Under Super Nanny Starmer, the Labour government never tires of lecturing us on how concerned it is about ‘child abuse’. Only last month, the Prime Minister decreed: “I am not prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children, and that is why this ban must happen, and that is why this ban will happen.” Tough on abuse, tough on the causes of abuse Starmer may be, but he can’t keep an eye on everything. Which is presumably why, outright bans are reserved only for the most extreme cases – 2026’s version of sun, sea and sex: smoking, smartphones and social media.
With the PM clearly desirous of outlawing further such disorderly conduct before he exits stage left, Equalities Minister, Olivia Bailey, published a draft bill last week to ban “conversion practices”. The legislation is designed to criminalise anyone attempting to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or transgender identity. In order to safeguard the vulnerable from such interference, those convicted could face up to five years in prison: that’s the same price you pay for murder, rape, or a misguided tweet, depending on how much Starmer values your vote.
Few would argue against legitimate concerns over child safety. But critics of the bill have been quick to point out this looks suspiciously like further State intrusion into the private sphere of the family. Bailey has hit back, arguing the Conversion Practices Bill would not outlaw the expression of beliefs, ban exploratory conversations, and includes safeguards for healthcare professionals, therapists and counsellors. In addition, she insists there would be a “high threshold” for criminality, to protect free speech.
However, as usual, the Devil’s in the detail. This is what the bill actually says:
- “Conversion practice” means any conduct carried out by a person towards an individual with the intention of causing the individual to believe that they have or do not have a transgender identity or a particular transgender identity.
- In assessing the nature of the conduct, consideration is to be given (among other things) to the question whether it involves any of the following:
(a) words or behaviour of a sexual nature;
(b) violent or threatening words or behaviour;
(c) controlling or coercive words or behaviour;
(d) use of economic pressure;
(e) use of psychological or emotional pressure.
In other words, the definition is so vague as to be practically meaningless. “Conversion” does not require physical acts, coercion in the traditional sense, or even success, just “intent” to influence the person’s beliefs about their gender identity via “any conduct”. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t trust that definition in the hands of a friend – let alone this government.
Several issues leap out from this bill – not least of which, this government’s fanatical obsession with child transgenderism. It’s a misplaced priority, which even the most basic acquaintance with the data reveals. Gender dysphoria in children is overwhelmingly transitory, the majority grow out of it naturally if left alone. It mysteriously appears to cluster in certain schools (one in Brighton notably had 76 transgender pupils on roll); fashion then, not genetics. In addition, it correlates heavily with autism, trauma, same-sex attraction, and pre-existing mental health issues. We are therefore being required to blindly affirm and medically intervene on profound, life-altering decisions for children; decisions which in any other walk of life are reserved for adults.
Furthermore, the current Labour government’s interpretation of “abuse” is curiously myopic. Judging by actions rather than rhetoric, you’d be forgiven for thinking the Starmer administration was fairly relaxed about Muslim rape gangs (inquiries repeatedly blocked and ignored), the small boats crisis, 30-year-old ‘schoolchildren’, the never-ending expansion of gender ideology into schools, and the activities of online businesses offering hormones to confused and vulnerable children.
This selective concern is thrown into sharp relief by the Cass Review. The independent report found the evidence base for puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones in children to be remarkably weak, with no reliable long-term mental health benefits and significant risks. Far from rushing to medicalise distressed young people, the review recommended proper exploration of underlying issues before any irreversible steps. In short, the cautious, evidence-based approach the government now follows in its own clinics is exactly what this bill risks criminalising. And indeed, whenever parents dare to voice caution at home.
The joke of course, is that the Starmer administration doesn’t consider 16-year-olds mature enough for social media. While trusting them with the vote, it wants to prevent them from ever exercising the choice to smoke, and is considering raising the age of criminal responsibility, just to be on the safe side. On questions of mundane personal choice, the State is quite clear: young people require protection from the folly of their own decisions. On questions of life-altering medical treatment, it considers pre-pubescents rather more up to the task than those in loco parentis.
This pattern is not accidental. Authoritarians have always sold their wares under the banner of protecting the vulnerable. Under Starmer, the overreach is relentless: digital IDs are marketed as “child protection”, heavy-handed online regulation as “safety”, and speech restrictions as “inclusivity”. In practice, these measures achieve the opposite. They do not protect children so much as expand the reach of the State, while diminishing the authority of parents; ordinary mothers and fathers, who must seek official permission to exercise basic responsibility over their own offspring.
Times change, of course; fashions come and go. When I was a child, you had to accuse your parents of abuse to get them in trouble. In 2026, it’ll be enough to claim they’re failing to abuse you.
Frank Haviland is the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West and The Frank Report, which you are welcome to subscribe to.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
