Top Tweets for #LABOURMPS

Just to remind these same folk: You’ve not lifted 1/2m kids out of poverty. You’ve just moved them over a bureaucratic line on a Whitehall spreadsheet. Your ‘workers rights’ are destroying entry-level jobs, hitting young people disproportionately, where unemployment is now over 16%. You have not transformed the NHS. It’s still the same old wheezing leviathan, just with a lot more dosh and still dismal productivity. And you’ve nationalised steel and rail before. It was not the prelude to an economic or industrial miracle. Plus you will now have to include their demands for capital/subsidies among all the other priorities already crowding in on the public purse. Other than that your reminder was useful. Thank you.

The BBC Fabricated Trump's Words. Starmer Wants It Boosted For Fighting Disinformation. This week, the same government that announced it would ban under-16s from most social media platforms confirmed a second policy. Force Facebook, YouTube and every major platform to algorithmically boost content from the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. The stated reason is fighting disinformation. The timing makes that justification impossible to take at face value. The BBC spliced together two separate parts of a Donald Trump speech, delivered an hour apart, to make it appear he had directly told his supporters to march on the Capitol and fight, while cutting the part where he told them to protest peacefully. This was not sloppy editing. It was a constructed sequence designed to produce a false impression of what was said. Trump is now suing the BBC for ten billion dollars. The corporation's own internal memo, leaked to the Telegraph last autumn, documented the edit alongside a pattern of other failures. Extensive uncritical airtime given to Hamas on BBC Arabic. A rogue unit of activist reporters censoring coverage of the trans debate to fit a predetermined narrative. A report calling car insurers racist that was found to be, in the BBC's own words, thoroughly wrong. This week it emerged the corporation sacked a presenter for criticising its Gaza coverage while taking no action against reporters who appeared to celebrate the October 7th attacks. This is the organisation that Starmer wants boosted in the name of trusted information. Not a minor broadcaster with an isolated error. An institution funded by £3.7 billion a year in compulsory licence fees, facing a billion dollar lawsuit for fabricating a world leader's words, accused of one sided reporting on the most contested conflicts of our time, and now positioned by law to be placed ahead of every independent voice on every major platform in the country. Put this alongside the under-16s ban and the pattern stops looking like coincidence. One policy restricts what young people can access. The other restructures what everyone sees first, adults included, engineering visibility in favour of the state broadcaster and against the independent platforms where this government's record, on Belfast, on Makerfield, on the asylum backlog and on every other documented failure, gets challenged daily by people it cannot easily silence. Bluesky escaped the social media ban despite its own documented child safety failures. The BBC gets promoted despite a documented record of fabrication. Both decisions share the same logic. Visibility for institutions the government finds comfortable. Restriction for the platforms where it does not. Lord Young of Acton, the human rights lawyer who founded the Free Speech Union, put it with the right amount of contempt. The Prime Minister has apparently decided that censoring social media should be his legacy, which is strange territory for a former human rights lawyer to choose. It is strange only if you assume the goal was ever free expression rather than managed expression. Nothing in this government's conduct this month supports that assumption. A government that needs to legislate prominence for its preferred broadcaster is not protecting the public from disinformation. It is admitting that its preferred broadcaster cannot earn that prominence on the evidence of its own reporting, and has decided to mandate by law what trust no longer provides voluntarily. That is not journalism policy. It is state media privilege written into platform regulation, arriving in the same fortnight as a ban on what sixteen year olds may read, from a government that is rapidly running out of ways to disguise what it is actually doing. "The BBC spliced together two separate parts of a Donald Trump speech, delivered an hour apart, to make it appear he had directly told his supporters to march on the Capitol and fight"

🚨 I do not make historical comparisons lightly. Your government, in line with UN priorities. is moving to crush all information not sanctioned by them. In 1933, Goebbels argued that Germans needed protection from false information and dangerous ideas. In 2026, Starmer says that British people need protection from “disinformation” and that social media platforms should prioritise BBC and state approved broadcaster content. The comparison is NOT that Britain is Nazi Germany. That is a lazy argument. The comparison is that Starmer’s government is pushing for more control over what citizens read, watch and think and that they claim it’s for our own good. You are not free if the State decided what news you are allowed to view. This is not the work of a government supporting democracy but one that Doesn’t trust its citizens to keep them in power.