IF YOU didn’t know better, you’d think Keir Starmer had just cured cancer, ended child poverty and guaranteed England’s victory at the World Cup – all with one authoritarian flourish of his pedantic Parker pen. Alas, his grand policy unveiling, complete with the obligatory smug smirk, was rather less heroic. Starmer has finally got his hands on the social media controls: a ban for under-16s, coming into force in spring next year.
Desperate for an audience as safe as the Downing Street mirror, Starmer delivered the policy announcement to a studio full of bereaved parents (those whose children died in cases linked to social media harms). Even then, he looked like he was losing the room, saying: ‘I am not prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children, and that is why this ban must happen, and that is why this ban will happen.’
It’s reassuring to know that this Labour government has children’s best interests at heart, because I confess I was beginning to have my doubts. What with the prioritisation of ‘community cohesion’ over a national inquiry into grooming gangs, votes at 16 (but no access to unfiltered information), aggressive self-ID adjacent policies in schools, biological males in women’s sports, an abject refusal to stop the small boats, turning a blind eye to adult migrants posing as schoolchildren and the general prioritisation of ideology and optics over actual safeguarding, it looked to the untrained eye like Labour didn’t give a hoot about children’s wellbeing unless there were votes in it.
Clearly, the untrained eye is no match for the blind eye.
Taking to the rostrum with the ill-disguised glee only a performative ban can yield, Starmer kicked off with the need for freedom in the Middle East, before pivoting to the need for totalitarian control at home. Then the sanctimony kicked in.
‘Government is always about choices,’ he said. ‘And it is clear to me that a full ban is the right choice. I come to it as a parent myself. I know exactly the fears we all feel when we’re thinking about this issue. You know, all I’ve ever wanted for my own children, hand on heart, is for them to be happy and for them to be safe. And I think that’s what any parent wants.’
Having installed himself as the nation’s Big Daddy, Starmer then proceeded to outline exactly what he is doing:
· Fighting for children’s ‘happiness and safety against the most powerful companies in the world’ (a clear shot at Elon Musk).
· ‘We are giving children their childhoods back’ (classic state overreach)
· ‘We will have to adapt our approach as technology changes . . . we have those powers’ (a tacit admission that this won’t be a one-off).
· ‘This is a huge step for our country. A step that I’ve taken after sitting down and listening particularly to parents who had lost usually a teenager in relation to what happened on social media’ (emotional shield, used to shut down debate).
As ever, Starmer is living proof that those who aspire to the office of milk monitor should never be trusted with such extreme power.
The irony of course is that social media, smartphones and technology in general are a huge problem – for adults as well as children. Even politicos like me, for whom X is indispensable as the first port of call for news, can find ourselves aimlessly doom-scrolling for hours on end. But surely, along with vices like alcohol and gambling, the emphasis should be on personal (and parental) responsibility rather than state control? Only in the hands of a zealot like Starmer could the social media overreach be so strong you automatically reach for the sign-up screen. Indeed, with Starmer’s hand now on your shoulder from cradle to grave, if he were delivering your eulogy, you’d find the strength to get up and walk out, wouldn’t you?
Call me a cynic, but I suspect Starmer’s latest incursion has little to do with child protection. For starters, Bluesky – the paedophiles’ network of choice – was initially excluded from the ban, whereas X (where Elon Musk is deeply critical of the PM) was centre stage. Furthermore, the age verification will easily be dodged by the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) – sales of which have rocketed 165 per cent in the last couple of days. What’s far more likely, is that mandatory facial scanning, banking checks or digital wallets will force the public to acquiesce to digital ID via the back door – something to which a majority of the British public objects.
Here’s Elon Musk putting it as bluntly as possible:
Meanwhile, here’s Technology Secretary Liz Kendall admitting she has no answer to the workaround of VPNs:
An authoritarian mind like Starmer’s (a man who always follows the rules himself) has difficulty registering the ingenuity humans have for circumventing stupid systems. In Australia, where a similar ban was implemented just six months ago, results have been mixed at best. According to Harry Dyer, Professor of Education at the University of East Anglia: ‘Their ban has not effectively stopped young people using social media.’ Children are dodging facial checks by uploading photographs of family members or even masks, with the eSafety Commission finding 70 per cent of parents reported their children were still on the banned platforms.
More to the point, blanket bans have no guarantee of success. In Starmer’s Britain for instance, young people’s access to knives – particularly through online sales – has been criminalised. And yet, you wouldn’t know it by the jousting tournaments playing out daily on the streets of London. It’s not just knives, either. Britain has a proud tradition of underage smoking, drink and drugs. We continue to lead Europe in teenage pregnancies – and, last time I checked, that was illegal too.
Most disappointing of all are the swathes of soi-disant conservatives, rejoicing as the nanny state relieves them of the parenting duties they so willingly eschew. Those like Shadow Secretary of State for Education, Laura Trott:
Or, Britain’s strictest headmistress, Katharine Birbalsingh:
Contrary to Westminster opinion, happiness is not the remit of the state. Safety, arguably, is. But they’re not doing a convincing job of that either. It is, and has always been, for parents to decide how to raise their children – and outsourcing that responsibility to Nanny Starmer is only going to end in tears.
If the Prime Minister has his way, at 16 you’ll soon be able to vote, join the Army, even have your own children – but still need him to set your bedtime.
This article appeared in the Frank Report on June 16, 2026, and is republished by kind permission.
