Nigel Farage, TikTok and Lord Haw-Haw
Asking whether young people are viewing Nigel Farage's TikTok videos for the silliness of trivial content or their political message misses the point about the proven links between entertainment value and propaganda (Nigel Farage is a hit on TikTok – but are young voters listening or laughing?, 11 May). As the pollsters Ruth and Henry Durant noted in 1940 about Lord Haw-Haw's broadcasts to the UK, 'People tuned in 'to have a good laugh', but then, having acquired the habit, some began to think 'there may be something in what he says'.'Will StuddertBerlin, Germany
As I stood in front of a Rothko at Tate Modern 22 years ago, our four-year-old ran up to it and I asked her what she thought. 'Too big!' she replied instantly, and ran off. She'll be starting her masters degree in fine art at Oxford University this October (The worst thing about the damaged Rothko is that it fuels the ban-kids-from-galleries debate, 11 May).Robert PedersenTotnes, Devon
I once remarked to a pupil's father that I'd been impressed at how his son had handled a couple of disappointments. 'Just as well,' he replied. 'We're Everton supporters' (Letters, 13 May).Marilyn RowleyManchester
Oh dear. I am a citizen of nowhere living in 'an island of strangers' (Report, 13 May). This is getting difficult.Murray MarshallSalisbury
I read Joseph Harker's article opposing low-traffic neighbourhoods (14 May) and wish him well at his next newspaper.David BricknellPlymouth
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers
Who owns the news? Much of the Left has been obsessed with the issue for over a century. They have long railed against press barons and their supposed bias. So it is perhaps surprising that this Labour Government is taking such a lackadaisical approach to foreign states having substantial holdings in British newspapers. The last Conservative government back in December 2023 intervened to put on hold and scrutinise the proposed sale of The Telegraph to a company backed by Sheikh Mansour, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. Columnists, including Charles Moore, The Telegraph's former editor, rightly argued that even if there was no actual interference in the newspaper's editorial line, there would be the perception that the paper would no longer be independent. This would fatally undermine the newspaper's standing by throwing away its reputation for fearless reporting, whatever the reality of the situation. The then government listened and last year, in the Digital, Media and Competitions Act, introduced a new regulatory regime to restrict foreign state ownership of newspapers and news magazines. But this Act only set out the broad principle, not the details of how it would be implemented. A total ban would come with its own problems. There would be little risk of editorial interference if, say, the sovereign wealth fund of Norway was a passive investor owning 3pc or 4pc in a UK-listed media company. During the consultations, it was proposed that a 5pc limit may be appropriate to allow for such holdings. Last month the new Government announced that the threshold would not be 5pc, but actually 15pc. I and many of my colleagues in the House of Lords have serious misgivings about this much higher limit, but it is one we can live with. However, there is another aspect of the draft regulations which is unacceptable. The 15pc threshold is not cumulative, it applies to each individual holding. This means that there would be nothing to stop multiple states each owning 15pc of a newspaper. It has been reported that after The Telegraph's proposed takeover by RedBird Capital, Sheikh Mansour intends to retain up to a 15pc stake in the newspaper. With the current proposals there would be nothing to stop, say, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain from each taking 15pc holdings. A cumulative 60pc of a British newspaper owned by foreign states is a very different proposition. The guarantees against foreign control would have evaporated. Has this potential scenario arisen as a result of an oversight by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary? Alongside 50 of my fellow peers, I have written to Ms Nandy asking for clarification. Signatories include former chancellor Lord Lamont, former trade secretary Lord Lilley, long-time chairman of the 1922 committee Lord Brady, ex-director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald and the current chairman of Ipso, the independent press regulator, Lord Faulks. Our fears could be easily assuaged by simply amending the proposed regulations to ensure that 15pc is a cap on total foreign ownership. If the move is deliberate, it raises serious questions about this Government's commitment to a free press. The statutory instrument implementing the Government's regulations has now been laid and will shortly come before both Houses of Parliament. If the proposals reach the Lords in their current form, I and many of my colleagues will not be able to support the measure. The Telegraph's ownership has been left in limbo for two years so far. It is time for the new regulatory framework to be put in place that will allow its smooth transfer to new owners. But this must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press. The issues are much wider than the future of just one newspaper.
The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Lots of bumps in the road': Keir Starmer faces testing month before one-year milestone
As Keir Starmer approaches his first anniversary in Downing Street, there will be several things he wishes he had done differently. But before he can contemplate that July milestone, he faces a busy month strewn with political bear traps. June has proven a difficult time for successive prime ministers: Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak all had to contend with deeply unhappy parliamentary parties reeling from heavy local and European election losses. While the mood among Labour MPs is nowhere near as mutinous, they too are bruised from a difficult set of local election results in England in May and the surge of Reform UK. 'There is more than the usual amount of grumbling and discontent,' a government source said. One unexpected ray of light was the result of the Holyrood byelection in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse on Friday. Labour secured a surprise victory, knocking the Scottish National party into second place and restoring some hope in Labour's fortunes ahead of next year's Holyrood elections. One MP said the result was 'humiliating' for the SNP. It is certainly a welcome win for Downing Street as Labour MPs brace for more bad news and a series of contentious debates this month. 'They know that the spending review is going to be really hard,' a government source said. The spending review on 11 June, which will set out multi-year departmental budgets after months of tense negotiations between the Treasury and cabinet ministers, will be a make-or-break moment for Starmer and his chancellor, Rachel Reeves. Downing Street is trying to grasp the nettle by putting plans for capital investment in underserved parts of the country at the centre of the narrative. But government strategists are braced for a wave of discontent once the data tables are published revealing cuts across unprotected departments. The most highly anticipated parliamentary moment is the first Commons vote on the government's welfare measures, including deep cuts to disability benefits. Labour whips are seeking to minimise the size of the rebellion after dozens of MPs signed a letter saying they found the proposals impossible to support. Officials say the vote will take place in the second half of June and have repeatedly denied rumours that it could be delayed to the autumn. Officials have also pencilled in the publication of a number of government strategies and reviews that have the potential to draw backlash. The delayed China audit, which fulfils a Labour manifesto commitment to appraise China's role in UK supply chains and what challenges and opportunities that poses, is due later this month. Downing Street is sensitive to criticism over its rapprochement with Beijing, which will come under scrutiny as a number of Chinese ministers and officials arrive in the UK on official trips this month. One question relates to China's place in the foreign influence registration scheme, which remains unresolved amid long-running tensions between the Treasury and the Home Office. The government also plans to publish its industrial strategy in the second half of June. Strategists see this document as key to Labour's political fightback against Nigel Farage and want to use it to build the narrative of drumming up investment after the spending review, including in defence. Earlier in the spring there were murmurings among business figures and government insiders who feared the document would be underwhelming and that Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, had been too busy negotiating a succession of trade deals with the US, EU and India. Ministers have been warned that the strategy must set out a plan to reduce the UK's high energy costs for companies, on the basis that these are a major obstacle to growth. Finally, the government's 10-year plan for the NHS in England is expected either in late June or in July, and is also considered key to Labour's electoral prospects. It is expected to set out plans to improve the NHS app. In the Commons there are three crunch votes expected to take place this month. One is over the assisted dying bill sponsored by the Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater, which seeks to give terminally ill people with less than six months left the right to end their own lives. The proposed legislation has opened a bitter divide in the parliamentary Labour party and sparked concerns in Downing Street that arguments over the bill are distracting from the government's core agenda. Starmer, who in the past has expressed support for changing the law, voted in favour of the bill at its second reading and indicated recently that his position hadn't changed. The Commons will consider amendments to the bill on 13 June and is expected to vote on it again on 20 June. Another difficult moral question due to be considered by MPs this month is whether to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales. Several women in recent years have found themselves in the dock for ending their pregnancies outside the strict legal parameters of the Abortion Act 1967. Two Labour backbenchers are putting forward amendments to the crime and policing bill, which is due to return to the Commons in a fortnight. 'There's lots of little bumps in the road – it's quite an important few weeks,' a Labour source said. The upside for Starmer is that if he succeeds in overcoming this series of hurdles fairly smoothly, the mood in government and the PLP will start to improve before summer recess. If he doesn't, any celebrations to mark his first year in power will be pretty muted.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Downing Street ‘welcomes' ECHR debate as Badenoch launches exit probe
Downing Street has welcomed discussion about changing how the European Convention on Human Rights operates. A Number 10 spokesman said on Friday it is 'important' there is discussion on how the system works, after Alain Berset, the secretary-general of the Council of Europe, said in a rare interview there should be 'no taboo' about changing the rules of the agreement. It comes as Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the ECHR had become a 'sword used to attack democratic decisions' and launched a review into whether she would commit to leaving the agreement. Asked about Mr Berset's remarks, a Number 10 spokesman said on Friday: 'Border security is vital to national security, and we welcome efforts to ensure the European Convention on Human Rights is being applied correctly and allowing countries to protect their borders. 'It's important there is discussion on how the ECHR operates to ensure it can safeguard human rights while meeting the needs of democracies. The Prime Minister has been clear on this, it should be parliament that makes the rules on immigration and government that makes the policy.' On Friday, Mrs Badenoch announced a review to be spearheaded by her shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson, to look into whether the UK should withdraw from the treaty which underpins human rights law. 'The ECHR is now being used in ways never intended by its original authors,' she told a Westminster event. 'It should be a shield to protect, instead, it's become a sword, a sword used to attack democratic decisions and common sense. 'This use of litigation as a political weapon is what I am calling lawfare. It isn't just damaging our security, it's also damaging our prosperity.' She said she was tasking her shadow minister Lord Wolfson with examining 'what the unintended consequences might be' if the UK were to leave the ECHR. 'Because it is clear that the ECHR is a major issue, I'm not asking Lord Wolfson if we should leave, that's a political not a legal question,' she said. 'I'm asking him to set out how we would leave and to consider what the unintended consequences might be, not least in Northern Ireland, if we decide to go down this route, we must do so knowingly.' Shadow home secretary Chris Philp suggested earlier on Friday that the ECHR could not be reformed. He told the BBC: 'I don't really take that very seriously. There have been previous attempts to do it.'
