If Ofcom wants to police social media, account holders need to be traceable

Send your letters to letters@indpendent.co.uk

If Ofcom is to be given the power to police what is posted on the internet in the UK, its powers need to be backed up by requiring all UK-resident holders of social media accounts to be traceable. This is no more than newspapers requiring contributors to their letters pages having to provide a name and address, although it would need to be verifiable in some way – perhaps against a UK-based bank account for a nominal fee.

That does not mean that users’ identities should necessarily be visible, but if they post illegal, or hateful material online, not only can the company managing the platform be penalised, but the individual can as well. This will do nothing to prevent overseas users from committing such offences, of course, but if it is seen to work here, the practice could spread. No doubt the social media companies would say such a move would be technically impossible, but they would be lying.

Patrick Cosgrove
Bucknell

Out of proportion

Any new undocumented virus is going to send shock waves around the world but the media-fuelled hysteria over coronavirus is almost medieval in its disproportion. Coupled with the increase in ridiculous posts about our remaining hardcore royals being portrayed as latter-day Waltons, Britain is starting to feel like a cheap, badly produced soap opera.

Let us for balance pick out one interesting stat regarding premature deaths. Each year – just in the UK – it is estimated that up to 40,000 premature deaths are linked to pollution. Pollution is not an unknown quantity. Pollution is not something we are powerless to control.

Why don’t we care about that? What happened to our sense of proportion?

Amanda Baker
Edinburgh

A return to reason please

As the Labour leadership contest draws closer to its conclusion, the four candidates’ policy statements demonstrate some stark contrasts.

Rebecca Long-Bailey’s statement manifests a political doctrine that, for good reason, the British people have already rejected. She focuses on taking power from Westminster and giving it away, back to ordinary people.

This is plain social anarchism. These extreme left-wing policies have already divided the party membership and prevented them from forming a credible opposition. They have been rejected by the electorate in the Labour Party’s most damaging defeat for nearly 85 years. Jeremy Corbyn has lost the mandate to lead and has undeniably damaged the party. The UK has moved on, and so should Corbyn with his followers.

Lisa Nandy and Emily Thornberry are strong in their desire to reverse the party’s misguided election losses and in attacking the government (including, unfortunately, some of the institutions which have gained global respect and enabled the country to thrive and produce great leaders), but neither appear to have a robust plan for the UK’s prosperity in today’s competitive world.

Sir Keir Starmer, however, proposes a new radical agenda to deliver economic justice, social justice and climate justice. He acknowledges this will be a huge task, but his goals are constructive and resonate with the principles which he has espoused during his career in the legal profession.

Now is the Labour Party’s opportunity to return to reason – to a balanced leader with a united, rational set of policies that will protect the economic and social interests of the UK in its new position in the global marketplace while fighting for justice, standing up for the powerless and against the powerful.

Alastair Watson
Coleorton

Starmer is the moderate leader Labour needs

Tony Blair captured the political middle ground and won three elections for Labour. Jeremy Corbyn has lost two elections by leaning towards communism.

The massive loss of votes for Labour at the recent election has shocked us all. Jeremy Corbyn’s manifesto was much too far to the left, and people have shown that’s not the way they want to go.

The lesson is that for Labour to be electable we need a clean break from Corbyn’s ideology, and a leader of the Labour Party who will adopt sensible moderate policies for the good of working people. Sir Keir Starmer fits the bill.

Jeremy Corbyn has lost the mandate and should resign forthwith, leaving the party with a caretaker while the election of a new leader plays out.

David Parsons
Reading

Vindictive attacks on Corbyn continue

We hear a lot of advice stridently offered to the Labour Party from people who would probably prefer to see the party disappear (“Labour needs a clean break with the past”, M Fishwick​, Letters, 12 February).

To bay for the head of Jeremy Corbyn and to criticise him for carrying out a democratic procedure which will see a leader and deputy leader elected, is a continuation of the vindictive and destructive campaign visited upon the Labour leader ever since 2015.

The election of the leader is for the party membership to determine: the public will have the opportunity to approve or otherwise at the next election, hopefully without the same level of Labour Party denigration.

“The leader can blame nothing and nobody else for the scale of his loss,” asserts the correspondent. “Analysis shows it was entirely his personality, policies and ideologies that were to blame.” Which analysis, I’d be interested to know?

There are two comprehensive academic surveys on MSM portrayal of Corbyn (a 2016 LSE report, Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press and in 2019 by Loughborough University) plus one by the Campaign for Press & Broadcasting Freedom (North) which all show marked, persistent bias against Corbyn and Labour during the last two elections. It continues.

Eddie Dougall
Bury St Edmunds

Credibility in tatters

How can Jeremy Corbyn stand up at PMQs and demand that the prime minister remove his foreign secretary from office in his reshuffle? Corbyn’s mandate was clearly rejected in the election on 12 December yet he still holds on. His credibility is in tatters: for the sake of the country he must immediately remove himself from office. This would allow the formation of a credible and viable opposition that can hold the government to account.

Jerry Steedman
Salisbury

Heathrow’s last throw of the dice?

In what seems to be a last desperate effort to get public support for the fraught third runway project, Heathrow is setting up what it is calling Local Liaison Groups round the airport. These we are told are to enable community groups to have a voice. Not a bad idea if it had come somewhat earlier when the project got under way.

Now with the airport due to send in its plans to government this year it seems a bit late in the day.

Actually, and with the prime minister’s declared inability to spy any bulldozers on the horizon, the reality seems to be that Heathrow Airport Holdings is getting increasingly concerned about the expansion plans. With HS2 likely to soak up any investment going – and an increasingly vocal environmental lobby at work – the airport could be excused for getting cold feet.

In fact I’m not sure how successful the projected local groups will be anyway. Attending my own local meeting last night I was surprised we were not (as had been promised) able to elect our own chair. Not very satisfactory.

The Rev Andrew McLuskey
Ashford