This week, Parliament is set to vote on a proposed social media ban for under-16s, a policy initially proposed by the Conservatives and now rapidly gaining cross-party support.
The move would see the UK follow in the footsteps of Labour-run Australia under Anthony Albanese.
And frankly, any idea imported from Albanese’s government should immediately raise serious alarm bells.
More than 60 Labour MPs have written to the Prime Minister demanding action, a government consultation is underway, and ministers are said to be strongly considering the ban.
Once again, Westminster appears united, not in defence of freedom or responsibility, but in its instinct to control.
Let me be clear at the outset: I agree that children should not be spending all their time on iPads and social media.
It is harmful for mental health. It does fuel anxiety, insecurity and addiction. That concern is legitimate.
But protecting children from that is a job for parents, not the state.
It’s up to parents not to shove a three-year-old an iPad instead of actually parenting. It’s up to them to say no. It’s up to them to monitor what their children are doing online.
It’s up to them to ensure their children are going out, doing sports or hobbies, or something productive instead of sitting on social media all day. It’s up to them to teach their children how to distinguish what’s right from wrong, and what’s real from what’s not online.
The social media ban is a Trojan horse for a more sinister project. Be wary of Whitehall - Sophie Corcoran | Getty Images
It is not a job for the state to do that for them.
A social media ban is another example of ridiculous nanny state overreach, just like teeth-brushing lessons in schools or free breakfast clubs, where the state increasingly acts as a co-parent instead of expecting parents to be better parents.
This is the central problem with the proposal: it treats bad parenting as something that can be legislated away.
Instead of expecting parents to set boundaries, politicians want to outsource parenting to Whitehall. The underlying message is clear: don’t worry about doing the hard work at home, the government will step in instead. That is not a conservative philosophy.
I first got social media when I was 13, because much of my family lived in the United States, and it was the only realistic way to stay in contact with them.
My parents had my login details. I wasn’t allowed to post without permission. I couldn’t add people they didn’t know.
My phone was checked regularly. Clear rules were laid down — and I knew if I broke them, social media would be gone, and I’d be grounded.
I never broke them.
I also wasn’t allowed to sit around glued to my phone all day. I had football practice, dance practice, and when I didn’t, my parents would actually send me and my friends outside to play football in the field next door rather than letting us rot indoors on our phones.
As a result, I had very little exposure to harmful content — and I certainly didn’t develop an unhealthy addiction to technology.
Because my parents did their job.
Parents today can do far more to protect their children online, but too many simply won’t. It’s easier to hand over a screen than to set boundaries. Easier to avoid a tantrum than to say no. Easier to shrug and say “but all their friends have it”.
This move is deeply unconservative. I remember distinctly campaigning for Kemi Badenoch during the Conservative leadership contest, when her slogan was “stop banning things”. She was right then, and the principle still applies now.
Conservatism is meant to stand for responsibility, family autonomy, and limited government. You cannot claim to believe in small government while asking the state to police children’s screen time.
If the Conservatives start copying Labour-led Australia’s instinct to ban first and think later, they stop being conservative altogether.
Labour’s position is even more absurd. We are told that young people are too immature to deal with algorithms, too vulnerable to see online content, and too incapable of discernment at 15 years and 364 days old.
But the very next day, at 16, they are apparently mature, informed and responsible enough to vote in a general election.
If social media is too dangerous for under-16s, how on earth are they mature enough to dictate the future of this country?
This ban won’t fix bad parenting. It won’t improve mental health. And it won’t stop children from finding ways around it.
What it will do is set yet another precedent for government intrusion into family life and personal responsibility.
The solution isn’t more laws. It’s better parenting.
And no nanny state policy will ever replace that.
Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter