alamy)

5 min read20 May

On Friday, Ofcom announced that X – formerly known as Twitter – had agreed to strengthen its moderation of illegal hate and terrorist content under the Online Safety Act. 

In a voluntary agreement, X promised to review and assess suspected illegal terrorist and hate content flagged through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool within an average of 24 hours of being reported, calculated over a three-month period. The platform also said it would review and assess at least 85 per cent of UK suspected illegal terrorist and hate content reported through the tool within a maximum of 48 hours.

Ofcom said it will monitor X’s performance “closely”, with the platform expected to submit performance data to Ofcom every quarter over a year.

However, the independent think tank and charity British Future said the platform had failed to moderate racist hate posts reported by the organisation on the platform since Friday.

The charity’s British South Asian Bridgers project reported 33 posts on Friday that used the racist slur ‘p**i’ as direct racially aggravated abuse to ethnic minorities in British public life – a prosecutable offence under UK hate crime laws and legal obligations under the Online Safety Act.

By Monday, all 33 of the reported posts were still visible on X despite the platform’s 48-hour moderation window having expired, with no indication that enforcement action had been taken. British Future told PoliticsHome that, within the sample it tested, the platform had so far recorded a “zero per cent success rate” in removing the reported racist content.

Among the examples highlighted was a post directed at Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood reading: “No one wants you scabby p**i c**ts, why are you surprised, rapey cockroaches”.

Other targets included former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf, independent MP Zarah Sultana, Reform UK chairman Zia Yusuf, former Tory chancellor Sajid Javid, Greater Manchester Mayor Sadiq Khan, and journalist Sangita Myska.

The charity said 28 of the reports generated automated acknowledgements from X within around a minute, while five received no acknowledgement at all. It has shared its findings with Ofcom, ministers and MPs, and is urging the regulator Ofcom to intervene directly with the platform.

It reported a further two posts using the slur ‘n****r’ against Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Justice Secretary David Lammy on Sunday, both of which were also not taken down within 48 hours.

Labour MP and chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee Sarah Owen told PoliticsHome that she wants the government and Ofcom to consider stronger sanctions against Musk’s platform in the UK.

“Ofcom has to get a grip of the dangerous and growing threat that online hate speech is posing to our democracy and our communities,” she said.

“We know that since Elon Musk took over Twitter and gutted the moderation teams, it has become a breeding ground for far-right messaging and incitement of hate and violence against ethnic and religious minorities. Musk himself has shamefully targeted our democracy and endorsed an ethnonationalist MP who wants to deport British citizens on the basis of their race. 

“The government must consider stronger action against X. At the very least, this must include prioritising other platforms for government communications. If we don’t get this right, we send a message to foreign-owned tech giants that they can ignore our laws at will. If X do not rapidly comply with our laws, Ofcom must implement further sanctions.”

The voluntary commitments by X followed an investigation by Ofcom into whether the platform was doing enough to identify and remove illegal terror and hate content, after PoliticsHome revealed in November that a cross-party group of MPs and peers was calling for action against a surge in antisemitic posts and calls for violence against Jews on X. Ofcom said the commitments from X came after “intensive engagement” with the platform.

There is still an ongoing investigation by Ofcom into X under the Online Safety Act, after reports in January that the platform’s Grok AI chatbot account was being used to create and share sexualised images of adults and children.

An Ofcom spokesperson said: “We condemn racism in all its forms. Some of the online abuse people experience is illegal under UK law, such as some types of threatening or abusive behaviour and harassment targeting ethnic minorities.

“Under the Online Safety Act, social media companies must take appropriate steps to prevent their UK users from encountering illegal content. If a post is reported to a platform, it must decide whether the content breaks UK laws, and it can use our guidance when making these decisions.

“Ofcom’s job is to make sure sites and apps have appropriate measures in place to comply with their duties, rather than tell platforms which specific posts or accounts to take down.

“These commitments are a step forward, but there’s a lot more to do. We’ll be carrying out quarterly reviews of X’s performance, and we’ve shown we’ll take action if evidence suggests companies are not meeting their legal duties under the Act.”

Avaes Mohammad, Manager of the British South Asian Bridgers project at British Future, told PoliticsHome: “Many people will be shocked by the scale and intensity of racist abuse on X towards just about every Asian public figure, whatever subject they are talking about. This makes for a deeply unequal experience of public space with a chilling effect.

“Decades of hard work ensured that the p-word slur had become socially unacceptable in our society. But the failure to enforce the law online is now playing a significant role in a rising climate of racism.

“The platform’s new commitments to remove criminal content could make a real difference – if they are honoured. What is already clear is that this will only happen if there is real-time monitoring and scrutiny to ensure that X removes hateful content and keeps the perpetrators off the platform – rather than allowing them to carry on abusing people with impunity.”

The charity also raised concerns that X may be acting too narrowly, even when it does remove individual posts, by failing to suspend the accounts responsible.

PoliticsHome has contacted X for comment.

On the day of the Gambling Commission’s Board meeting on Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs), there are still fundamental questions that remain unanswered.

Do these checks actually work?

What actions will they trigger?

And what will they mean for ordinary punters?

Until those questions are answered clearly, the Commission should not press ahead.

FRAs were meant to be “frictionless” and workable in practice. The pilot was supposed to test that. Instead, it exposed serious concerns about whether the system is reliable, proportionate or fair, and whether it will genuinely improve protections for consumers.

The biggest issue is what happens after a customer is flagged. The Gambling Commission has focused heavily on the idea that most checks will be technically “frictionless”, but punters care about outcomes, not process. If an assessment leads to intrusive follow-up questions, requests for personal financial documents and account restrictions, then the customer experience will be severely disrupted.

And there are real questions about whether the underlying data can even be trusted. The same customer can receive different outcomes depending on which credit reference agency is used. If operators cannot rely on the consistency of the data being returned, they will be forced to act cautiously. In practice, that means more customers facing restrictions and being asked to provide sensitive financial documents.

We already know how consumers feel about that. Recent YouGov polling found 65 per cent of bettors would be unwilling to provide documents such as bank statements or payslips in order to continue betting. Faced with intrusive or inconsistent checks, punters will not simply stop betting – many will be driven straight into the arms of the growing illegal gambling black market, which offers none of the protections or safeguards available in the regulated sector.

That should concern everyone. The illegal gambling black market is growing rapidly, doubling in size over the past two years. Any policy that risks driving ordinary punters away from regulated operators and towards illegal sites would be deeply counterproductive. It would harm consumers, damage the regulated industry and cost the taxpayer.

It would also have serious consequences for British horseracing, which relies heavily on regulated betting for funding. Racing’s finances already face significant pressure, and any further migration of customers away from the regulated market risks reducing Levy revenues, sponsorship and media rights income that support the sport, its jobs and its long-term future.

Concerns about these proposals are no longer limited to the regulated industry. Even former supporters are now calling for a pause and rethink, including Dr James Noyes, who recently resigned from the Gambling Act Review Evaluation Advisory Group in protest over the Government’s approach to Financial Risk Assessments implementation. Parliamentarians from across the political spectrum have also raised serious concerns, alongside former Gambling Minister Stuart Andrew MP, who oversaw the original White Paper reforms. Newspapers including The Sun and the Racing Post, alongside more recently The Guardian and The Telegraph, have repeatedly highlighted the risks around intrusive checks, the threat to horseracing and the growth of the black market.

Which is why recent comments from Tim Miller, the Gambling Commission’s Executive Director of Research and Policy, were so surprising. Speaking at the CMS conference last week, he said: “you can’t evaluate something until you have implemented it.”

But that is precisely what the pilot was supposed to do. Its purpose was to test whether these proposals worked before implementation. What we have seen instead are unresolved concerns around consistency, reliability and customer impact.

The Betting and Gaming Council supports proportionate, evidence-based regulation that protects the vulnerable while allowing the 22.5m adults in Britain who enjoy a bet each month to do so safely. But good regulation must also be workable in practice. At the moment, these proposals do not meet that test and should not proceed in their current form.

John Stuart Mill (Stephen Burrows/Alamy)

4 min read21 May

It is a warning that many candidates may have longed to give but thought better of delivering. When John Stuart Mill stood for election as MP for the City Of Westminster in July 1865 he said he “could not undertake to give any… time and labour to… local interests”.

He also refused to canvass, believing that candidates ought to personally finance their campaigns. 

In addition to insisting that he wasn’t going to champion any constituency causes, Mill also said he would, as an MP, advocate for votes for women.

At the time, this was risible: Mill was widely mocked by cartoonists, who often portrayed him wearing women’s clothes. No wonder, then, that a contemporary said, “the Almighty himself would have no chance of being elected on such a programme”.

But elected he was, possibly to his own dismay. Later, he described his success as when “my tranquil and retired existence as a writer of books was… exchanged for the less congenial occupation of member of the House of Commons”.

He was an early celebrity candidate – Mill was already a household name at the time of his election. His A System of Logic was a bestseller in 1843, followed by Principles of Political Economy (1848). The essay for which he is still most famous, On Liberty (written with his wife, Harriet Taylor) was published in 1859, shortly followed by his seminal work on ethics, Utilitarianism (1861) and treatise on democracy, Considerations on Representative Government (1861).

Mill was elected in febrile political times, dominated by the question of extending the vote to all men. There were four prime ministers during Mill’s three-year term in Parliament (two Liberal, two Conservative). Whoever was in power, Mill was often critical of government policy and legislation. 

He made his maiden speech in February 1866 – on preventing cattle disease – using his economic knowledge to critique the fairness and workability of government plans for compensating landowners who owned infected livestock. In other speeches, he drew on his extensive knowledge of philosophy, history and the new subject of ‘social science’ to advocate for proportional representation; electoral reform; a London county council; enforcing a ban on smoking in trains; tighter laws on bankruptcy; changes to Britain’s extradition laws to protect political refugees; investment and reform in the Irish economy; and reform of the Poor Law. He also surprised some Liberal friends by speaking in favour of capital punishment and supporting government seizure of enemy goods in neutral ships.

Mill’s activity caused a deal of public dislike, and he received a lot of abuse through the post, including frequent death threats

Advertisement

Mill stood as a “working man’s” candidate within the Liberal Party – signalling his support for universal personhood suffrage – but acknowledged that his politics were more “advanced” than most contemporary Liberals. Not least, his support really was for “universal” suffrage (including women). He spoke on this issue many times, and presented a significant petition to Parliament (co-organised with his step-daughter, Helen Taylor). Along with this radical support for women’s votes, he advocated their equal access to education and work, and equal property rights.

Beyond this, Mill described his personal politics as “under the general designation of socialist”, and courted controversy while an MP through vehement support for freedom of speech, ardent opposition to the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and leadership of the attempted prosecution of governor Edward John Eyre for his violent suppression of the Morant Bay rebellion in Jamaica. He supported the interests of working people within Parliament, endeavouring to secure working people’s inclusion in a commission into trade unions, arguing in favour of changing Sabbatarian regulations to allow working people to attend lectures on Sundays and seek education for themselves, and sending money to defray the campaign expenses of working-class candidates. He even got into trouble with the deputy serjeant-at-arms for allowing members of the Reform Society (advocating for “manhood” suffrage) to form a “deputation” to MPs in the House of Commons tea room.

Mill’s activity caused a deal of public dislike, and he received a lot of abuse through the post, including frequent death threats. Despite this, he stood again for election in 1868, but was defeated by William Henry Smith (the WH Smith of railway/airport bookselling fame). Mill returned to writing on philosophical topics, spending most of his time in Avignon, where his wife was buried, and where he too was interred after his death in 1873. 

Helen McCabe is professor of Political Theory at the University of Nottingham. She is currently working in the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology as the thematic research lead for Arts and Humanities

Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner, Bridget Phillipson, and Lisa Nandy have all served as Cabinet ministers in Keir Starmer’s Labour government (Alamy)

5 min read6 hr

Members of the Women’s Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), including some who would back Andy Burnham or Wes Streeting in a future race, told PoliticsHome that the party is overdue a female leader.

A formal leadership challenge has not yet been launched to topple Starmer. However, either a contest or a coronation is widely seen as likely soon, after Streeting stepped down as health secretary last week and announced his intention to stand when a contest is underway, and Greater Manchester mayor Burnham announced that he will stand in a parliamentary by-election to re-enter Parliament.

If Burnham wins the Makerfield by-election in June, he is the top choice among Labour members to replace Starmer as leader – with 47 per cent ranking him as their first preference in a YouGov poll this week.

In the same poll, 31 per cent of members said they would support Starmer staying in post, with former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner trailing behind in third on just eight per cent, followed by Streeting on four per cent.

Rayner has long been seen as a potential successor to Starmer, and last week announced that she has resolved her tax affairs with HMRC following an investigation into whether she underpaid stamp duty on her £800,000 flat in Hove. 

Now that the investigation has been resolved, it potentially frees her up to make a bid for the leadership herself. However, if Burnham is able to stand, 69 per cent of party members would vote for him over Rayner, according to YouGov.

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, and Deputy Leader Lucy Powell are all also senior female Labour figures who could throw their hats in the ring – but none have nearly as much support across the party as Burnham.

“It’s depressing,” one female Labour MP who has called for the PM to resign told PoliticsHome. 

She said it was “frustrating” that the current leadership “haven’t fostered a culture” where a female leader emerging is “likely”, and described “wider societal misogyny that comes gunning for strong Labour women with a viciousness that you don’t see elsewhere”.

Labour MP Cat Eccles, who has also suggested that Starmer make way for a new leader, said: “We’re definitely overdue for a female leader and if or when we end up in a leadership contest, I hope we see some strong women contenders. 

“So, ideologically yes, but ultimately I think we need the person who can connect and communicate best with people.”

Multiple members of the Women’s PLP told PoliticsHome that female MPs were afraid to put themselves forward for leadership contests due to a combination of misogynistic bullying in the party and the level of online abuse directed towards female politicians on social media.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has previously told The House how she found the experience of running for leader so bruising it put her off ever doing it again.

Senior Labour MP Emily Thornberry recently ruled herself out. Asked by The House whether should try again for the top job, she replied: “No, no, no. I’ve done it before, and it was really difficult and a horrible experience.”

Others spoke about feeling frustrated that there has been a tendency for senior Labour male politicians to “talk about themselves” and that “journalists are just repeating this” – while many women in the PLP feel that the top women in the Cabinet, such as Bridget Phillipson and Shabana Mahmood, have been prioritising just getting on with their jobs.

“People (men) who name themselves get named as future leaders and bigged up,” one senior female Labour MP said.

While many women Labour MPs are disheartened by the prospect of having another male leader, they are also willing to overlook this in favour of a candidate who they believe might be able to turn the party and country around.

A female Labour MP who is likely to back Streeting in a contest said: “I’d be disappointed, but you can’t ‘make’ a woman stand for the sake of it. 

“I think the question should be: why do none of the brilliant women in the PLP feel like they can’t stand?”

The MP added that they believe Streeting has gained more support from the women’s PLP in recent months, and has particularly proven that he genuinely cares about tackling violence against women and girls.

Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who would support Burnham in a contest, said: “There are so many talented women in the Labour Party, but I think we all recognise that we are in extraordinary times where we need to ensure that we are able to stabilise the party and country, and therefore unite behind someone with the breadth of experience needed to do this.

“However, we must work beyond the current situation to ensure that the next leader is a woman.”

She argued that the “culture of politics” must change and that Starmer had moved it into a “far more authoritarian model”: “Whereas the roots of our party are built on the voices of people from our communities, where all are valid, and debate is encouraged.”

Some Labour MPs who are supportive of the prime minister staying in post suggested that the prospect of replacing a man with another man, when the Tories are on their fourth female leader, would be “embarrassing”.

One female Labour MP who is backing the PM said: “It reflects really badly on us as a party… We all need to think about how we change that.”

Male Labour MPs also told PoliticsHome they found it “disappointing” and “depressing” that the party was yet to select a permanent female leader, describing the party as having “many excellent female MPs”.

A male MP on the left of the Labour Party said they “blame the Labour right”. 

“By trying to exclude the left from future contests, they’ve, by default, also blocked women and Black candidates,” he continued. 

“However, I’m firmly of the opinion that sex and race are minor factors. Kemi Badenoch is both. As is Shabana Mahmood. Race and sex are not a guarantor of being a good candidate. Your actual class politics and political culture you embrace matter far more.”

Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a package of measures to tackle the cost of living in the House of Commons on Thursday. (Alamy)

4 min read5 hr

Addressing MPs in the House of Commons, Reeves referenced the US-Israeli war with Iran, stating she believed it had “been a mistake”, and said that she was “clear-eyed” about her duty to “support families and businesses to be responsive to a changing world”. 

In her statement, the Chancellor announced an extension of the 5p fuel duty increase freeze, stating she recognised “the pressure the war has put on fuel prices” for households and businesses. 

According to the RAC on Tuesday, petrol prices hit their highest average price since the beginning of the Iran war at 158.52p a litre – with diesel prices also extremely elevated at around 186p a litre. 

Reeves also said she was aware that the weekly food shop had become one of the “biggest worries for families”, and that the government would take action in this area. 

Food inflation sat at 3 per cent in the 12 months to April, higher than overall inflation at 2.8 per cent – with concerns more price spikes are on the horizon as disruption to global supply chains due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, creating steep increases in the price of fuel and fertiliser. 

“Last month, I met with supermarkets to urge them to do all they can to keep prices low, and today I am taking action by suspending tariffs on over 100 different foods sold in supermarkets,” said Reeves. 

“And I am clear that I expect supermarkets to pass these savings on in full to their customers.”

The Chancellor also said she was bringing forward tougher powers for the Competition and Markets Authority, warning she would “not tolerate any company exploiting the current situation to make excess profits at consumers’ expense”. 

Elsewhere, as well as an extension of the £3 bus fare cap, Reeves also announced free bus fares for 5-15 year olds during the month of August, as well as the Great British Summer Savings Scheme “to help families and support our hospitality sector”. 

Reeves said she was aware that for families it was not just about “getting by”, but also “being able to enjoy time together without worrying about the next bill” – announcing a raft of changes ahead of the school summer holidays. 

“I can today announce a temporary cut in the rate of the VAT on summer attractions from 20 per cent to 5 per cent over the summer,” said Reeves.

“This will apply to ticket prices for both adults and children, covering attractions such as fairs, theme parks, zoos, and museums.

“It will include children’s tickets for cinemas, concerts, soft play, and the theatre – and it will cut the cost of children’s meals in restaurants and cafes from 20 per cent VAT to 5 per cent, as well.”

The changes will start at the beginning of the Scottish school summer holidays at the end of June, and end on the 1st September. 

The Chancellor also said she stood “ready to act if market conditions worsen significantly later this year”, stating she had been “leading cross-government of potential future targeted and temporary support for businesses, any support will also need to be heavily targeted at firms most exposed to the crisis”. 

Responding the the Chancellor’s speech, shadow Chancellor Mel Stride said while he “welcomed” the announcement on fuel duty, “the Conservative Party has been campaigning against the fuel duty rise for months” – accusing the government of a “u-turn”. 

“That left motorists and businesses worried about even higher fuel prices in September,” said Stride. 

“It was always obvious that the fuel duty increase would need to be cancelled, obvious to everyone except the Chancellor.

“So, can I ask, why did the Chancellor fight us on fuel duty for so long? Why has she been so hell-bent on raising fuel duty during an enemy and an energy crisis?”

Stride also criticised the Chancellor for claiming the announcements were possible because “forecasts have improved”, and criticised the government for not announcing “measures to control government spending”.