I was on GB News early this morning, setting out why I agree with Ed Davey that X should be suspended, pending an investigation into Grok.

Some readers may not relish the idea of me appearing on GB News. It is a channel many liberals feel uncomfortable with, and not without reason, but liberal voices simply cannot afford to be absent from platforms we find awkward, or from debates where the loudest contributions too often go unchallenged. If we genuinely believe in open argument, democratic accountability, and the contest of ideas, which I hope we do, then we have to be prepared to show up-not just where it is easy to do so, but where it is difficult.

That is why I’m grateful to have appeared on The Late Show Live with Ben Leo a little after midnight, debating with the IEA’s Reem Ibrahim to make the calm, liberal case for why X should indeed be temporarily suspended until it gets its house in order over Grok.

Predictably, the response from some was to cry “censorship” and invoke “free speech” as though it were an absolute trump card.

But liberalism is not libertarianism and has never meant free speech without responsibility. Free expression does not exist in a vacuum. It sits alongside other liberal values: consent, dignity, accountability, and the rule of law. When powerful actors ignore these values, it is not illiberal to respond – it is necessary.

At the heart of the current controversy is Grok, X’s AI system, and the way it has been rolled out without adequate safeguards, transparency, or ethical restraint. This is not about being hostile to technology. Liberalism does not fear innovation. But it does insist that power – whether political, corporate, or technological – is exercised responsibly and is subject to scrutiny.

What makes the Grok issue particularly disturbing is what it allows in practice. Users are able to generate/change/distort images of real people (of all ages) without any meaningful form of consent from those being depicted. These images can be misleading, degrading, or sexualised. This is not a hypothetical concern or a fringe misuse. It is exploitation, plain and simple-the digital appropriation of people’s likenesses without their permission, control, or recourse.

Even more troubling is the response from X’s leadership. Rather than pausing the system, introducing robust safeguards, or acknowledging the ethical breach, the primary action so far, it appears, has been to turn this functionality into a premium, paid-for feature.

In other words, it seems, when confronted with non-consensual harm, the response from Elon Musk’s platform was not restraint, but monetisation. This should alarm anyone who believes that human dignity should not be treated as a revenue stream.

This is where the liberal case for temporary suspension becomes clear. A pause is not a ban. It is not authoritarianism. It is a proportionate, corrective measure designed to protect the public whilst proper standards and safeguards are put in place.

We already accept this logic elsewhere. Products are recalled, licences suspended, operations are halted when harm is identified. No one seriously argues that these actions are an attack on freedom; they are a recognition that freedom without guardrails quickly becomes abuse.

Those who warn of a slippery slope should seriously reflect on the alternative. Doing nothing is not neutral. Allowing powerful platforms to continue causing harm because intervention feels uncomfortable is itself a political choice – one that favours corporate power over individual rights.

A liberal society should never confuse passivity with principle. Free speech is not weakened by rules; it is strengthened by them. Without accountability, the loudest voices dominate, the most reckless behaviour spreads, and trust in public discourse collapses. Regulation, transparency, and enforceable standards are not the enemy of liberty – they are its scaffolding.

For we Liberal Democrats, this should be familiar ground. We have always argued that freedom and fairness go hand in hand, that rights come with responsibilities and that power must answer to people, not the other way around.

As technology reshapes our public square at extraordinary speed, those instincts matter more than ever. The question is not whether platforms like X should exist. It is whether they should be allowed to operate without regard for consent, harm, or accountability.

A temporary suspension until Grok meets basic ethical and safety standards is not censorship. It is the bare minimum response of a society that still believes that decency means something.

Another Day, Another Tory Retread Heads to Reform

Another day, another Conservative retread announces they have “seen the light” and are defecting to Reform. This time it is Nadhim Zahawi – very briefly Chancellor of the Exchequer, longer a fixture of Tory ministerial churn, and now apparently reborn as a tribune of anti-establishment politics.

The pattern is becoming impossible to ignore,
Reform presents itself as a radical insurgent force, yet it is increasingly populated by the very figures who helped to create the mess they now rail against.

Zahawi was not a peripheral figure in recent Conservative governments. He was at the heart of them, benefiting from power, status, and office before apparently deciding – belatedly – that it was all terribly wrong.

This raises an obvious question: how can Reform credibly attack the Conservatives when it is rapidly becoming a refuge for disaffected Conservatives? When the so-called “new politics” looks suspiciously like the old politics with a different rosette, voters are entitled to be sceptical.

Under Nigel Farage, Reform thrives on anger and grievance, but offers little evidence of renewal. Recycling former Tory ministers is not a revolt against the establishment; it is merely rebranding.

If British politics is crying out for something different, it will not be found in a revolving door between Conservative failure and Reform rhetoric. Change does not come from swapping parties after the damage is done-it comes from rejecting the failed politics altogether.

Why ‘Heated Rivalry’ matters more than you might think

At first glance, ‘Heated Rivalry’ might look like little more than a steamy drama about two handsome dudes with a complicated relationship. And yes – it absolutely delivers on that front. But to dismiss it as just that would miss why its arrival on British screens actually matters.

Sport remains one of the last cultural spaces where gay men especially (but also women and non-binary people) still feel pressure to stay closeted. Despite progress elsewhere, elite sport continues to trade heavily on narrow ideas of masculinity, toughness, and fitting in, what it means to be a man.

For too many athletes, being open about why they are still feels like a risk not worth taking.

That is why a drama like ‘Heated Rivalry’ is important. By placing a same-sex relationship at the heart of a fiercely competitive sporting world – in this case Hockey in Canada – without tragedy, shame, or apology, it quietly challenges long-held assumptions.

Representation does not fix everything overnight but it does chip away at silence. And in sport, silence has lingered for far, far too long.

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