Max Wilkinson
MP for Cheltenham · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“The proposals are not the result that I wanted for my constituency or Gloucestershire. However, I am a reasonable man, and I am willing to take the Secretary of State at his word.”
“This summer brings good news in the Big Space Cancer Appeal, which Health Ministers are right behind. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the brilliant doctors behind the appeal, Charles Candish and Sam Guglani, and the many donors who are helping to pay for the £17.5 million new cancer centre at Cheltenham hospital?”
“Cheltenham train passengers have a continual frustration with the turnaround time at Gloucester. There is also a new frustration: I wonder whether the Secretary of State or a Minister can tell me why so many trains due to terminate at Cheltenham unexpectedly terminate at Gloucester?”
“Lord Gove used his “Quite right!” Spectator podcast to call me “oleaginous”, a word that I later learned means oily, the “king of smuggery” and an offensive term, but I will spare Members’ blushes by simply saying that it starts with d and rhymes with “mick”. That is from a Member of the House of Lords in this Parliament.”
“Instead, it proposes the wholesale reform of the appeals process, creating the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, which will not be operational until late next year. Even the Home Office has described the value of this measure as uncertain.”
“Sadly, this measure, coupled with potential decades-long waits for leave to remain, will actively undermine the integration that everyone in this House should be aiming for. Costs to the taxpayer are likely to go up and not down. The reviews of refugee status alone are set to cost up to £725 million extra in the first 10 years.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Max Wilkinson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 13.
“That means supporting NATO, standing up to aggression, and strengthening the rule of international law. That does not mean, as some have callously suggested, that Ukraine should accept a deal to cede some of its territory to Putin. That would be a betrayal of the principles for which the wartime generation fought. That includes those who suffered in the far east. They have often received less recognition than those who served in Europe. The conflict there continued for nearly three months after VE Day, in punishing conditions and at immense human cost. Yet in too many commemorations, their stories are not heard. We owe these individuals our deepest gratitude, and it is good that we are remembering them this VE Day.”
“I think of all those who served in the Gloucestershire Regiment and I think of my two grandfathers, both of whom served— one in the Navy and one in the RAF. This anniversary is about ensuring that we continue to stand up for what they stood for. We must use this moment to recommit ourselves to the international co-operation and diplomacy that helped to deliver 80 years without a third world war. It is a peace that has been threatened by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is no coincidence that European unity was born from the ashes of the second world war. It has been the greatest peacebuilding project in history and, in the face of the threats that confront us today, we must once again stand shoulder to shoulder with our European allies.”
“People lined up outside the municipal offices in the town centre to hear Winston Churchill deliver his VE Day speech. An effigy of Adolf Hitler was burned. The celebrations reportedly ran well past midnight, which is rather late for a genteel Cotswolds spa town in the 1940s. It is right that we in this House pause to remember the scale of the sacrifice and the legacy of the victory that that generation gave us. This anniversary is not simply about marking dates in a calendar, but a chance to say thank you to the dwindling number of surviving veterans and to all those who have served, suffered, and rebuilt. Today I think of Lorna, a 105-year-old I recently met at St Ives Court in Cheltenham and very possibly my oldest constituent. She told me proudly about her contribution to the war effort as an intelligence analyst in Whitehall.”
“Those people, together with today’s serving personnel and veterans, carry forward the legacy of service inherited from that extraordinary wartime generation. In their memory, this anniversary must be a moment not just of reflection, but of a renewed sense of responsibility. This country is at its best when it works with its allies, not when it shrinks from the world. This year is very likely the final big celebration for the veterans of world war two who are still with us. There are 360 names on Cheltenham’s war memorial, and many civilians in my town also died in bombing raids. On VE Day, after six long years at war, people in my constituency and around the country took to the streets to celebrate. At Whaddon primary school, children waved Union Jack flags.”
“On the eve of war, Liberal leader Archibald Sinclair warned: “A policy which imposes injustice on a small and weak nation and tyranny on free men and women can never be the foundation of lasting peace.” He was speaking about the Munich agreement, which saw European powers cede Czechoslovakian territory to Hitler. Nobody in this House would describe the brave nation or the people of Ukraine as small and weak, but with the spectre of the dictator Vladimir Putin looming large on the eastern edge of Europe and President Trump threatening deals to carve up Ukrainian territory, Sinclair’s words resonate today as they did then. The wartime generation knew the cost of giving ground to tyrants, as they celebrated 80 years ago this week. The best way to honour those who fought for peace is to redouble our efforts to preserve it.”
“These events give us all a meaningful opportunity to reflect on the courage, resilience, and unity that defined the war effort, on the frontlines and on the home front alike. Let us mark this 80th anniversary not just with solemnity, but with resolve. Let us listen to the stories of those who served, from the soldiers to the evacuees, from the factory workers to the codebreakers, and let us make sure that every part of their legacy is carried forward. Let us honour them not just with words, but with action.”
“Absolutely. The second-best spa town in the country, I am sure, celebrates VE Day wonderfully well. This anniversary arrives at a time of renewed global instability. From Ukraine to the middle east, we are once again reminded that peace is fragile—that it cannot be taken for granted. The international order built in the aftermath of 1945 is under more strain than ever. The world is more dangerous than at any point since the cold war. Members in all parts of the House are so proud that many of our parliamentary colleagues have served in the armed forces, and we all stand with our armed forces. Finally, I wish to express my party’s strong support for the programme of national commemorations planned this year. We can all be very proud of what is happening.”
“That would give a bigger voice in government to a sector that not only supports our global soft power, but contributes £58 billion to the economy each year. With your indulgence, Ms Furniss, I will touch briefly on one telling contribution made by Staffordshire to the last general election. The Liberal Democrats are extremely thankful for the role played by the staff at Yarnfield Park, where we hosted a series of secret training briefings for our candidates between the pandemic lockdown and our successful 2024 general election campaign. If nothing else, that is surely a testament to how truly inspiring the culture of Staffordshire can be.”
“Staffordshire’s theme parks offer a host of rollercoasters, including at Alton Towers and Drayton Manor, where my wife tells me she spent the best birthday of her life when she was seven. Thanks to Staffordshire, my annual efforts will never, ever be quite good enough. I am told that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) is particularly thankful for the contribution of theme parks to public life, although I understand that he has yet to visit Alton Towers—it is time to invite him. These facilities are a major source of tourism for Staffordshire, and they support a considerable number of jobs in the local economy. The tourism industry needs and deserves proper support, so the Liberal Democrats would upgrade the Government’s tourism function with a dedicated Minister for tourism and hospitality.”
“We must recognise that much of our cultural sector is supported by local authority funding. Discretionary spending on culture is often the first spending to be cut, but that trend must cease if Staffordshire, and everywhere else, is to thrive culturally. We would protect the independence of arts funding so that it can no longer be exposed to political interference, as we have seen over the last few years, and we would introduce cultural creative enterprise zones to stimulate growth. Local authorities must be given the tools to protect their cherished heritage. In Staffordshire, that would mean protecting the county’s beautiful manor houses, mills, castles and so much more. That brings me to tourism.”
“In the post-industrial era, Staffordshire has continued to enrich our culture. I am sure that Take That would never have reached such heights of success in the 1990s and 2000s were it not for Staffordshire’s own Robbie Williams. Staffordshire’s cultural scene is alive and well today. The Lichfield festival continues to bring together music, theatre and literature in the county. Each year it draws crowds to historic venues such as Lichfield cathedral with world-class performances. Liberal Democrats are arguing for investment in extracurricular activities for children, such as sport, music and drama. Without that, we cannot expect the next Robbie Williams or Josiah Wedgwood to pursue a career in arts and crafts. Where will the next throw-in specialist come from if sports facilities in Staffordshire do not receive the necessary investment?”
“It dates to the bygone era of Tony Pulis, whose cultural contribution is perhaps best summed up by the descriptive Goldie Lookin Chain lyric in tribute to the man himself: “Tony Pulis, one hell of a bloke; Tony Pulis, he manages Stoke.” Football hard men aside, Staffordshire has shaped the cultural texture of Britain for centuries, and not just with its famous ceramics, although I will start there. In the 18th century, visionary potters like Josiah Wedgwood revolutionised pottery, making Stoke-on-Trent a world-famous centre of excellence. Wedgwood was so good that he became known as the Queen’s potter, proof that even back then Staffordshire knew how to make a good royal impression. In literature, Hanley-born Arnold Bennett captured the working-class life of industrial Britain in a way that still resonates with readers.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this important debate. Think of Robbie Williams, Josiah Wedgwood, Arnold Bennett, Alton Towers, “The Great Pottery Throw Down” and Rory Delap’s throw-ins, the Peak district, mile upon mile of canals, the area’s fascinating industrial past and present, and—who could forget it—the commentator’s favourite: “But can they do it on a cold night in Stoke?” The last is a cultural reference as old as some Members of Parliament in the 2024 intake.”
“As Ministers know, the Liberal Democrats will support the Bill because the game needs financial sustainability. There have been too many Burys, Chesters, Herefords, Macclesfields and Readings. The heritage assets in our game need protection. Who can forget when Cardiff were forced to play in red, or when Wimbledon were moved against their will to Milton Keynes?”
“These days, I mostly watch my local team Cheltenham Town, who have enjoyed a thoroughly mid-table season, but I grew up watching Southampton, and when time allows, I still watch them now—through the gaps between my fingers at the moment. Despite that, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who is no longer in his place, will remember when times were so much worse for Southampton. I am sorry that he is not here to hear this. I had a season ticket when he was chairman—[Hon. Members: “He’s there!”] Oh, there he is, speaking to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and not listening to a word I am saying. I remember this from when I was a fan in the stands, calling for so much better. I hope for the sake of football that today this Bill does not go the same way as the Saints’ season.”
“Football is irrevocably intertwined into our national story. It is about belonging, about the communities we live in and about what we do in our spare time, and it is what we daydream about when we are supposed to be working—I feel that on a very personal level every day. Today I speak primarily not as a politician or a Liberal Democrat spokesperson, but as a football fan. I have been to more than 50 football league grounds, and to a fair few non-league grounds, too—Brimscombe and Thrupp FC in the Stroud constituency is well worth the attention of the non-league ground-hoppers out there. I have followed England home and away.”
“It is a shame that Dame Tracey’s party has decided to score an own goal today. The Conservatives might seek to present themselves as akin to the England heroes in 1966, but in trying to kill the Bill, they are more like the villainous Maradona and his “hand of God” in 1986. By seeking to kill the football regulator, they are betraying football fans the length and breadth of the country—they are going in studs-up on football fans. That is the kind of political acumen that means that they represent only one football league club. Can anyone name it?”
“I agree. There are too many examples of football clubs being separated from their stadiums, training grounds and assets, and it is a disgrace every single time when football clubs are asset-stripped. I mentioned sustainability, heritage and fan engagement. Those are the three things we think the Bill will bring about—those are its aims. Although the Bill is not perfect, it will make important progress on all those points. Indeed, shortly after I was elected, the board of Cheltenham Town and the Robins Trust both asked me clearly to back the Bill. We will do so because it is the right thing to do. The Bill is cross-party in origin. We should all thank Tracey Crouch for her work on the fan-led review and the shadow Minister for his subsequent work on the Bill in the last Parliament.”
“According to Simon Perruzza, the chief executive of the Cheltenham Town Community Trust, the Bill is needed “to ensure clubs like ours continue to make a valuable contribution to supporters and the community, the game’s fractured governance model and inequitable distribution of finance need to be urgently addressed”. The Premier League generates more than £3 billion each year from media rights alone, yet the share reaching clubs further down the pyramid is dwindling; it keeps 84% of the revenue now, up from 74% in 2007. Any suggestion that the Premier League is a golden goose that will be killed by the Bill somewhat misunderstands the problem in our game. The campaign group Fair Game warns that the balance of funding between the top division and lower leagues in this country stands in stark contrast to that in other major leagues.”
“Bromley—there we go. I think that has rather proved my point for me. The Conservatives’ reference to the risk of increased ticket prices suggests that they are either uninformed about or wilfully ignorant of the existing problems that football fans suffer every week with ticket price inflation, as tens of thousands of fans will confirm. Unaccountable football club owners are not forced to engage with football fans on the issue of ticket pricing. In my reflections on how to improve the Bill, I will begin with financial fairness.”
“Nearly 30,000 gambling messages were posted across the premier league’s opening weekend this season. That represents a tripling of ads compared with the almost 11,000 recorded over the opening weekend of the season before. Such ads are normalising a dangerous relationship between football and gambling that is destroying lives. Football should not be a gateway drug to problem gambling. It cannot be right that, whether watching on television or in the stands, we are bombarded with gambling adverts to the extent that the enjoyment of the game is now, for so many people, culturally intertwined with placing bets. It cannot be right that broadcasters can launch their own gambling platforms, and use advert breaks to promote those platforms, using the pundits who describe the games as mouthpieces for gambling.”
“Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords pushed for clubs to be mandated to report on their community work, so I welcome the new clause requiring clubs to do so. In my constituency, the Cheltenham Town Community Trust delivered £5.4 million-worth of social value work with young people and older people, and to reduce antisocial behaviour, in its last reporting year. What gets measured gets done. Clubs want to continue doing such work, but they cannot keep doing it if they cannot afford to because the Premier League is hoarding all the money. We need to go further to support clubs in that, particularly by providing help for smaller clubs that may struggle to fulfil reporting requirements. I agree with the Members who have made similar comments. We believe that the Bill must go further on problem gambling.”
“Well, that person will be working within the boundaries of the regulator, and he is obviously very good at striking deals, is he not? If the hon. Gentleman’s contention is that he did a good job in his old job, we can be confident that he will do a good job in his new role. The Liberal Democrats think that the redistributive mechanisms ought to go even further to promote financial sustainability, including by taking account of the restricted resources in the fifth tier, and redistribution beyond that level to cover more grassroots clubs in the national leagues north and south and beyond. Then, there is social responsibility. Football clubs are not just businesses; they are also civic institutions. They are often the most visible and well-loved organisations in any community.”
“The football regulator would have a wider role than currently envisaged in the Bill if the Liberal Democrats were in charge. When the Lords tried to tackle the proliferation of gambling ads, the Government committed a professional foul. As the Bill makes its way through this House, we hope that MPs will show gambling companies a yellow card—yellow cards on this matter are very Liberal—not a red card; we do not propose the banning of gambling, shadow Ministers will be pleased to hear.”
“The thought of Manchester City playing Arsenal in Dubai should leave us all reaching for the sick bucket. We can go further to build a game that is open, accountable and properly rooted in its communities. Every good manager knows when to switch to a 4-3-3 and bring on the super-sub. It could be Steve Howard—I understand that the Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), is a Birmingham City fan. Now is the time for Ministers to embrace that principle of bringing on substitutes, changing the formation and being even more ambitious about this Bill; after all, they have more than enough players sitting on the Government Benches to be more ambitious. They should do that because football is not just a business. It is part of who we are as a nation, so let us treat it that way.”
“On broadcasting, not a single premier league match this season has been shown on free-to-air television. All 380 matches in the premier league now lie behind a paywall, while matchday tickets are increasingly expensive. The latest deals will see Sky Sports and TNT Sports have the rights to show premier league matches for a four-year period. That means that those without a subscription will have no opportunity to watch a live match on television until the 2030s at the earliest. Spain’s la liga has one free-to-air game per week, as does England’s women’s super league. We will continue to champion expanded access to free live sport broadcasting in this Bill. We will also call for the strengthening of the Bill to ban domestic games being played abroad.”
“I will not be placing any bets from this Chamber today—not to the benefit of myself anyway. On ownership, this Bill provides a stronger defence against owners who might have a dodgy track record, but there are still gaps at the back. The new owners and directors test still makes no explicit mention of human rights. That is a glaring miss. Sportswashing is an all-too-common tactic used by oppressive regimes to launder their reputations through our national game. As the historic home of the global game, we have a moral duty to seek to use the soft power of football. Those who want to run a football club in this country should not be able to do so while running roughshod over human dignity elsewhere in the world. Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to replace the red carpet for dodgy foreign owners with a red card.”
“Let us remember that behind every dataset are human stories: the novelist who spent years crafting her narrative; the musician who refined his composition through countless hours of practice; the visual artist whose unique perspective shapes our cultural landscape. Their rights are not obstacles to innovation, but its very foundation.”
“The global nature of AI necessitates co-ordination through the World Intellectual Property Organisation and alignment with international partners, but British creators deserve robust protections that travel with their work across international borders. This debate has repeatedly shown that, across party lines, we believe that creators must be protected—that is true of those who speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, the Government, the Conservatives and the nationalists, and those elsewhere, too. Creators must be at the centre. Data and innovation policy must work for people, not just for platforms, algorithms or corporations.”
“We have seen in the data Bill debates how opaque data-collection practices undermine public confidence. That lesson must apply here. Creators should have the right to opt in or opt out of their work being used in AI training, and there must be mechanisms for meaningful, proportionate compensation. I also urge the Government to lead internationally on this issue. We have an opportunity to establish stronger protections that better serve our creative sector. The Independent Society of Musicians, the Authors Guild, the British Copyright Council and the Association of Illustrators—to name just a few of the many organisations representing hundreds of thousands of creators—all support that stance.”
“It is not anti-innovation to protect creators, but quite the opposite. A fair IP framework is what allows our creativity and innovation to thrive, and it is good for our economy, too. So what must we do? First, we must ensure that web crawlers and AI models are bound by existing copyright law. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that would enforce existing copyright protections, rather than weakening them through a suggested opt-out system. Secondly, we need meaningful transparency. Our amendments would increase data and identity transparency for crawlers and models, ensuring that creators know how and where their work is being used to train AI systems. Thirdly, we need a clear path for consent and compensation.”
“Throughout the debates on data legislation, we have consistently argued that consent must not be an afterthought but should be the default. If a human being has created something, they have the right to know how it is being used and to be fairly recognised and remunerated for that use. That principle must carry through to how we approach AI and intellectual property. The tech companies claim that an opt-in system would be too technically complex to implement. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? But at its heart, this debate is not about technical feasibility. It is about being willing to respect creators’ rights from the outset, preventing theft, as Members have said, and supporting our valued creative industries. We have also warned against innovation washing: the idea that technical progress should come before ethical scrutiny.”
“If we talk to tech companies about this, we find that they do not quite grasp the difference between their innovation and that of the human mind. That unprecedented scale and speed demands stronger, not weaker, protections. Our creative industries generate £126 billion annually and are central to our economy and cultural identity. As AI continues to reshape content production, the intellectual property rights of our writers, musicians and artists must be safeguarded, not weakened. As we argued during the debates on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, when innovation outpaces regulation, we risk losing public trust and undermining the creative industries that employ 2.3 million people across the country. That is bad for our economy.”
“They are the legal and moral foundations that allow creators to share in the value of what they create, but artificial intelligence is blurring the line between human and machine authorship, and is raising urgent and complex questions. Who owns an AI-generated piece of music trained on thousands of copyrighted songs? How do we enforce rights when the inputs and outputs are hidden behind proprietary algorithms? The answer must be that creators own the rights to their work, and those rights must be protected. For centuries, creators have honed their craft through years of study, practice and transformation. That contributes to what we all enjoy about the creative industries, but AI now allows machines to ingest and remix millions of works in seconds, fundamentally altering the relationship between inspiration and creation.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the birthday boy, the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), on securing this important debate. In my constituency, we have thriving creative and tech industries off the back of GCHQ—Cheltenham has a lot of creative businesses. When I hosted my roundtable with the creatives, they told me that they are extremely worried about what they assume is being proposed in the Government’s consultation. When I talk to tech start-ups, they say they are also concerned about that because they are worried that the things they are doing to innovate are being scraped. That is a concern from an economic growth perspective, in both directions, and the Government need to acknowledge that. Intellectual property rights protect human ingenuity.”
“It is the same experience for residents, is it not? When MPs ask questions of FirstPort, we do not get any replies. People turn up, smile and say nice words—soothing things—but nothing happens. The residents get the same thing. That includes a 94-year-old woman whose daughter contacted me to say that she was refused a request to install a stairlift and she cannot sell the property, because the management fees that FirstPort charges are so high, so she is effectively trapped, unable to get up and down the stairs. Is that not a disgrace and does it not go to show that FirstPort just doesn’t give a damn?”
“Music fans were left outraged last summer by rip-off prices for Oasis tickets. Many paid hundreds of pounds over resale value to access the concerts they wanted to get to as dedicated fans. Liberal Democrats are calling for an outright ban on resales above face value. At the moment, it seems the Government are “Half the World Away” from a solution. When the Ministers answer, “Whatever” they say, please promise me that the answer to whether we will have a ban above resale value is not “Definitely Maybe”?”
“As a liberal, I believe that unchecked power and wealth are inherently dangerous, and I often take my whip from John Stuart Mill, who warned: “the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods…which all experience refutes.” We must heed that warning.”
“I realise that Ministers are limited in what they can say, but I am pretty sure I know what they think. Regardless of diplomatic norms, this is plainly absurd. Worse than that, it makes our once strong nation look weak. What should we do? Social media companies must take a larger role in tackling misinformation. It is clear that they will not do it without Government intervention, and they need to get on with it. Liberal Democrats believe that stricter regulations must be introduced to ensure that they properly challenge the spread of misinformation on their platforms. We must stand up to them. We must intervene to protect our democracy.”
“Musk used his purchase of Twitter to further leverage his influence over the world’s largest democracy. He changed the rules to boost his own posts and push aside those he disagrees with—freedom of speech, but for some more than others. From his own platform, the world’s richest man has made several direct interruptions in our democracy. Last summer he sought to further incite disorder, posting that in the UK “Civil war is inevitable”. He also called for America to “liberate the people of Britain” and overthrow the UK Government, and he has suggested he might bankroll the Reform party. While I have some sympathy for Ministers dealing with Trump, do they really think it is wise to be so gentle with him when his right-hand man, Musk, has called for them to be forcibly ejected from office?”
“While digital and social media platforms can be good for democracy, they are inherently vulnerable to misinformation and abuse, and they reduce the quality of public debate. We need look no further than the riots following the tragic Southport attacks. That tragedy for those little girls and their families was compounded for so many by what happened in the following days, when people were whipped up into a frenzy by false rumours leading to more violence. Musk’s X, Zuckerberg’s Meta and other social media companies facilitate that spreading of misinformation, and they have made it entirely clear to all of us that they do not care. Let us face it: platforms such as TikTok and Snapchat are making our children sad and depressed, they are putting a check on the development of the adults of the future, and they absolutely cannot be trusted.”
“I hate April fool’s day, because the world is now so ludicrous that we do not know what is a joke and what is not. Even worse, what we post as a joke might end up being shared so many times that it becomes somebody else’s truth eventually. In the worst case, that becomes part of a hate-fuelled conspiracy theory. I will not mention it; everyone here knows what it is. There are many increasingly popular conspiracy theories online that have nothing to do with hatred but are plainly bizarre. I will not name them here for the sake of all our inboxes, but every single one of those outlandish claims is a threat to our democracy, and those views are going round the world quicker and quicker thanks to social media. What should we in this place be doing about it?”
“The lads should not worry about it, but so many do, thanks to these snake oil sellers online. Thanks to President Trump and those who argue for a bizarre form of freedom of speech—just not for everyone—the truth is now a contested concept, and it is intertwined with fear and hatred, which are both a threat to our democracy. We all know where the truth goes to die: whichever social media platform you like. You just start posting outlandish stuff. You keep going. You double down. You find a mad and hateful narrative. You tell everyone it is free speech, and before you know it, you might be lucky enough to become a successful online grifter with your top off. Perhaps you will be an MP, or maybe even the President of America. Two days ago it was April fool’s day.”
“I can tell any young men listening at home that nobody outside the manosphere wants to see pictures of bald middle-aged men with their tops off—I know from personal experience. My social media followers and, more importantly, my friends left me in no doubt about what a plonker I looked after I posted a photo of myself at Cheltenham Lido. Those who idolise Tate would do well to heed that advice. Jordan Peterson, another big thinker on the right, gives brilliant advice to young men. He tells them they must make themselves physically strong so that they can find a mate and get rich and powerful, or they will end up dying poor and alone, perhaps with melted brains like crustaceans defeated in a violent fight in the depths of the ocean. I am pretty sure that is not true.”
“It is my belief that, at heart, those issues are the symptoms of many problems, including the tone of debate about the roles and responsibilities of boys as they become men, a lack of routes to secure employment, and ludicrously high housing and rental prices. For someone who is stuck in their childhood bedroom looking for reasons why their life is rubbish, the digital world has no shortage of scapegoats: women, minorities, LGBT+ people, immigrants, foreigners, refugees, disabled people, the weak, single-parent families—the list goes on. There is also no shortage of snake oil salesmen out there to tell them who to blame and what they can do about it. Andrew Tate tells us it is the fault of women.”
“One wonders where the Member for Clacton finds the time. As a 2024 intake MP, I encounter colleagues who basically do not have time to go to the loo. On a more philosophical note, for someone who claims to be a patriot, he is certainly taking a lot of money from international sources. That should give us all pause for thought when we consider the impact of digital platforms on democracy. We might conclude at the very least that it distracts some MPs from doing their actual job—and I do not mean the distraction of doom-scrolling; I mean the distraction of the grift. What of the broader threats presented by social media platforms? We have spoken on many occasions recently about the issues that young men face and the impact on democracy.”
“They are not just profiting politically, but lining their pockets with the money of social media barons. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have already told the Member to whom I am about to refer that I intend to refer to him today, because his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests is revealing. The leader of Reform, the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has declared more than £10,000 in earnings from one particular source since he was elected. The address of the payer is in Market Square. I know what Members are all thinking: “It’s the charming covered market in Clacton”. No, that closed in 2022. It is Elon Musk’s X, based in Market Square in San Francisco, California. He has also declared more than £14,000 in earnings from Google, £98,000 from Cameo, based in Chicago, and more than £2,700 from Meta in California.”
“A serious allegation was made recently that Liberal Democrats spend too much time in our communities fixing church roofs and are not on Twitter. Well, last night I logged back on, and let me tell the House that Twitter was absolutely brilliant. The quality and depth of political debate really was something to behold. Liberals and authoritarians, nationalists and internationalists, and people from the economic right, left and centre were engaging in well-informed, expansive and thoughtful debate about the most pressing issues of the day. I jest, of course—it was a total waste of time for everybody involved, including me. Elon Musk has made Twitter useful for some people, though. I refer to those on the hard right of politics, who are profiting by sowing the seeds of division.”
“I recently played wheelchair basketball with the Harrogate Hammerheads, at the Liberal Democrat party conference, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). It was a joyful experience, and what I learned is that it is basically impossible.”
“All we will ever be doing is dealing with an epidemic of chronic physical inactivity, and mental illnesses caused by inactivity. We will be denying generations to come a love of sport and physical activity, which would be a dereliction of duty on the part of us all.”