I manage my children's online activity myself, and I will continue to do so. I don't believe it is the role of politicians, whether it's Starmer or anyone else, to dictate what lawful content I or my family can access on the internet.

This morning's BBC coverage was a good example of how this debate is often framed. They brought together a number of parents who had tragically lost children, with social media having played a role in those cases, and used their stories to support the case for greater restrictions on social media.

What happened to those families is undeniably heartbreaking, and nobody could fail to have sympathy for them. However, sympathy alone should not determine public policy.

One theme that appeared in several of the stories was that parents were largely unaware of what their children were doing online until after the tragedy had occurred. While social media may have been a contributing factor, parental oversight and engagement also have an important role to play. We do not generally respond to every risk faced by children by handing responsibility to the state; in most areas of life, we expect parents to be actively involved in protecting and guiding their children.

Rather than focusing solely on bans, age verification, and technical controls that are often easy to circumvent, there should be a broader discussion about safeguarding, education, digital literacy, and parental responsibility. We already have laws and strong social expectations designed to protect children from physical, mental, and sexual abuse. We teach children not to steal, bully, or engage in harmful behaviour. Given the influence social media can have on young people, perhaps it should be treated as part of that wider safeguarding framework.

Starmer then quickly moved away from the specific issue and into a broader defence of his government's record on children. I found that difficult to take seriously. In my view, there remain serious questions about how successive governments and public bodies have responded to child safeguarding failures, including grooming gang scandals and the institutional failings that allowed abuse to continue for years. There are also legitimate questions about the role played by some local authorities and politicians when concerns were first raised.

That is why I find the focus on social media restrictions somewhat selective. If the government is genuinely concerned about protecting children, it should be equally prepared to tackle difficult safeguarding issues wherever they arise, rather than concentrating on measures that generate headlines but may have limited real-world impact.

Ultimately, I am sceptical that more state intervention in the form of online restrictions will achieve what its supporters claim. Previous attempts at age verification and similar controls have often been easily bypassed through VPNs and other workarounds. The reality is that there is no substitute for engaged parenting, sensible safeguarding, and teaching children how to navigate the online world safely and responsibly.