The newly announced ban on social media for under-16s may be politically popular, but popularity alone does not make good policy. As liberals, we should be deeply sceptical of blanket bans that restrict freedom while failing to tackle the root causes of a problem.

There is no doubt that social media can be harmful. Young people are exposed to bullying, misinformation, unhealthy content and algorithms designed to maximise engagement rather than well-being. These are serious concerns and they demand action. But the question is whether an outright ban is the right response.

I do not believe it is.

First, the proposal is likely to prove largely unworkable. Teenagers are often more technologically adept than the adults seeking to regulate them. VPNs, alternative platforms and borrowed accounts will inevitably undermine enforcement. Even child-safety campaigners have warned that a rushed ban could quickly unravel in practice.

Second, it risks creating a false sense of security. The real problem is not simply that young people are online. It is what some tech companies allow and actively promote online. Harmful content, addictive design features, endless scrolling and opaque algorithms are business choices. A ban focuses attention on children rather than on the corporations profiting from their attention. Critics have rightly argued that stronger action should be directed at platform design and algorithmic harms.

Third, social media is not universally negative. For many young people, particularly those who may suffer from social isolation and so on, it can provide friendship, community snd support that may not exist elsewhere. An outright prohibition risks cutting them off from those connections.

Liberalism is about empowering people, not simply restricting them. We should demand robust regulation of tech giants, stronger digital literacy education, tougher action against harmful content and genuinely child-friendly platform design.

The answer is to make social media safer, not to pretend we can ban young people from the online world altogether.

Parliament Must Finish the Job on Assisted Dying

The decision to reintroduce the Assisted Dying Bill to Parliament is welcome news for those who believe compassion, dignity and personal choice should matter at the end of life.

For too long, people of sound mind facing intolerable suffering have been denied the ability to make decisions about their own deaths. The proposed legislation is not about forcing anyone to choose assisted dying. It is about giving terminally ill adults, subject to robust safeguards, the right to decide for themselves how their final days will unfold. The Bill applies only to mentally competent adults with a terminal diagnosis and includes extensive protections and oversight.

This is also a question of democracy. The previous Bill secured clear majorities in the elected House of Commons after months of scrutiny and debate. Yet it ultimately ran out of time in the unelected House of Lords, where opponents tabled hundreds of amendments and delayed progress.

People are, of course, entitled to oppose assisted dying on religious or philosophical grounds (though I’m a Christian and support it on the basis that there’s nothing Christian about extending intolerable suffering). Many sincerely do and in good faith. But in a pluralist society, no religious tradition should have a veto over the choices available to others (please take note, Tim Farron). The Religious social conservatives, including some voices within our own party, has every right to make its case. But it absolutely does not have the right to impose its beliefs on terminally ill people who want to make the choice to end their life with dignity at a time of their choosing.

Nor should unelected peers be allowed indefinitely to frustrate legislation repeatedly endorsed by elected MPs. If the Commons once again backs this reform, Parliament must ensure that the democratic will of the elected chamber prevails.

For those facing the end of life, this debate is not theoretical. It is about dignity, bodily autonomy, and compassion. Parliament now has an opportunity to finish the job. It must take it.

Makerfield Could Change Everything

By-elections rarely alter the course of British political history. Makerfield may be the exception.

If Andy Burnham wins on Thursday, as many expect, it will likely trigger a Laboir leadership contest and potentially a Burnham premiership. Commentators across the political spectrum increasingly see the contest as a referendum not just on Keir Starmer’s leadership, but on Labour’s future direction.

So what should the Lib Dems do? Neither panic nor cheerlead.

Liberal Democrats should judge any Burnham government not by personality but by policy. Will he embrace political reform? Will he support closer ties with Europe? Will he tackle the care crisis, defend human rights and pursue meaningful devolution? Those are the questions that matter.

A Burnham premiership would likely present opportunities for cooperation on some issues and sharp disagreement on others. Liberal Democrat’s should be prepared for both.
Whatever happens on Thursday, British politics may look very different by Friday morning.

* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.