UK Politics

Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorThe role of social media in the violence and disorder on Britain’s streets has become a key issue in recent days, with the moderation and regulation of platforms coming under scrutiny.Here is a closer look at how content moderation currently works and what regulation of the sector could change it.– How do social media sites moderate content currently?All major social media platforms have community rules that they require their users to follow, but how they enforce these rules can vary depending on how their content moderation teams are set up and how they carry out that process.Most of the biggest sites have several thousand human moderators looking at content that has been flagged to them or has been found proactively by human staff or software and AI-powered tools designed to spot harmful material.– What are the limitations as it stands?There are several key issues with content moderation in general, including; the size of social media makes it hard to find and remove everything harmful posted; moderators – both human and artificial – can struggle to spot nuanced or localised context and therefore sometimes mistake the harmful for the innocent; and moderation is heavily reliant on users reporting content to them – something which doesn’t always happen in online echo chambers.Furthermore, the use of encrypted messaging on some sites means not all content is publicly visible and can be spotted and reported by other users; instead, they rely on those inside encrypted groups reporting potentially harmful content.Crucially, a number of cuts have also been made to content moderation teams at many tech giants recently, often because of financial pressures, which have also impacted content teams’ ability to respond.At X, formerly Twitter, Elon Musk drastically cut back the site’s moderation staff after taking over the company as part of his cost-saving measures, and as he repositioned the site as a platform that would allow more “free speech”, substantially loosening its policies around prohibited content.The result is harmful material is able to spread on the biggest platforms, and why there have long been calls for tougher regulation to force sites to do more.– So how realistic is it to expect all harmful content to be removed?Under the current set-up, not very.In many instances, social media platforms are taking action against posts inciting or encouraging the disorder.As well as through enforcing their own rules, offences around incitement of violence are covered under the Public Order Act 1986, meaning the police as well as social media firms can take action based on any such posts.However, the speed at which this harmful or misleading content spreads can make it difficult for platforms to get every post taken down or have its visibility restricted before it is seen by many other users.New regulation of social media platforms – the Online Safety Act – became law in the UK last year but has not yet fully come into effect.Once in place, it will require platforms to take “robust action” against illegal content and activity, including around offences such as inciting violence.– So how will the Online Safety Act help?The new laws will, for the first time, make firms legally responsible for keeping users, and in particular children, safe when they use their services.Overseen by Ofcom, the new laws will not specifically focus on the regulator removing pieces of content itself, but it will require platforms to put in place clear and proportionate safety measures to prevent illegal and other harmful content from appearing and spreading on their sites.Crucially, clear penalties will be in place for those who do not comply with the rules.In a few months, new safety duties under the Online Safety Act will be in place, but you can act now – there is no need to wait to make your sites and apps safer for usersOfcom open letterOfcom will have the power to fine companies up to £18 million or 10% of their global revenue, whichever is greater – meaning potentially billions of pounds for the largest platforms.In more severe cases, Ofcom will be able to seek a court order imposing business disruption measures, which could include forcing internet service providers to limit access to the platform in question.And most strikingly, senior managers can be held criminally liable for failing to comply with Ofcom in some instances.A set of penalties it hopes will compel platforms to take greater action on harmful content.In an open letter published on Wednesday, Ofcom urged social media companies to do more to deal with content stirring up hatred or provoking violence on Britain’s streets.The watchdog said: “In a few months, new safety duties under the Online Safety Act will be in place, but you can act now – there is no need to wait to make your sites and apps safer for users.”The letter, signed by Ofcom director for online safety Gill Whitehead, said it would publish guidance “later this year” setting out what social media companies are required to do to tackle “content involving hatred, disorder, provoking violence or certain instances of disinformation”.It added: “We expect continued engagement with companies over this period to understand the specific issues they face and we welcome the proactive approaches that have been deployed by some services in relation to these acts of violence across the UK.” More

Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorRobert Jenrick has sparked outrage after saying people shouting “Allahu Akbar” on London streets “should be arrested immediately”.“Allahu Akbar” is an Arabic phrase meaning “God is greater” or “God is [the] greatest” which is commonly used in prayer and as a declaration of faith.Asked whether he believes the UK has a system of “two-tier policing”, Mr Jenrick told Sky News: “I have been very critical of the police in the past, particularly around the attitude of some police forces to the protests that we saw since October 7.“I thought it was quite wrong that somebody could shout ‘Allahu Akbar’ on the streets of London and not be immediately arrested. Or project genocidal chants onto Big Ben and that person not be immediately arrested. That attitude is wrong and I’ll always call out the police.”In February, pro-Palestine protesters projected the phrase “From the river to the sea” onto Parliament during a demonstration, drawing anger from some pro-Israel supporters who argue the disputed phrase calls for the eradication of the state of Israel.Sharing a video on X of men in balaclavas chanting “Allahu Akbar”, Mr Jenrick later added: “’Allahu Akbar’ is spoken peacefully and spiritually by millions of British Muslims in their daily lives.“But the aggressive chanting below is intimidatory and threatening. And it’s an offence under Section 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act.“Extremists routinely abuse common expressions for their own shameful ends. All violence must end. All violence must be called out.”Mr Jenrick has been accused of stoking tensions rather than easing them as England faces racist rioting More

Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditor A Polish man on Wednesday was sentenced to four months in jail for assaulting the Danish prime minister as well as separate sexual harassment charges. He will also be deported and banned from returning to Denmark for the next six years. The unidentified 39-year-old man, held in pretrial custody since the assault, has been charged with punching Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s right shoulder with a clenched fist, causing her to lose her balance but not fall. Frederiksen suffered whiplash at the time. The Copenhagen District Court issued the sentencing, which the defendant didn’t appeal. The court said the assault “emphasized the nature of the violence and that the violence against the prime minister occurred in connection with her performance of her duties as prime minister.”The man had also confessed before the court to other charges, including sexual harassment by exposing himself to passing people and groping a woman at a commuter train station, and fraud involving deposit-marked bottles and cans at two supermarkets. Prosecutor Anders Larsson on Wednesday demanded four months in jail for assaulting the prime minister and for exposing his private parts to passersby, saying while his sexual acts were not gross, they “were certainly uncomfortable” for those seeing it, according to public broadcaster DR. “His behavior and demeanor are far removed from a citizen who should be in our society,” Larsson said in court, according to DR.Frederiksen was on a private break from the Social Democratic Party’s campaign for the elections to renew the European Parliament when the assault took place on a busy downtown Copenhagen plaza. The 46-year-old prime minister, who has been in office since 2019, had been campaigning for her party’s EU lead candidate, Christel Schaldemose, who was elected. The attack was not linked to the campaign event.The assault happened as violence against politicians in Europe spread in the run-up to the European Union elections.In May, a candidate from Germany’s center-left Social Democrats was beaten and seriously injured while campaigning.In Slovakia, the campaign was overshadowed by an attempt to assassinate populist Prime Minister Robert Fico on May 15, sending shockwaves through the nation and reverberating throughout Europe. Fico was shot in the abdomen and seriously wounded. The suspect was immediately arrested and faces terror charges. More

Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorRachel Reeves wants to create a ‘Canadian style’ pensions model to “fire up” the UK economy. The government is considering consolidating local government pension schemes – to become big enough to invest billions in Britain. It comes as Labour faces pressure to deliver on its ambitious growth targets.The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) has questioned the Starmer government’s decision to cancel infrastructure projects which would have boosted growth. Last week, in response to what she said was a newly discovered £22 billion black hole in the public finances, Ms Reeves scrapped rail projects and a new hospital building program.Rachel Reeves says Canadian model for pension funds can ‘fire up’ UK economy (Dominic Lipinski/PA) More

Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorThe wife of a Tory councillor has been arrested for hate crimes after she called for hotels with asylum seekers in them to be set ablaze.Lucy Connolly, 41, took to X (formerly Twitter) writing: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the b******* for all I care… If that makes me racist, so be it.”She has since deleted the tweet and apologised, claiming she had acted on “false and malicious” information. But a number of people made complaints to the police about her allegedly inciting violence.Northamptonshire Police confirmed on Tuesday night that a 41-year-old woman had been arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred and remains in custody.Lucy Connolly has been arrested over a Twitter post More

Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorSadiq Khan has warned members of the far-right targeting London they will feel the “full force” of the law. The Labour mayor has also asked Londoners to check on their friends and neighbours as the capital braces for violence. “Show them that care and compassion is what Londoners are all about,” he wrote on X, formerly Twitter.”In London, we have zero-tolerance for racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism or any form of hate and we pride ourselves on being open, diverse and welcoming of all faiths and backgrounds. It’s woven deeply into the fabric of our great city and is why those who seek to divide our communities will never win.”Riot police hold back protesters near a burning police vehicle after disorder broke out in Southport last week More

Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorHalf of Britons believe Sir Keir Starmer is handling the riots sweeping the UK badly, a new poll has found.Some 49 per cent of people said they felt the prime minister is dealing with the disorder poorly, while just 31 per cent of those surveyed said he was managing it well.The polling, conducted by YouGov on Monday, also saw 43 per cent of respondents say home secretary Yvette Cooper was handling the situation badly, with only 23 per cent saying her response has been good. Sir Keir Starmer will chair a second Cobra meeting in two days amid ongoing violent disorder. (Alberto Pezzali/PA) More

Support trulyindependent journalismFind out moreCloseOur mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.Louise ThomasEditorCalls for electoral reform have increased following the results of last month’s election.Reform UK claims the first-past-the-post system is “broken” and the Liberal Democrats have long argued lack of proportional representation robs millions of voters of their voice.We were inundated when we asked readers to submit their burning questions on electoral reform and proportional representation.It’s clear that whatever happens, there is a renewed debate about electoral reform and that is to be welcomed.Here are seven questions from Independent readers – and my answers from the “Ask Me Anything” event.Q: Will proportional representation make any difference to ordinary people’s lives, and how?captaintrippsA: It’s fair to say government policies on the economy and public services have much more impact on people’s daily lives than the system we use to elect the government. But I believe the health of our democracy matters. The recent election was the most disproportionate in UK history. It’s hard to justify a party winning almost two-thirds of the seats with a third of the votes.Q: Should England also have its own devolved English Parliament like Scotland and Wales?Independent EnglandA: I’m not sold on the idea of an English Parliament. The “English question” is real, but I think it’s being answered by the creation of directly elected mayors. Labour wants to extend them to other areas. If the mayors can work with the government in helping to secure economic growth – rather than argue with ministers about money – their status will be enhanced.In the long run, I quite like Labour’s idea of making the House of Lords more representative of the regions and nations. That would also address the “English question.” Whether major Lords reform ever happens is another matter. Perhaps it’s on Labour’s list for its third five-year term, which might never arrive!Q: Has any research been done which shows how voters may cast their votes differently under PR? alfafileA: I’m not aware of any such research. There would probably be less tactical voting under a PR system. First-past-the-post arguably allows people to express an opinion about one party and it might be a negative one. PR allows more choice and preferences.One interpretation of last month’s election is that it was an anti-Conservative vote, but I think it was also an anti-political establishment vote even though Labour won a huge majority. Labour and the Tories won only 58 per cent of the total votes between them, their lowest combined share ever.I believe PR would boost turnout by tackling the “wasted vote” problem. Last month, 58 per cent of people backed a candidate who did not win; the average in elections since 1945 is 47 per cent. So only 42 per cent of people are now represented by an MP of their choice. It’s higher with PR – for example, 90 per cent in Germany and 92 per cent in Denmark.Q: Given that the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the French 4th republic are generally reckoned to be as a result of their having PR, whilst the Greeks give a bonus 50 MPs to the party that gets the most seats, it’s clear that there are reasons to be sceptical. PR is no panacea. Do you have any solutions to those issues?Ender’s ShadowA: PR is not a panacea, but I think it would be an improvement on first-past-the-post (FPTP). From memory, about 40 of the 43 European countries use PR in some form and there’s some polling evidence of higher public satisfaction with democracy there than in nations like the UK and France which do not use it.I think the argument that FPTP brings stable government has been tested to destruction in the UK in recent years. Supporters of electoral reform point to a study showing that countries using PR outperform those without it on eight out of 10 measures of political stability such as completing a term of office and the turnover of ministers. We’ve certainly had a high turnover in the UK in recent years!Q: Does a move to PR actually require a referendum to enact (as in 2011) or can it be implemented by Parliament alone through legislation?TheMadGeologistA: It’s true that the approach of Labour and the Conservatives towards PR is governed by self-interest (though you could say the same about the smaller parties who support PR). There is growing support inside Labour for PR. Its party conference voted for it in 2022. About a third of Labour MPs backed it in the last parliament and that proportion has now grown.But but but… to be realistic, it’s going to be hard to persuade the Labour leadership to back this “change” after the party has just won a majority of 174. A small number of Conservatives support PR but many fear it would lock their party out of power by ensuring a permanent Lab-Lib Dem coalition.The best chance of PR going to the top of Labour’s or the Tories’ agenda is in a hung parliament, when it would be a key demand of the Lib Dems. That’s how we got the 2011 referendum, as part of the Lib-Con coalition deal.As for D’Hondt, the formula which translates votes on the regional list into seats in the Scottish Parliament, I’m afraid I will need to consult the professor – John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University.In theory, a party could claim a mandate for changing the voting system if it had been explicit about it in its manifesto. The House of Lords would not block the legislation in these circumstances. In practice, I think any party would feel honour bound to hold a referendum on such a big constitutional change.Q: Will the regional assemblies Labour are proposing become the secondary democratic institutions that allow for the House of Lords to be abolished and PR introduced in the commons?TabbersA: I don’t think Labour is committed to regional assemblies. The Blair government held a referendum on setting up one in the North East in 2004 but the idea was overwhelmingly rejected. The Starmer government’s focus is on the directly elected mayors.Some Labour figures favour a directly elected House of Lords, with representatives from the regions and nations. But would the Commons ever agree to set up a rival chamber with its own mandate? I rather doubt it.Q: What PR system is best? MMP (NZ, Germany) or STV?Russell SimpsonA: The Electoral Reform Society regards STV as the “gold standard” on the grounds it provides maximum choice. I prefer mixed member PR, known as the additional member system (AMS) in the Scottish and Welsh parliaments because it preserves a link between voters and a local constituency MP while securing a proportional result through a top-up from a regional party list. I’ve met ministers from other countries who are amazed that British ministers have constituencies and hold regular surgeries for their residents. A lot of voters think our politicians are out of touch, but this contact provides a vital link between them and the real world.These questions and answers were part of an ‘Ask Me Anything’ hosted by Andrew Grice at 12pm BST on Friday 2 August. Some of the questions and answers have been edited for this article. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article.If you want more political comment, news and insight, sign up for John Rentoul’s weekly Commons Confidential newsletter exclusive to Independent Premium subscribers, taking you behind the curtain of Westminster. If this sounds like something you would be interested in, head here to find out more. More