In Episode 21 of the Sceptic: David Frost on Allison Pearson, Starmerism and Kemi Badenoch, and Nick Dixon on Whether Trump Will Put Woke Away
Welcome to episode 21 of the Sceptic! On the show this week, host Laurie Wastell speaks to the following guests:
- David Frost, lead Brexit negotiator under Boris Johnson, Conservative peer and Telegraph columnist, on how to restore free speech in Britain, the grim reality of Starmerism and what Kemi Badenoch must do as Tory leader.
- And for our premium subscribers, Laurie speaks to Nick Dixon, comedian and broadcaster, on that mad woke Jaguar advert, the Trump win and what they both mean for the culture war.
Donate to the Daily Sceptic to access our donor-only content. Follow David on X. Read his article on Starmerism here. Read Nick’s article on the Daily Sceptic here. And follow Nick on X. Produced by Richard Eldred. Filmed at the Westminster Podcast Studio.
The Ed Miliband Phenomenon – What Makes ‘Britain’s Most Dangerous Man’ Tick?
By Tilak Doshi
Hardly a week passes by these days without some news about how Ed Miliband (a.k.a. Mad Ed) – the U.K.’s Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero since July 2024 – keeps upping the ante in the ‘fight against climate change’. As a politician, of course, the ante he keeps upping is not his personal cash but taxpayers’ funds.
On Monday, the same day that Stellantis, owner of Vauxhall’s 120-year old van-making factory in Luton, announced the plant’s closure, putting at risk over 1,100 jobs – which it said was brought on in the context of Britain’s Net Zero policies – Mr. Miliband said this in Parliament:
Despite all the difficulties, at COP29, one truth was overwhelmingly clear: the global transition away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy is happening, and it is unstoppable because clean energy is the route to energy security, unstoppable because it is the economic opportunity of our time, and unstoppable because people in Britain and around the world can see that the climate crisis is here, and that unless we act, things will only get worse.
In less than five months, this Government have [sic] shown that we will seize the opportunities of speeding up at home, and have demonstrated climate leadership abroad, in order to deliver energy independence, lower bills, good jobs, economic growth and the security of a stable climate. We are doing all we can to keep the British people safe, now and for generations to come.
Anyone with even a modicum of understanding of energy markets will be left wondering whether Mr. Miliband really believes in what he says. His detractors must wonder if he is really that illiterate about energy affairs. How does he square his claims of an “unstoppable energy transition towards clean energy” with what is really happening in energy markets in the U.K. and globally? What happens when his climate evangelism inevitably clashes with energy reality?
What the ‘Energy Transition’ Means for You and Me
Mr. Miliband’s boss, Keir Starmer, attended the annual UN climate summit in Baku (COP29) to sign Britain up to be at the “forefront of the battle against global warming” by promising to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. Note the spurious accuracy of 81%. Why not a rounded 80% for a target to be achieved a decade hence? Would that make it any less believable?
In an interview at the summit, Mr. Starmer claimed with a straight face that his Government has no plans to “start telling people how to live their lives. We are not going to start dictating to people what they do”. Perhaps the Prime Minister is unaware that his Government’s Net Zero policies need to do precisely that – dictating approved and unapproved behaviours by businesses and consumers with a system of taxes, subsidies, fines and regulations – to get the greenhouse gas emission cuts that he is espousing.
Subsequently, Bill Esterson, Labour Chair of the Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, seems to have let the cat out of the bag, saying “we will all have to change our lives” if we are to decarbonise the power grid by 2030 (en route to a full transition away from fossil fuels by 2050).
The U.K. target — ratcheted up from targets pursued by the previous, equally climate-obsessed Tory Government – is in line with the weighty recommendations of the ‘non-departmental public body’ the Climate Change Committee, which is described as “U.K.’s leading independent authority on climate change”. When one examines just what such emission targets actually mean for U.K. businesses and consumers, the list of what must happen is startling.
In a detailed document issued by U.K. FIRES, a research programme funded by the Government, official targets of “Net Zero by 2050” will require all airports except Heathrow, Belfast and Glasgow to close by 2030. No one will be flying at all by 2050. There will be no new gasoline or diesel cars by 2030 and by 2050 road use will be restricted to 60% of today’s level. Food, heating and energy will be restricted to 60% of today’s levels by 2050. Beef and lamb will not be on the British menu by 2050.
Restrictions on mobility and social activity will be achieved by ‘15-minute cities‘ where daily necessities and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare and leisure “can be easily reached by a 15-minute walk or bike ride from any point in the city”.
These consequences of Net Zero for the U.K. – and by extension the rest of the West if other countries are foolish enough to implement Net Zero targets – are thus not mere conjectures. They constitute the economic and physical-science realities of Miliband’s “unstoppable transition away from fossil fuels”.
Economist Jeff Currie of Goldman Sachs has a stat for Mr. Miliband. At the end of 2021:
Overall, fossil fuels represented 81% of overall energy consumption. Ten years [before that], they were at 82%. So though all of that investment is in renewables, you’re talking about $3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82% to 81% of the overall energy consumption. … The net of it is clearly we haven’t made any progress.
The results of Government policies since the U.K. Labour Government under Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2008 committed the country to a legally binding target of reducing carbon emissions by 80% from the 1990 level by 2050 are plain to see.
The U.K. now has higher electricity prices for its businesses than even Germany, the world’s epicentre of self-destructive green policies. In Miliband’s five months in office, the country’s last coal plant and its Port Talbot steel plant shut down, regulatory approvals for solar farms were rushed through in the teeth of objections in the local community, and the North Sea’s oil and gas field development has been sacrificed to an unchallenged climate lawsuit brought by Greenpeace.
Last week, Mr. Miliband introduced a “Warm Homes Plan” to fine gas boiler manufacturers if they do not sell a certain amount of heat pumps. The plan, dubbed the ‘boiler tax‘, requires manufacturers to sell at least 6% of their total sales as heat pumps or face a fine of £500 for each missed installation in the first year, rising to £3,000 in subsequent years. Many firms have already raised the price of their boilers by around £100 in a bid to offset the cost of possible fines.
As if this were not enough punishment on those wanting to keep warm in winter, Mr. Miliband is also relaxing the size and noise restrictions on heat pumps. This led the Telegraph to warn last week that the lifting of the noise restrictions will risk turning neighbourhoods into “war zones”.
What makes green ideologues tick?
In an article written over a year ago on luxury beliefs, I asked: “How did a leading economy like Great Britain come to have Governments (from both sides of the aisle) that promise their people penury and a future without the basic freedoms Westerners have taken for granted for over two centuries?”
Rob Henderson, who coined the term “luxury beliefs” defined them as “ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost, while taking a toll on the lower class”. Conspicuous consumption of status goods and services by the super-rich – having Bentleys and butlers for instance – might be frowned upon by the likes of Ed Miliband. His moral worth is instead related to his luxury beliefs, of which the “fight against climate change” is the crowning achievement – at relatively little cost to himself personally but at great cost to the lower and middle classes.
Another aspect of the luxury beliefs espoused by Ed Miliband and Keir Starmer is the need to claim ‘climate leadership‘ in international forums. Asked if he was disappointed other world leaders had not attended COP29 – such as those from the top 13 GHG emitting countries including China, the U.S., India, Indonesia, the EU, and all but Georgia Meloni of the G7 countries – Sir Keir said the U.K. was at the summit to “show leadership”.
Evidently, it does not matter to Mr. Starmer that some of the world’s largest developing economies with GHG emissions that dwarf the U.K.’s, such as China (by 35 times) and India (by 11 times) are not on the hook to curtail emissions until aspirational targets kick in decades later (theoretically in 2060) under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”. Furthermore, these countries are not required to contribute to the $300 billion a year in climate finance promised by the attendees at the just-concluded COP29 climate summit in Baku.
Nor does it seem to matter to Sir Keir or to his green commissar Mr. Miliband that President-elect Donald Trump, an avowed climate contrarian, has already made clear his intentions to exit the U.S. from the Paris Agreement under which the developed countries are expected to achieve Net Zero by 2050. Chris Wright, the nominee to be the next U.S. Secretary of Energy, has this to say about the U.K. in his book Bettering Human Lives:
The U.K., although no longer part of the EU, has continued aggressive climate policies that have driven up energy prices for its citizens and industry. The results are troubling. … The once-leading United Kingdom now has a per capita income lower than even the poorest state in the United States.
The impoverishment of Great Britain does not seem to concern Ed Miliband, one reason he has been labelled “Britain’s most dangerous man” on TalkTV.
Dr. Tilak K. Doshi is an economist, a member of the CO2 Coalition and a former contributor to Forbes. Follow him on Substack and X.
Is Banning the Burps of Bullocks Worth Risking Our Bollocks?
By Ben Pile
Cattle have long been accused of being among the top enemies of the climate. Despite the fact that creatures resembling our favourite Sunday dinners have been roaming the surface of the planet in their countless numbers for millions of years, climate warriors cannot distinguish between a cow, a car and a coal-fired power plant. Eating beef is destroying the planet, they claim. Some have demanded that livestock farming be abolished altogether and that governments intervene to force us into veganism by legislation. Others think that we can be ‘nudged’ into lentil-eating by re-branding it as a ‘plant-based lifestyle’. At the softer end of climate wars, however, are the innovators, who claim to have found a way to stop cows burping and farting ‘planet-destroying’ gases. The problem for them is that people aren’t buying that claim.
This week, Arla Foods U.K. announced a trial of dairy cow feed additive Bovaer. The additive is marketed by dsm-firmenich – a decapitalised “purpose-led company”, which despite DSM starting out as a coal firm, now claims to be a supplier of “science-based products, services and groundbreaking innovation fundamental to the health, well-being and sustainability of farm animals”. The trial will see milk produced from cows fed with Bovaer being sold in Morrisons, Tesco and Aldi supermarkets. According to Arla, the additive “can reduce emissions from cows by 27%” – which amounts to about a tonne of methane per cow per year.
According to dsm-firmenich, Bovaer has been subject to “100-plus on-farms trials in 20-plus countries and more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies”. It was licensed for use by the EU in early 2022, and by the USA’s FDA in May this year. And it works by suppressing the production of the enzymes in the cow’s digestive system that help to produce methane.
The internet’s many and able sceptics were quick to wonder out loud what the ingredients of this additive – silicon dioxide, propylene glycol, and 3-nitrooxypropanol – are, and what effects they have on cows, and potentially our own bodies. The later component, known as ‘3-NOP’, turns out to affect the development of male reproductive organs of rats in experiments using relatively high doses compared to the recommended usage.
This effect seems not to have troubled regulators, who have since authorised its use. So it must be assumed that they deem it safe. However, the word ‘safe’ in the context of interventions that are intended to serve the greater good has become much weaker in recent years, along side its sister term, ‘effective’. Effective it may well be. But many do not think the risk of this having effects on humans has been excluded.
I am the last to argue for organic farming. I often bang heads with farmers who, though are broadly critical of Net Zero, seem to have nonetheless drunk a lot more green Kool-Aid than is good for them. And I have argued against the broader green trend in favour of GM technology and in defence of agricultural chemicals – fertiliser, pesticides, and fungicides. I argue we should not be squeamish about either our use of animals or technologies, and resist claims that mischaracterise ‘nature’. But such arguments are not claims that there exist no risks – it is that technologies produce very clear and important benefits. By some estimates, for example, half the entire human population of the world is dependent on synthetic fertiliser (manufactured from methane) for sustenance.
What is the benefit achieved by preventing cow burps? Some claim that it will help save the planet. But that claim seems far-fetched when we consider the counter claims that the world does not need saving anyway, that methane’s mode of action in the atmosphere is not well understood and has been overstated, that the atmosphere may already be saturated by methane, and that the action of hooves on the surface of the planet may well aid in the sequestration of greenhouse gases. We might therefore want to consider whether banning the burps of bullocks is worth risking our bollocks. Do we even need safety data to dissuade us from this pointless intervention? Even if we trusted the agencies responsible for ensuring the safety of foods and food technologies, are there sufficient benefits to offset the possibility that they have made an error? No, because there are no benefits to this product. In other words, Bovaer meets political ‘needs’. It’s a food additive that ticks policy boxes.
In response to Arla Foods announcement, some are now challenging the supermarkets involved in this trial and advising a boycott. Others are contacting the dairies they use, to check that their milk or milk products have not come from a farm involved in this trial. And some farms have been keen to point out that they will not be using this additive. Some are calling for labelling, reigniting the tropes of the wars over GM food and throwing the green arguments back to the greens. And some are sharing the details of farms where it is possible to buy unprocessed milk, produced to the highest standards, with the minimum chemical and process interference.
I can’t say I blame them. And I think I will be suspending my scepticism of the ‘nature knows best’ crowd to join them in resisting this completely unnecessary chemical intervention, whether or not it is functionally equivalent to castration. It will be the greenest thing I have done in my enter career as a climate sceptic.
‘Ulez Architect’ and 20mph Zone Supporter Appointed New Transport Secretary
By Will Jones
One of the ‘architects of Ulez’ and a supporter of 20mph zones has been appointed as the new Transport Secretary after Louise Haigh’s resignation. The Telegraph has the story.
Heidi Alexander, the MP for Swindon South, had previously served as Deputy Mayor of London for Transport. During her tenure, from 2018 to 2021, she oversaw the introduction and expansion of Ulez and the rollout of 20mph zones in the capital.
At the time, she said it was “totally right” that Ulez was expanded to include the North and South Circular roads, and spoke in favour of a subsequent expansion across all of London last year.
Her appointment raises fears that similar plans could become national policy. Speaking when she was selected as Labour’s candidate in Swindon South, a Conservative Party spokesman described her as “one of the architects of the much-hated Ulez tax scheme” who could soon “have significant sway in shaping Labour’s national policy in office”.
Under Ulez, drivers of cars made before 2016 are charged £12.50 a day to drive inside the M25. Originally introduced in central London only, the charging zone was expanded to the whole of Greater London by the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, last summer.
Since that expansion, drivers have been hit with £322 million in fines, while Bromley council found there was “no overall lowering in pollution” despite the zone being extended across the borough.
Ms. Alexander was appointed as Minister of State for Courts by Sir Keir Starmer in July.
As Courts Minister, she would have been closely involved in the Government’s response to the quashing of 75,000 train ticket prosecutions after the Chief Magistrate ruled that they were unlawful earlier this year.
She has also previously spoken out about wanting to see a reduction in the numbers of people using cars.
In March 2020, she told the London Assembly: “We have set out that we want to see a fundamental shift in how Londoners move around the city, reducing dependency on the car.
“If we are going to hit our target of 80% of journeys being made by people walking, cycling or using public transport by 2041, we need to see three million fewer daily car journeys taking place.”
Worth reading in full.
Assisted Suicide Set to Be Legalised as MPs Back Bill
By Will Jones
MPs have voted in favour of legalising assisted suicide as Labour’s massive majority allowed the legislation to clear its first hurdle in the House of Commons by 330 votes to 275. The Telegraph has more.
The Commons voted by 330 to 275, a majority of 55, in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, was among the 330 MPs who voted in favour of the Bill.
The decision to give the Bill a second reading means it will now face further scrutiny and votes in the weeks and months ahead on what will be a long road to potentially becoming law.
A five hour debate on the subject showed the Commons was split down the middle on the issue and numerous MPs said they would support the Bill but would want to see it improved down the line.
Kim Leadbeater said MPs had “done what needed to be done” as she welcomed the fact that her assisted dying Bill cleared its first major Parliamentary hurdle.
She told Sky News: “I am nearly in floods of tears because it has been a really emotional process. But I am incredibly proud that I think today we have seen Parliament at its best.”
She added: “I think we have done what needed to be done which is to take this really important piece of legislation to the next level.”
Rishi Sunak was one of 23 Tory MPs who voted in favour of the legislation. The former Prime Minister had been silent on how he would vote in the run up to today.
Other senior Tories who backed the Bill included Shadow Environment Secretary Victoria Atkins, Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge and Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp.
Jeremy Hunt, the former Chancellor, also voted in favour.
Danny Kruger, who spoke against the Bill, said he hoped MPs would still reject the legislation at a later date.
Mr. Kruger told Sky News: “I’m very disappointed that we lost a second reading. It was actually Parliament doing its job, we didn’t know how it was going to go today, I think the debate was influential. I’m very sorry that I and others didn’t manage to persuade enough colleagues to win.
“But what really did come across is that everyone agrees we need to improve palliative care, which is my main concern, and a lot of people expressed real concern about this Bill. And what they said was it’s only the second reading, so it’s only headline support in principle to the Bill that they’ve given.”
He added: “It goes into committee now, it comes back to the House, so there will be a third opportunity to improve it if we can, and if we can’t then I hope we’ll be able to reject it.”
Andrea Williams, the Chief Executive of Christian Concern, which opposed the Bill, said: “Today is indeed a very black Friday for the vulnerable in this country, but this is not over.
“The proposals in this dangerous Bill have been completely exposed. The proposed safeguards are completely meaningless, and more and more MPs are waking up to that reality.
“This Bill will create more suffering and chaos in the NHS, not less, and if it goes through, the vulnerable will become more vulnerable.
“MPs are voting for the Bill at this stage in the hope that it will be fixed, however, the legislation is framed in a way that means it can’t be changed.
“It must be stopped at third reading, and we will not give up working to protect life and the most vulnerable in this country from these reckless and rushed proposals.”
Worth reading in full.
Australia Passes Landmark Social Media Ban for Under-16s
Australia is the first country to set the minimum age of social media access to 16, after a landmark bill passed in the Senate late into the evening on the final sitting day of the year.
Backed by both major parties, the ground-breaking legislation “seeks to set a new normative value in society that accessing social media is not the defining feature of growing up in Australia”, said Communications Minister Michelle Rowland.
TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram are among the platforms that will face fines of up to $50 million (USD $33 million) for systemic failures to prevent under-16s from holding accounts when the laws come into effect, 12 months from now.
Exemptions will allow teens under-16s to still access health and education related services – Headspace, YouTube, Google Classroom – as well as messaging services and online games.
“It’s about making sure children have a childhood and parents have peace of mind,” said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, assuring Australian parents, “We’ve got your back.”
New laws welcomed in Australia and abroad
Australia’s move to keep kids and teens off social media has been lauded internationally, including by prominent author Jonathan Haidt, whose book The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness raised the alarm over the harms of excessive smartphone and social media use to young people’s mental health, particularly in girls.
“Australia is correcting two of the most consequential blunders in the creation of the early global internet: the setting of the ‘age of internet adulthood’ to 13, combined with the stipulation that companies have no responsibility at all to verify that anyone actually is 13,” wrote Haidt on Substack this week.
“We applaud Australia for stepping up and doing the right thing.”
Several U.S. states – Louisiana, Texas, Florida, and Utah – have legislated to limit access to social media for teens, but the Australian Government is the first to take this step at a national level.
In Australia, the reception has been mostly positive. Just over three quarters of Australians (77%) support the social media ban, according to polling by YouGov – up from 61% in August.
The Senate inquiry into the bill particularly noted overwhelming parental support for the bill, as parents grapple with the collective action problem of how to limit teens’ time on social media without being the only grinch on the block.
Why the rush-job?
However, much of the media commentary in Australia this week has centered on the breakneck speed at which the Government rammed the legislation through Parliament in a single week, leaving many wondering, why the rush?
After tabling the bill last Thursday, the Government allowed only two business days for the Senate to review it. This meant the public was given only one day for submissions, with just a three-hour hearing on Monday before the Senate had to bang out its report, due 9am Tuesday.
All in all, a process with as much consideration as “a 15-year-old making a Black Friday impulse buy at Shein.com”, quipped ABC journalist Annabel Crabb. Or, as Nationals Senator Matt Canavan put it, the rush-job appeared to be “a knee-jerk reaction to a complex problem”.
Despite the short timeframe, the inquiry into the bill attracted 15,000 public responses – a staggering number which was likely boosted by Elon Musk’s viral post on X suggesting that the new laws seemed like “a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians”.
Tech giant Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, called yesterday for the bill to be delayed over concerns that “the Government is rushing this legislation without adequate consultation or evidence and there are still many unknowns with respect to its implementation”.
Nevertheless, the bill was passed in the House of Representatives on Wednesday (101 Ayes to 13 Noes), and passed in the Senate late on Thursday (34 Ayes to 19 Noes) as one of the last orders of the last sitting day of the year, with truncated debate time due to there being some 30 other bills to be pushed through before the end of the session.
The bill was opposed by the Greens, some Teals and independents, and a handful of dissenters from the Coalition (conservative National and Liberal Parties), who crossed the floor to vote against it.
Broad political support despite criticisms
The bill, which amends the Online Safety Act (2021), had bipartisan support from the get-go, as the push for legislating a minimum age for social media access was initiated by the conservative Opposition leader Peter Dutton in June.
The state Governments of Victoria and South Australia soon announced plans to limit social media use for kids under 14, and the federal Labour Government jumped on the bandwagon, announcing its intention to follow through with legislation in September.
The Federal Government had already committed $6.5 million in the May Budget to conduct a pilot of age assurance technology, as recommended in the eSafety Commissioner’s Age Verification Roadmap in 2023.
Mobile phones have been successfully banned in most Australian schools under state and territory laws, but proponents of the bill said this did not go far enough.
On the other hand, the bill “could have far-reaching consequences for privacy, mental health, silencing young peoples’ voices and online safety for everyone in the long-run ‒ and may even be unconstitutional”, said Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, noting that experts consulted in both this inquiry and the related social media inquiry had recommended a more nuanced approach.
Privacy concerns were raised from Left and Right alike. Young Labour Left NSW expressed “deep reservations should the legislation require the provision of Government ID documents to platforms to social media companies, given how prone these companies are to leaks and data misuse”.
PM Albanese countered in Parliament that there will be “very strong and strict privacy requirements to protect people’s personal information, including an obligation to destroy information provided once age has been verified”. The Government is also progressing privacy reforms separate to this bill.
Another point of controversy was that the social media ban does not include porn sites, but the Government is reportedly considering separate legislation to restrict Australians under the age of 18 from accessing porn.
Almost half of the young people surveyed in research by eSafety had encountered pornography before the age of 16 – over a third of this group came across it via social media feeds, ads, messages and group chats.
A Trojan horse for Digital ID?
A key concern from critics of the bill was that the social media age limit is a Trojan horse for Government Digital ID, as the new laws will require all Australians to verify their age.
However, a last–minute amendment was adopted before the bill was passed to ensure that Australians will not be forced to present a Digital ID or other form of Government ID to use social media.
Platforms and third-party age assurance services can take Government ID for age verification, but only if other methods of age assurance are offered to the user. Platforms found in breach of these terms can be fined up to $50 million (USD $33 million).
The new bill does not prescribe how platforms must monitor and enforce the age ban – it will be up to the eSafety Commissioner to decide what “reasonable steps” social media platforms should take to stop Australians under 16 from creating accounts.
Informing the Commissioner’s decision on how platforms will ensure that Australian users are of legal age to use their services will be the outcome of the Government’s age assurance technology trial, which is not expected to report to Parliament until later next year.
The Government announced earlier this month that a consortium led by British company Age Check Certification Scheme had been contracted to explore technologies to estimate and verify ages, including biometric markers or digital usage patterns.
eSafety Commissioner calls for holistic approach
Despite having previously compared a blanket age ban to banning kids from the water rather than putting up pool fences and teaching them to swim, the regulator, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, has welcomed the new laws.
“eSafety has long stated that while age assurance is an important step, it is one part of a holistic approach to protect children and young people from harm online,” said the Commissioner in a statement after the bill was tabled.
“We must also continue working to ensure online services are safe by design, and to build children’s digital literacy, resilience and critical reasoning skills so that when they are of age to use these services, or use services not captured by restrictions, they are equipped for the online world.”
In addition to the social media age limit laws, the Government committed earlier this month to legislating a Digital Duty of Care, which will put the legal responsibility for keeping Australians safe on tech companies.
The Digital Duty of Care will require that platforms incorporate Safety by Design principles – an initiative of the eSafety Commissioner – and take risk assessment and risk mitigation steps.
Australia was considered a world leader in online safety in 2015 with the establishment of eSafety (originally the Children’s eSafety Commissioner) under the centre-Right Turnbull Government.
With the passing of the social media age limit bill, the Albanese Government hopes to continue this legacy.
Politically, the passing of this bill is a much-needed win for Labour after its misinformation bill went down in flames over the weekend, and backlash for its failure to move forward on plans to rein in gambling advertising.
This article was originally published on Dystopian Down Under, Rebekah Barnett’s Substack newsletter. You can subscribe here.
News Round-Up
By Toby Young
- “A death knell for Civilisation: today’s vote is a dark day for Britain.” – Today parliamentary assent to the assisted dying Bill is a dark day for Britain, says Laura Dodsworth on her Substack.
- “History will not be kind to the MPs who backed assisted dying” – In the Spectator, Yuan Yi Zhu criticises those MPs who backed the assisted dying Bill, starting with Kim Leadbeater.
- “Assisted dying won’t work” – Catholic writer Melanie McDonagh says in the Spectator that any attempt to restrict assisted dying to just those with six months to live is bound to fail.
- “The elderly may be coerced into assisted dying” – In the Mail, Renee Hoenderkamp GP worries that the elderly who don’t have much longer to live may be forced into opting for assisted dying.
- “The Commons has voted for assisted dying – we are not the same country we were yesterday” – According to Tim Stanley in the Telegraph, the debate over assisted dying clarified the deep divides within both main parties – between libertarians and conservatives, progressives and socialists.
- “Every time ‘hypocritical’ Starmer called for softer rules on immigration” – The Prime Minister has criticised the Tories’ border control policies, but that contradicts his previous comments calling for border controls to be relaxed, repots the Telegraph.
- “The public have been lied to by Tories and Labour alike on immigration” – Our political system is heading for a major shake up that will cast away the old Establishment, says Nigel Farage in the Telegraph.
- “Labour ‘hit job’ against Louise Haigh had been brewing for months” – Insiders believe the Left-wing MP had a target on her back since “going rogue” with an unauthorised pay deal for train drivers, reports the Telegraph.
- “Louise Haigh quit because she ‘had not told Starmer full story of fraud conviction’” – “More information came to light,” No. 10 sources claim, following Louise Haigh’s resignation, according to the Telegraph.
- “Haigh’s resignation shows Starmer is always in the dark when it suits him” – The Prime Minister’s knack for being ignorant of important information has followed him into politics, says Gordon Rayner in the Telegraph.
- “Revealed: Sir Keir Starmer’s guilty secret – he doesn’t like politics” – In his Telegraph column, Charles Moore says Starmer’s guilty secret is that he doesn’t like politics.
- “U.K. industrial electricity prices highest in Europe” – New data from the Government shows the U.K. has the highest industrial electricity prices in Europe, says David Turver on his Substack.
- “Thousands sent eye-watering bills after switching to smart meters” – Thousands of customers have been sent inaccurate energy bills after switching to a smart meter, reports the Telegraph.
- “How net zero accelerated Britain’s national decline” – Across the Atlantic, Britain’s drive for “decarbonisation” is increasingly seen as an economic experiment – one that risks tipping the U.K. into full-scale decline, according to the Telegraph.
- “The electric car drivers with buyers’ remorse” – Motorists who embraced the EV revolution are now counting the cost, says the Telegraph.
- “Decommissioning old nuclear sites to cost £130 billion in blow to Miliband” – The cost to the taxpayer of cleaning up former power plants is higher than previously estimated, reports the Telegraph.
- “Top Labour donor Dale Vince seeks to buy the Observer” – The renewable energy tycoon is a keen reader of the Observer and wants to buy it if its sale to Tortoise Media collapses, according to the Telegraph.
- “Some of my companies may not survive Labour, warns Gail’s chairman” – Luke Johnson has warned MPs that some of his companies “might not survive” as he attacks the Government’s workers’ rights plans, reports the Telegraph.
- “How parents of Labour’s poshest MP put acres beyond taxman’s reach” – The family of Henry Tufnell, Labour’s poshest MP, took steps to minimise inheritance tax on their land ahead of Rachel Reeves’ Budget, reveals Guy Adams in the Mail.
- “The ‘Call a General Election’ petition: If it hits 10 million, Starmer really is in trouble” – Anthony Webber in the Conservative Woman says if the ‘Call a General Election’ petition attracts 10 million sigantories, Starmer really could be in trouble.
- “Why Royal Society scientists want to kick out member Elon Musk” – Members of the Royal Society tell the Telegraph they oppose the recent attacks on Elon Musk by prominent members, but are too scared to speak out.
- “Mark Zuckerberg can see that the DEI game is up” – The Meta head’s meeting with Donald Trump exposed how skin deep corporate America’s liberalism really is, says Matthew Lynn in the Telegraph.
- “‘Islamophobia’: The death knell for free speech?” – The defining question of our time is whether Islam will adapt to Western values – or our cowardly leaders will force Western values to adapt to Islam, says Frank Haviland on his Substack.
- “Gregg Wallace’s friends blame ‘inappropriate behaviour’ on autism” – A therapist friend of Gregg Wallace’s says the MasterChef judge may have autism and that could explain his bad behaviour, reports the Mail.
- “Why does the British Establishment ignore one of our greatest cultural ambassadors?” – The Establishment’s refusal to honour Iron Maiden is baffling, says C.J. Strachan on his Substack.
- “Telling someone you can’t understand their accent may be harassment” – Elaine Carozzi took the University of Hertfordshire to the Employment Tribunal, claiming she suffered race discrimination and harassment over comments about her accent, says the Mail.
- “Irish general election: race too close to call, exit poll reveals” – Sinn Fein holds a narrow lead over rivals while the ‘Godfather’ and a host of independents threaten to steal in, reports the Times.
- “Ireland’s liberal fantasy” – In UnHerd, Tom McTague says Ireland imagines it can combine the best of America’s economic dynamism with Europe’s social conscience, but it’s a dangerous fantasy.
- “Rebels storm Assad troops in Aleppo as Syrian war reignites” – Dozens of villages are captured from Russian-backed forces near the country’s second-largest city during the heaviest fighting in years, reports the Times.
- “University of Cambridge students told how to use stairs in posters” – Cambridge students are being told how to walk down stairs in new health and safety posters, according to the Telegraph.
- “I was ousted as a charity trustee for saying biological men shouldn’t join our breastfeeding meetings” – Ruth Lewis was forced to resign from the board of a breastfeeding charity after saying she didn’t think men should attend breastfeeding, says the Telegraph.
- “The 1954 book that inspired the police to question Allison Pearson” – In the Telegraph, Ian Hollingsworth does a deep dive into The Nature of Prejudice, Gordon Allport’s book that inspired the NCHI regime.
- “Anti-UK Irish rappers take ‘King’s stash’ after court victory over funding refused by Badenoch” – The hip hop trio Kneecap are to be paid £14,250 by the Government after winning a court case, reports the Telegraph.
- “How Rachel Maddow is dragging MSNBC down” – With the rise of Donald Trump, Rachel Maddow and MSNBC are haemorrhaging viewers, according to the Telegraph.
- “We are the safeguard, this place, this parliament, you and me” – Listen to the conclusion of Danny Kruger’s powerful speech in the House of Commons yesterday opposing the assisted dying bill.
If you have any tips for inclusion in the round-up, email us here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.