As a British citizen living in the EU, I’m acutely aware of attitudes towards migrants, both at home and abroad. I have always – most especially since Brexit – been deeply conscious of how well I am treated in my new home country. I have been welcomed by my Spanish neighbours with warmth and kindness and made to feel part of the family. It is an attitude that has been reflected – both in rhetoric and action – by the Spanish government, and one our own British government would do well to replicate.

Spain promoting the benefits of immigration

President Pedro Sanchez has been very vocal on the benefits of immigration to the Spanish economy. Not only has he championed the need for migrant workers in a country with an ageing population, but he’s also announced measures to help with integration, insisting that Spain has “both the need and the capacity to integrate”.

In October 2024, Sanchez described the Spanish people as the “children of migration” and suggested making “a migration policy that our elders can be proud of”. He called on the government, and the country, to create a strategy that would guarantee the future of the country’s grandchildren, and that of the welfare state.

UK government demonising immigrants

In stark contrast, the British government – in an apparent attempt to out-manoeuvre Reform UK – have moved farther right on immigration than most of us could ever have expected or wished for.

When Labour came to power, their manifesto spoke of – amongst other things – economic growth, fixing the NHS and having a “stronger and safer relationship with the rest of the world”. Ironic, then, that recent changes to their immigration policy will likely have a negative impact on each of those pledges, reliant as they are on the support of hard-working foreign workers.

Recent rhetoric from both Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has been increasingly anti-immigrant, and very different from their earlier stances when in opposition. Unsurprisingly, given the language used, there has been considerable condemnation of the latest government position from many quarters, including from with the Labour Party itself.

Keir Starmer’s anti-immigration rhetoric isn’t just a dog whistle — it’s a foghorn to the far right.

It echoes Enoch Powell & fuels hate. Last summer, a hotel housing asylum seekers was set on fire. This is the deadly cost of pandering to racism.

Shame on the Prime Minister.

[image or embed]

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana.bsky.social) 14 May 2025 at 18:28

Toxic language for a toxic policy

Labour’s recent pledges on immigration are promising to reduce net migration and the reliance on overseas workers. As political aims, those promises may be largely welcomed. What was not welcomed – or warranted – was the horrifying, dog-whistle language in Starmer’s recent speech.

The prime minister referred to the UK as an “island of strangers” – terminology that immediately elicited comparisons to Enoch Powell’s infamous ‘rivers of blood’ speech in 1968. Following the criticism, No 10 then defended the tone of the speech saying that “tough words and tough policy are required to solve tough problems”.

All rather different from the Starmer of 2020 who said, “we welcome migrants, we don’t scapegoat them,” and who said we must “make the case for the benefits of migration, the benefits of free movement”. Those were the days

Making foreigners feel unwelcome

As if changes in tone and policy re migrant numbers were not enough, the latest nail in the coffin for foreigners living in the UK is a change in policy re settlement status. For those already traumatised by changing attitudes towards migrants thanks to Brexit, the latest plan – to make them wait 10 years before applying for a right to stay indefinitely – must seem particularly cruel.

How the EU will view these developments, and the impact on their citizens, ahead of the EU/UK summit, remains to be seen.

Living in Spain, I feel lucky to be treated with kindness and respect by both the government and its people. Thanks to the Tories and Brexit, I lost any remaining pride in my birth country but looked to the new Labour government with hope and optimism. With a large majority, a leader with apparent intelligence and integrity, and the promise of ‘change’, anything seemed possible.

Despite the damage caused by Brexit, UKIP/Reform UK and the Tories, surely things were about to improve. Sadly, not – it would appear that appeasing the right, rather than defending the left is where we’re at.

Labour still has the chance to be different, to be radical, to be compassionate. They must not squander it. They won’t get many more chances to prove they are any different, better than the alternatives. If they fail to listen, we’ll all be the losers.

Since Donald Trump announced his Liberation Day tariffs, the major players in global trade have been planning their retaliation. Despite Trump having now paused these retaliatory tariffs for 90 days for everyone except China, the unpredictability of his U-turns and volatile decision-making is keeping everyone on edge, and the baseline 10% tariff remains. Whether formerly friend or foe, ally or adversary, countries around the world will be taking the next three months to prepare swift and proportionate responses.

The UK, on the other hand, is clinging to the belief that a ‘special relationship’ with the US still exists, regardless of anything President Trump says or does.

🇺🇸TRUMP: THESE COUNTRIES ARE CALLING US UP, KISSING MY ASS

That's what Donald Trump said about the countries on which the US imposed tariffs.

💬"Please, sir, make a deal.

I'll do anything.

I'll do anything, sir". pic.twitter.com/RMWkDgS5eZ

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) April 9, 2025

Please, sir, may we have a deal?

When Trump attended a fundraising dinner hosted by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) on Tuesday, he was expected to make a short after dinner speech. Instead, he spoke at length about his policy agenda, the need to protect the Republican majority in the upcoming midterm elections, and, of course, tariffs. (The less said about Hannibal Lecter, the better!).

Despite the overwhelming evidence of worldwide stock market chaos since his original tariff plans were announced, Trump declared, “we’re making a fortune in tariffs”. While it may be true that some Americans are making a fortune, your average US consumer looked set to bear the brunt of the resulting price rises. Even the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, had withdrawn his support for Trump’s tariffs, perhaps due to the value of shares in his own companies having taken a nosedive.

In his NRCC speech, Trump also claimed that countries around the world were willing to “do anything” to get a deal. Foreign leaders, he said, were so desperate to strike a US trade deal that they were “calling us up and kissing my ass”.

Though not Putin, of course, as no tariffs had been imposed on Russia. Draw your own conclusions.

Please sir, Mr Trump sir, may we please have a deal sir, please sir, please? https://t.co/u0L6pThBiv pic.twitter.com/taiXeFsL4W

— Andrew Parnall (@dontbrexitfixit) April 9, 2025

Keeping all options on the table

On the same day Trump was making his speech, Prime Minister Starmer was appearing before the liaison committee and was questioned about negotiations with the US. On digital services, Starmer said he was prepared to consider tax cuts for tech billionaires like Musk and Jeff Bezos, even if that required changes to the online safety bill. Which rather begs the question: if the government is prepared to water down one bill or policy for a deal with our ‘special’ friends across the pond, which others bills or policies might be at risk?

Not the NHS, said the PM. Starmer told the committee he has ruled out selling access to the NHS to American companies, though Trump would likely demand full access in exchange for a deal. Trump is proposing “a major tariff on pharmaceuticals” imminently – a move designed to force more manufacturing giants to relocate to America.

With regards to a trade deal with America, Starmer advised the committee that, “we have to keep our options on the table and do the preparatory work for retaliation if necessary. But I think that trying to negotiate an arrangement which mitigates the tariffs is better”.

Still seemingly determined to avoid any “knee-jerk” reaction, Starmer insisted UK businesses want a “calm and collective response”, and “nobody wants a trade war”.

Keir Starmer faced awkward moments as he was pressed by senior MPs at a wide-ranging Liaison Committee session on subjects including tariffs, benefits and votes for 16 year olds.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/politic…

[image or embed]

— BremainInSpain (@bremaininspain.com) 8 April 2025 at 23:53

Not-so-special relationship

While Starmer refuses to rule out potentially striking back at US tariffs, he continues to maintain the existence of the ‘special relationship’. What once would have been described as a strong alliance is now a risky association with an unreliable partner – one that relies too much on a shared history and ignores the fact that today’s America is a very different beast from our longstanding ally.

Of course, the importance of cooperation – especially on defence and security – should not be understated. When Starmer met with Trump recently in the White House, he said, “No two countries have done more together to keep people safe,” adding that no two militaries “were more intertwined”. America’s changing policy on the defence of Ukraine could put that theory to the test.

"We don’t need to choose, but we urgently need to prioritise and both the economics and public opinion point in one direction – towards 1.5% GDP growth with Europe."

👉 Our CEO @pimlicat.bsky.social on why we need to prioritise our relationship with the EU over the US.
www.lbc.co.uk/opinion/view…

[image or embed]

— Best for Britain (@bestforbritain.bsky.social) 4 April 2025 at 10:48

Time to take sides

The British government’s apparent urgency in striking a deal with Trump might be commendable, but trade deals – even much smaller ones – generally take years, not weeks or months. Just ask the Tories, who tried and failed to secure a US trade deal on numerous occasions.

Leaving the US aside, and with Trump becoming ever more unreliable and unpredictable, there has never been a better time to strengthen relationships elsewhere, especially on our own doorstep. The fact that Starmer and his government remain so intransigent when it comes to the EU – and Brexit in particular – shows an unwillingness to listen or to be flexible when the situation demands.

There has never been a better time, a more important time, to take sides. Diplomacy apart, the UK cannot keep a foot in both camps in an attempt to appease an authoritarian president. As Naomi Smith, CEO of Best for Britain says, “If you stand in the middle of the road, you’ll get hit by traffic coming from both directions”, and the results won’t be pretty

Real change comes from embracing the EU

As Starmer said himself in the run up to last year’s election, “it’s time for change”. Time for Labour to make a U-turn and embrace the EU – a mere “reset” of UK/EU relations will not be enough. Time to abandon the government’s damaging, incomprehensible red lines and negotiate a deal with partners that share our goals, values and geography. Time to get back to the negotiating table with the grown-ups and leave the tantrums to the toddlers.

Let us apply caution and consideration by all means, but let’s not get left standing all alone with nothing to show for it but our principles. Only a win-win agreement is worth negotiating, and that kind of deal is just not in Trump’s vocabulary.

Politicians of all political persuasions acknowledge that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. But they often disagree on who is allowed to exercise this hard-won civil liberty.

For the far-right – and Donald Trump’s America in particular – the right to free speech is reserved only for those who share the same undemocratic views. While touting the importance of free speech at every opportunity, President Trump, Vice President Vance, and their sidekick Elon Musk have done everything they can to limit opportunities for dissent.

Speak freely, but only if you agree with me

Whether it’s threatening journalists with prosecution, slashing funding for universities that allow peaceful protests, or attacking anyone who tries to protect their First Amendment rights, the Trump government attacks opinions that don’t align with its policy. This is despite Trump declaring, without a hint of irony, in his State of the Union address that he had “stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America”.

One of the latest casualties of Trump’s crackdown on “radical propaganda” is the cancellation of federal funding for the Voice of America. The international news organisation, which reaches hundreds of millions of people worldwide every week, was set up during World War II to counter Nazi propaganda. All 1,300 employees have been put on paid leave. This seems to be part of a broader trend to undermine independent media. But who needs a free, independent press anyway? Certainly not Trump, Vance or Musk.

Perhaps JD Vance could come back to Munich and give everyone in Europe a refresher of his gripping TedX Talk on "freedom of speech". ~AA pic.twitter.com/4pgep2BA1D

— Best for Britain (@BestForBritain) March 4, 2025

Europe in their sights

But the hypocrisy doesn’t stop at US borders. As if the attacks on democracy and freedom at home weren’t bad enough, the US government is also attacking Europe. While restricting the freedom of Americans to express themselves openly, JD Vance accused Europe, while attending a security conference in Munich recently, of depriving its own citizens of freedom of speech. For good measure, Vance also criticised European governments for ignoring the will of the people (now, where have I heard that before?) and for failing to halt the immigration of undocumented people. According to Vance, Europe has retreated from its “most fundamental values – values shared with the USA”.

JD Vance, "The entire idea of Christian civilisation that was formed in Europe"

"Europe is starting to limit the free speech of their own citizens"

"If Germany allows more immigrants come in from countries that are totally culturally incompatible with Germany, Germany will have killed itself"

[image or embed]

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog.bsky.social) 15 March 2025 at 15:18

No sooner had Vance attacked European values abroad than the insult was repeated on American soil. When a French researcher was expelled from the States for expressing a “personal opinion” on Trump himself, it sparked a diplomatic row.

The academic, who had his personal laptop and mobile phone confiscated, was on an assignment for the French National Centre for Scientific Research. He was accused of sending “hateful” and “conspiratorial” messages that reflected “hatred towards Trump” and could be “described as terrorism”.

How this fits with the CIA’s definition of terrorism – “the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective” – is anyone’s guess.

Seems that Trump’s boast to have: “brought free speech back to America” only applies if he agrees with what is being said.

www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/d…

[image or embed]

— Otto English (@ottoenglish.bsky.social) 20 March 2025 at 07:49

The UK must avoid making the same mistakes

While the threat to free speech and expression in the UK may not match the insane levels of undemocratic activity in the US, there are some worrying signs. For example, according to Human Rights Watch, the British government is failing to uphold our democratic freedoms, particularly the right to peaceful protest. Furthermore, legislation requiring universities to take “reasonable steps” to promote free speech – the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 – looks likely to be scrapped.

Our own far-right politicians, whether of the Reform UK or Tory variety, have also proven time and again that they are in favour of free speech – but only their own, not that of their opposition. Heaven help any minority or ‘woke’ commentator who expresses an alternative opinion.

Your voice matters. You have the right to say what you think and demand a better world. You also have the right to agree or disagree with those in power, and to express these opinions in peaceful protests.

Freedom of expression is a human right. Everywhere. pic.twitter.com/3k27ubQRHR

— Amnesty International USA (@amnestyusa) September 16, 2024

Freedom of expression is a basic human right that should be defended at all costs. We can only hope that our own government learns the lesson and doesn’t follow the far-right of the US or the UK down an undemocratic path.

Dr Martin Luther King Jr said the ability to speak one’s mind was no less a human right than is freedom from more painful and obvious abuses. Although the French writer and philosopher Voltaire may not actually have coined the phrase, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” it remains the acid test of such freedoms.

Even Musk said, back in 2023, “If we lose freedom of speech, it’s never coming back”. How ironic then that he, Trump and Vance are now trying so hard to take that right away.

We face growing threats to free speech. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves if we can afford to let this right be eroded by those who claim to protect it.

Dear Secretary of State for the Home Department,

I am writing in regard to the latest government proposals regarding asylum seekers. Your plans – which are both cruel and incomprehensible – aim to deny those already granted legal asylum the right to apply for British citizenship.

Preventing refugees from being granted British citizenship because they were forced to take a dangerous journey to find safety here, flies in the face of reason.

We urge Ministers to urgently reconsider.https://t.co/rbrJqj2TmN

— Refugee Council 🧡 (@refugeecouncil) February 11, 2025

The proposal to remove the right of citizenship from anyone who has “arrived illegally” or via a dangerous route, may have hit the headlines, but for all the wrong reasons. Not only will the plan further the demonisation of vulnerable refugees but seems destined to usher in a return of the ‘hostile environment’ – something we had hoped to have seen the last of with the demise of your Tory predecessors.

I can only assume this is yet another desperate Labour attempt to court right-wing voters, even as you visibly haemorrhage support from a public far more tolerant of freedom of movement than you are. What you may also have failed to notice is that the support you are losing is emanating from the left, not the right.

Yet more performative cruelty. This means someone who fled for their life 25 yrs ago, got refugee status in the UK, and has been part of their community here ever since – maybe married, had kids, started a business – can never be a citizen. That’s not right.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/article…

[image or embed]

— Carla Denyer (@carladenyer.bsky.social) 12 February 2025 at 12:15

Flying in the face of reason

According to the Refugee Council, over 70,000 former refugees could be prevented from being granted citizenship by this new proposal. A decision, they say, that “flies in the face of reason” and for which there has been no debate in parliament. I therefore urge you to read the Council’s official statement, and to reconsider, as they have suggested.

With the exception of the far right, it would appear the idea is also unpopular in Westminster. Carla Denyer, co-leader of the Green Party has described the plan as “performative cruelty” and commented that it takes no account of how long or engaged an immigrant has been in British society. Human rights campaigner, Labour Lord Alf Dubs, described the move as “shocking” and “small-minded”. Not only was it “a mean-spirited gesture”, he said, but it “would not deter anyone”.

Even Labour’s own Stella Creasy says the move would deny a refugee “a place in our society” making them “forever second-class”. I assume that is not your intention.

This should be changed asap.

If we give someone refugee status, it can't be right to then refuse them route to become a British Citizen. To say they can have a home in our country, but never a place in our society and be forever second class. freemovement.org.uk/good-charact…

[image or embed]

— Stella Creasy MP (@stellacreasy.bsky.social) 11 February 2025 at 16:01

Concessions welcome but not enough

Many refugees granted asylum will have been in the UK for years, if not decades. Many will be married, with children, working or running businesses and well-integrated into British society. Those who arrived in the country as children could, at least in theory, be allowed to apply for citizenship. But in the current political climate, will immigration caseworkers be willing to take a stand and use those discretionary powers to make those exceptions?

Children are being exempted from the government's obscene ban on refugees becoming citizens. Progressives should keep pushing. Concessions are possible. Write to your MP.
inews.co.uk/news/politic…

[image or embed]

— Ian Dunt (@iandunt.bsky.social) 12 February 2025 at 19:53

While any concessions you would be willing to make would be welcome, I really can’t see how this sow’s ear of a policy could possibly be turned into a silk purse. Surely, it would be better to get ahead of the political, media and public pressure and dump this controversial policy now.

Have Labour lost the plot?

If one incomprehensible plan to outdo Reform UK and the Tories on immigration wasn’t bad enough, then there’s your inexplicable and expensive plan to film and share the deportations of failed asylum seekers. In a move that’s worthy only of Farage or Trump, it’s understandable why migration expert Zoe Gardner would ask “has Labour finally lost the plot?”. It’s a question that many of us have been asking ourselves, and one for which there seems to be only one answer.

Has Labour finally lost the plot & lost the progressives once & for all?

VIDEO DEPORTATIONS: Reform & Labour voters REACTION youtu.be/NAjl2Pe8z44?…

[image or embed]

— Zoe Gardner (@zoejardiniere.bsky.social) 12 February 2025 at 18:17

Not only is the whole approach dehumanising, but it could destroy trust within migrant communities. Surely the staggering cost of the scheme would be better spent on clearing the asylum backlog, fixing asylum accommodation issues and rebuilding migrant communities damaged by last year’s race riots.

Not what we voted for

After 14 years of Tory rule, a Labour government – especially one with a large majority – was a welcome relief. The country had high hopes of the much-hyped “change” that the prime minister repeatedly promised us.

We didn’t assume that things would change overnight. We weren’t expecting miracles. But we did at least hope the new government would distance itself from the policies of the right and far right.

We expected compassion, decency and common sense. We dreamt of an honest debate about the value of immigration to our society and our economy. We even dared hope for the introduction of safe routes for asylum seekers. Instead, we have had to deal with a government increasingly afraid of its own history and its own shadow.

I don’t doubt that there is genuine concern in government about the growth of the far right and the threat they present in the polls. However, jumping on the far-right bandwagon is not the answer – surely the demise of the Tory party is proof enough of that.

No, there is only one way to beat the Farages and Trumps of this world, and that is to expose them for what they are, and by demonstrating to the country – and the world – that there is a better way.

You must not allow compassion, decency and honesty to go out of fashion, or your party will inevitably suffer the same fate. And it will be nobody’s fault but your own.

Yours sincerely,

Sue Wilson MBE

Addicted to his own platform, free speech hypocrite and walking God complex Elon Musk, is clearly indulging in political interference on a vast scale. Search ‘ban X’ on BlueSky or X. You will see growing calls for governments to act against X for its role in disinformation and Musk’s recent attacks on sovereign nations and their elected politicians.

Musk supports free speech, his advocates say, but there are glaring contradictions amongst the ‘free speech’ warrior brigade. Firstly, their rampant hypocrisy. They support free speech when it works for them and attack those who use it to condemn them. The facts prove that Musk himself is a free speech hypocrite who has his own posts amplified by his algorithms x1,000, threatens to sue companies that refuse to advertise on his platform, and shuts down and censors accounts that disagree with him.

But his ‘free speech’ hypocrisy doesn’t register with his followers. Blatant misinformation is not ‘free speech’ either, and his supporters seem to have no issue either with this or his ‘foreign interference’ purely because it supports their cause.

Here is Nigel Farage giving us a masterclass in hypocrisy:

2024: Nigel Farage, "Elon Musk is fully behind us.. He wants to help us.. He is not opposed to give is money"

2018: Nigel Farage, "George Soros has attempted to change the political climate in Britain"

HT @adamjschwarz.bsky.social good finds 👏

[image or embed]

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog.bsky.social) 19 December 2024 at 23:16

Free speech is not free from consequence

Free speech is not free from consequence. The term has been hijacked and distorted by the populist hard right. What they desire is the ability to lie blatantly, spread fake ‘news’, use racist, sexist, and violent rhetoric, sway elections and government policy, and coordinate online and personal attacks on people, media and groups of people they disagree with. Well, that’s not how it works, and Musk is walking a tight rope, both personally, and by his flouting of various countries’ online safely laws.

There’s nothing to stop you saying someone’s committed a crime when they haven’t; you can request that people take violent action against someone; you can call for someone to be killed, or scream ‘fire’ in a crowded cinema. But all these things fall outside the allowed parameters of free speech and are criminal. The wider safety of communities and individuals must be considered, and these laws exist to protect us all.

Inciting violence is not free speech. Hate speech is not free speech. Sending false or threatening communications is not free speech. They are crimes, online or off.

Musk’s misinformation and misogyny

There is no function of X to report fake news anymore, which is intentional. For some time, Musk has been sharing misinformation and disinformation on X. As a result, universities and other higher education establishments, political parties, journalists and many police forces have joined a retreat among British institutions from the X social media platform. They have been declining further engagement, citing its role in spreading misinformation and content that promotes violence.

For example, US election analysis showed that Musk’s debunked and misleading election claims were viewed more than two billion times on X. And last December, he endorsed a post referring to Americans as ‘retarded’, in respect to the H-1B visa, and has even used the term himself.

It is also claimed that Musk, who has previously been accused of sexual misconduct, “knowingly and purposefully created an unwelcome hostile work environment based upon his conduct of interjecting into the workplace vile sexual photographs, memes, and commentary that demeaned women and/or the LGBTQ+ community” and other vile things mentioned here.

Musk’s attacks on Jess Phillips

Posting sometimes hundreds of times a day, the vast majority of Musk’s social media communications ignore factual evidence. And his continued attacks on Britain have been relentless since Labour came to power.

At the beginning of 2025, he attacked Keir Starmer’s safeguarding minister Jess Phillips, describing her as a “rape genocide apologist” and “an evil witch” who should be in jail. This was after Phillips rejected Oldham Council’s calls for a government inquiry into the so-called ‘grooming gangs’ scandal in Oldham, saying that Oldham should “take its own approach”. To date, there have been several local and national inquiries into group-based child sexual exploitation, including an “ongoing major enquiry” commissioned by Andy Burnham on behalf of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

Phillips has spent most of her career working with survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence and human trafficking. Before becoming an MP, she ran a women’s shelter. Speaking about Musk’s attacks, she said it was “painful” to watch child sexual exploitation becoming a “political football”. Many of Musk’s 200+ million followers believe what he tweets. This puts Phillips – who already receives an incredible volume of abuse and death threats – at risk of serious harm.

VD: “As a result of some of Elon Musk’s tweets, the threat to you has gone up?”

JP: “Yes…”@vicderbyshire speaks to Jess Phillips about Elon Musk’s attacks about her response to grooming gangs in the UK, adding his comments are “endangering” her.#Newsnight pic.twitter.com/WZhLPPKegu

— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) January 7, 2025

Starmer and grooming gangs

Musk has accused Starmer, the UK prime minister, of “hiding terrible things” and has called for him “to go to prison” regarding grooming gangs. But nearly every aspect of his commentary in recent days has been false.

He claims that the story of grooming gangs has been covered up. While this was certainly the case when the offences first started being reported more than 20 years ago, the media have reported on it extensively for many years and there have been multiple inquires.

He claims Starmer failed to address it when he was director of public prosecutions. Yet Starmer dedicated his career to pursing offenders and as the Independent reports, “the Tories found no evidence [he] soft-pedalled on prosecuting the gangs who groomed and raped vulnerable girls”. Andrew Norfolk, the investigative reporter who initially did so much to uncover the story and won awards for it, said recently: “I want to put the record straight on this … It was Starmer who changed the rules to make more prosecutions possible.”

Starmer has admitted that mistakes were previously made, but he put provisions in place to correct them, and, under his tenure, went on to deliver a record number of convictions for sexual assault. He also worked hard to “challenge myths and stereotypes” that had prevented victims and survivors of sexual assault from being heard.

It’s evident that Phillips and Starmer have done more to protect women and girls than figures like Farage and Musk who appear to be attempting to use the victims for political gain.

Some commenting on child sexual abuse following some “intervention” from the USA

They might want to consider that Starmer left office with the highest number of convictions for child sexual abuse since records began

100s more abusers brought to justice
1000s more victims heard pic.twitter.com/txniZSnmmp

— nazir afzal (@nazirafzal) January 5, 2025

Why is Musk attacking Europe and Britain?

Musk has also attacked other European countries and leaders, particularly Germany, where he has voiced his support for Germany’s far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD), some sections of which have been designated “right-wing extremist”.

What is really behind these attacks? It’s no coincidence that the EU is cracking down on online misinformation. A law was enacted in 2022 to require companies that have at least 45 million monthly users to put in place systems to control the spread of misinformation, hate speech and terrorist propaganda, among other things, or risk penalties of up to 6% of global annual revenue or even a ban in EU countries. The UK is working on similar protective laws.

So Musk is not happy. But he’s also upset by the fact that Labour has said the UK government will continue to use X for official communications but will withdraw paid-for advertising on the platform. This happened after Musk attacked Labour and Starmer and was called out by the Telegraph for a fake story on ‘detainment camps’. Under the Conservatives, Whitehall departments spent £5.4mn on X adverts in 2022.

The man-child Musk is throwing a strop.

X has been restricted and banned in other countries

Caught between the restrictions of authoritarian regimes and the investigations of democratic countries, X has found itself blocked to some extent or other by 37 countries since 2015. Last year, Brazil’s supreme court ordered a nationwide ban on X after it failed to name a legal representative in the country and failed to suspend accounts for allegedly spreading misinformation.

So it’s certainly possible to ban X, particularly if Musk refuses to comply with local laws or if intelligence agencies deem him to be a threat to national security. Indeed, counter-extremism units in the UK are now probing Musk’s tweets, with experts saying Musk’s social media activity “comfortably sits within any definition of an extremist”.

Should the UK ban X?

There are differing opinions on this. Yes, Musk is a threat to democracy and his goading of the UK and Europe is intentional. It wouldn’t be surprising if his aim is indeed to force governments to take action against X; but we shouldn’t. Banning or restricting X will only give him and the others the ammunition they so dearly crave to say the UK is authoritarian or doesn’t believe in ‘free speech’.

What the UK needs to do urgently, along with other countries en masse, is to get to grips with social media companies in general to ensure they comply with online safety laws. The evidence that they have been corrupting democracies and allowing political interference in elections is abundantly clear. Their role in causing societal division is also apparent and only going to worsen.

Money talks – social media companies should be heavily fined and made to conform to existing laws. Governments should urgently look at enacting laws similar to those that publishers have to follow, while ensuring platforms have robust mechanisms in place to report and remove disinformation quickly. Until they do, the way these companies are run means there is currently no such thing as a free or fair democracy.

Since the elections in Georgia on 26 October, thousands of Georgians have been protesting constantly in the streets, and many have faced brutal reprisals. Saba Buadze is an MP in the Lelo for Georgia party, one of four forming the pro-Western Strong Georgia coalition. He and his fellow opposition MPs are boycotting parliament in support of the protesters. I talked to him on Christmas Eve about what is currently happening in his country and his hopes and fears for the coming weeks.

Georgia, EU membership and the Russian playbook

Buadze says that an overwhelming majority, 90% of the public, supports the opposition parties’ aspirations for EU integration. The governing Georgian Dream party, which has announced Georgia will not pursue EU membership, won in elections that were, in his words, “rigged, falsified, with the official data manipulated”. This view is supported by international observers from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. As Buadze says:

The Georgian Dream party, which is controlled by the Russian-backed oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, has selected a pro-Russian former football player to replace the elected president Salome Zourabichvili. She has said she will not step down until new elections are held. According to Buadze:

Repression and the Georgian Dream party

Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze recently said “President Zourabichvili will have to leave office on December 29. Let’s see where she continues her life – behind bars or outside”. Buadze believes “anything is possible at this moment, including the incarceration of the president, including the incarceration of political leaders, myself included. Members of the public have been already jailed”.

Zourabichvili spoke on Friday 27 December to Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart on their ‘The rest is politics’ programme. She would not say what she plans to do on 29 December, but it is to be hoped that increasing international pressure will help stay the ruling party’s hand. On Saturday 28 December, US Republican representative Joe Wilson tweeted: “As the only legitimate leader in Georgia, I am grateful to extend an invite to President Salome Zurabishvili to attend the inauguration of President Donald Trump. I am in awe of her courage in the face of the assault by Ivanishvili and his friends in the CCP and Iranian regime.”

As the situation becomes more tense, Buadze believes Georgian Dream is capable of anything, and the use of repressive methods will increase: “We are at the stage of autocracy, and we are going downhill now.” Over recent years there has been a process of state capture, with public institutions and branches of the government, including the judiciary, the constitutional court, and many others, falling into the hands of the Georgian Dream party:

Resistance in Georgia

There have been some optimistic signs of resistance. A few ambassadors have resigned and some civil servants have issued open statements in support of EU integration and “against the Georgian Dream decision to turn its back on the EU”. But this resistance is sporadic, and “we have to understand that over 12 years, Georgian Dream has done everything to gain total control over the civil service in Georgia, and to transform it into a party-serving machine. The judicial branch is fully in the pockets of Bidzina Ivanishviliand is a major service provider for the autocratic tasks that Ivanishvili is giving them”.

Buadze welcomes the sanctions and interventions announced by various Western countries, including the UK, though he says “I believe that they are a little too late, but it’s better late than never”. Emmanuel Macron’s direct intervention was a very clear and very important signal to the Georgian people that European leaders are directly concerned. He hopes Macron’s example will encourage other leaders to “participate in the process of saving Georgia from this Russian operation”. The presidents of Poland and the Czech Republic have also issued statements.

International pressure on Georgian Dream

On 18 December in Strasbourg, Zurabishvili told the European parliament that “Europe has so far only met the challenge halfway. It has been slow to wake up and slow to react. Much more could and should be done”. Buadze recognises that it is difficult for the EU to act, with Hungary and Slovakia wielding vetoes: “We have seen that Russian interference and the partners of Vladimir Putin are also to be found inside the European Union.” There are, he argues however, many other tools that countries and blocs of countries can use to get around the “deadlock” in the EU because of the Hungarian factor.

The UK was one of the signatories of the Vienna Mechanism letter that was sent to the Georgian ambassador to NATO on 20 December, with 28 other countries, including the US. Buadze believes that:

UK support for Georgia

Buadze spoke of the UK’s strong historic ties to Georgia dating to the period after the First World War, when British troops were stationed there to support the first republic until the Soviet invasion. British support resumed after the Soviet Union collapsed, and “has been manifested in many ways, financial, intellectual, cultural and media, over the years. This is part of the soft power that the UK exerts internationally”.

When the Red Army invaded Georgia in 1921, the republican government reached out to Britain and other Western forces for help. “Unfortunately, this call was left unanswered 100 years ago. I hope this time Georgia will not be left alone and I’m optimistic, because we have seen very close international involvement of our partners since this turmoil has started in Georgia.”

What will Trump do about Georgia?

Much now depends on the direction the new US administration takes. The Republican congressional leadership is making the right noises, but “we will have to wait for January 20 and what will happen afterwards”. Zurabishvili did speak informally with Donald Trump at the Notre Dame reopening ceremony, urging him “to see the urgency of US involvement in this process, because the US has been a very close and important partner for Georgia in the process of democratization and in the process of Western integration”.

The signs are hopeful and since we spoke, the US has announced sanctions against Ivanishvili, which have been widely welcomed by the Georgian protesters.

How can we help Georgian protesters?

Finally, I asked Buadze what democracy activists and media channels outside Georgia can do to raise awareness of the protests, without endangering the people there:

Ordinary protesters in Georgia fear reprisals if they speak out in the foreign media. Buatze says he has himself experienced police brutality. “But I am a political leader, so anything I say and do is public and out in the open.” Politicians, activists and all concerned for the future of democracies around the world will be watching Georgia over the coming days and wishing the Georgian people well. In Buatze’s words: