Renfrewshire Council decision to stop using X branded 'baffling' by Reform UK councillor
Jamie McGuire, who defected from Labour to Nigel Farage's party, has urged the local authority to "reverse" the step.
Renfrewshire Council's decision to stop using social media platform X – announced at the start of the year – has been branded "baffling" by a Reform UK politician.
Councillor Jamie McGuire, who defected from Labour to Nigel Farage's party earlier this month, has urged the local authority to "reverse" the step as he questioned the rationale behind it.
The council confirmed in January it would be moving to Bluesky, where it would share statements and service updates, with the change taking effect immediately.
But Councillor McGuire, who represents Renfrew North and Braehead, has now suggested the switch was a "political gesture" and claimed it "significantly undermines" its ability to reach residents with important information.
He said: " Renfrewshire Council's decision to abandon its X (formerly Twitter) account – where it commands a following of over 28,500 residents – in favour of the far lesser-known Bluesky platform, which currently has a mere 794 followers, is both baffling and deeply concerning.
"This move appears to be a political gesture rather than a practical communications strategy. It significantly undermines the council's ability to reach residents in real-time with vital information – be it service updates, weather alerts, public consultations or emergency notices.
"In a time when clear and timely communication between local authorities and communities is more important than ever, it is indefensible to walk away from a platform where tens of thousands of residents are already engaged.
"The consequences are clear: Renfrewshire residents are being cut off from key updates, simply because the council has chosen to prioritise political signalling over public service.
"Communication must serve the public interest, not political preference. The council must reverse this decision."
X, formerly known as Twitter, has changed notably since it was bought by Elon Musk in 2022. Concerns have also grown over a looser approach to content moderation with users complaining about inappropriate material such as violent images and hate speech.
In January, Renfrewshire Council confirmed it had decided to stop using X after an ongoing review of its communication channels.
This week, a spokesperson said: "We regularly monitor and review the performance of all the channels we use to communicate with the public, our partners and the media and as such, we decided to stop using X and move to Bluesky.
"X has changed significantly as a social media platform over recent years and the channels that people and organisations follow continue to diversify and change and we want to ensure that we make best use of the channels available with the resource we have.
"People can follow us on our Bluesky account at bsky.app/profile/renfrewshire.gov.uk and we will continue to provide information through a wide range of other channels which also includes the local media, social media, emails, local community groups and networks, our website and print and outdoor materials."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Palestine Action must be labelled terrorist group, say Farage and Jenrick
Palestine Action should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation after its activists breached security at an air base to damage two RAF planes, Robert Jenrick and Nigel Farage have said. The pair joined other senior politicians in demanding that the group should be banned over its 'illegal' and 'extremist' actions after activists broke into RAF Brize Norton and sprayed red paint into the engines of two Airbus Voyager aircraft. Mr Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, told Sir Keir Starmer: 'You are the Prime Minister – do something. Ban Palestine Action. Investigate the security breach.' Mr Farage, the leader of Reform UK, said: 'Palestine Action must be proscribed as a terrorist organisation after the attack on RAF planes at Brize Norton.' Proscribing Palestine Action would make it illegal to be a member of the group, to invite support for it or to wear clothing or carry flags or placards backing it. Anyone caught doing so would face up to 14 years in prison. It would put the group on a par with membership of the Islamic State, Hamas or Al-Qaeda. Lord Walney, a former government adviser on political violence and disruption, said: 'The Government must now act to ban Palestine Action after this grotesque breach of military security. 'With Iran's nuclear programme on the brink and Britain facing rising threats from abroad, we shouldn't let these criminal activists act like the Ayatollah's apparatchiks by attacking the country from within. 'Employees at the workplaces they target have been systematically terrorised by Palestine Action for too long – this is the moment for ministers to proscribe the group as terrorists or enact the new sanctions recommended in my review submitted to Downing Street and the Home Office.' Suella Braverman, a former home secretary, said: 'This is not a legitimate protest. These are the actions of militant extremists who are undermining our national security. Palestine Action should be proscribed and face the full force of the law.' Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, is understood to support a ban and urged the Government and police to ensure that the activists responsible faced the 'full force of the law'. 'The security breach at Brize Norton is deeply is not lawful protest, it is politically motivated criminality,' she said. 'We must stop tolerating terrorist or extremist groups that seek to undermine our society. The full force of the law must come down on those responsible.' David Taylor, the Labour MP for Hemel Hempstead, also called for Palestine Action to be proscribed, saying its protest at Brize Norton amounted to 'sabotage'. He added: 'This group have engaged in illegal activity – smashing into defence sites, vandalising property and disrupting key infrastructure. These are not isolated incidents – they are part of a coordinated campaign of unlawful direct action. 'Such behaviour puts lives at risk, undermines public safety and is against British values. It is time for the Government to take a firmer stance. I believe Palestine Action should now be considered for proscription under the Terrorism Act. We cannot allow groups who glorify and incite violence to operate unchecked under the guise of activism.' Palestine Action has been involved in previous violent protests. In January last year, it vandalised an office of the logistics company Kuehne+Nagel in Milton Keynes, smashing windows and spraying the building with paint. Last March, it claimed responsibility for spray-painting a historic portrait of Arthur Balfour at Trinity College, Cambridge. Palestine Action said the action was taken because of the 1917 Balfour declaration, in which the UK backed a separate state for Jewish people. Last November, members broke a glass cabinet in the University of Manchester's Chemistry Building and stole two busts of Chaim Weizmann, the first president of Israel and a former lecturer at the university. In March this year, members of Palestine Action threw red paint on the Old Schools building at the University of Cambridge, calling on the university to divest from companies selling arms to the Israeli military.
Leader Live
40 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Historic vote brings assisted dying closer to becoming law in England and Wales
A majority of MPs backed a Bill that would allow terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of less than six months to end their lives. Despite warnings from opponents around the safety of a Bill they argued has been rushed through, the proposed legislation took another step in the parliamentary process. MPs voted 314 to 291, majority 23, to approve Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading. This means the Bill has completed its first stages in the Commons and will move to the House of Lords for further debate and scrutiny. Both Houses must agree the final text of the Bill before it can be signed into law. Due to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's Parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Supporters of assisted dying have described the current law as not being fit for purpose, with desperate terminally ill people feeling the need to end their lives in secret or go abroad to Dignitas alone, for fear loved ones will be prosecuted for helping them. Friday was the first time the Bill was debated and voted on in its entirety since last year's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55 at second reading. Labour MP Ms Leadbeater has argued her Bill will 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a YouGov poll published on the eve of the vote. The survey of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, suggested 73% of those asked last month were supportive of the Bill, while the proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle stood at 75%.
Leader Live
41 minutes ago
- Leader Live
MPs share their own stories as assisted dying debate continues
Debating the proposal to roll out assisted dying in the UK, Sir James Cleverly described losing his 'closest friend earlier this year' and said his opposition did not come from 'a position of ignorance'. The Conservative former minister said he and 'the vast majority' of lawmakers were 'sympathetic with the underlying motivation of' the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, 'which is to ease suffering in others and to try and avoid suffering where possible'. But he warned MPs not to 'sub-contract' scrutiny of the draft new law to peers, if the Bill clears the Commons after Friday's third reading debate. Backing the proposal, Conservative MP Mark Garnier said 'the time has come where we need to end suffering where suffering can be put aside, and not try to do something which is going to be super perfect and allow too many more people to suffer in the future'. He told MPs that his mother died after a 'huge amount of pain', following a diagnosis in 2012 of pancreatic cancer. Sir James, who described himself as an atheist, said: 'I've had this said to me on a number of occasions, 'if you had seen someone suffering, you would agree with this Bill'. 'Well, Mr Speaker, I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. 'So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance.' Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden Dame Siobhain McDonagh intervened in Sir James's speech and said: 'On Tuesday, it is the second anniversary of my sister's death. 'Three weeks prior to her death, we took her to hospital because she had a blood infection, and in spite of agreeing to allow her into intensive care to sort out that blood infection, the consultant decided that she shouldn't go because she had a brain tumour and she was going to die. 'She was going to die, but not at that moment. 'I'm sure Mr Speaker can understand that a very big row ensued. I won that row. 'She was made well, she came home and she died peacefully.' Asked what might have happened if assisted dying was an option, Sir James replied: 'She asks me to speculate into a set of circumstances which are personal and painful, and I suspect she and I both know that the outcome could have been very, very different, and the moments that she had with her sister, just like the moments I had with my dear friend, those moments might have been lost.' He had earlier said MPs 'were promised the gold-standard, a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards', which were removed when a committee scrutinised the Bill. He added: 'I've also heard where people are saying, 'well, there are problems, there are still issues, there are still concerns I have', well, 'the Lords will have their work to do'. 'But I don't think it is right and none of us should think that it is right to sub-contract our job to the other place (the House of Lords).' Mr Garnier, who is also a former minister, told the Commons he had watched 'the start of the decline for something as painful and as difficult as pancreatic cancer' after his mother's diagnosis. 'My mother wasn't frightened of dying at all,' he continued. 'My mother would talk about it and she knew that she was going to die, but she was terrified of the pain, and on many occasions she said to me and Caroline my wife, 'can we make it end?'' Mr Garnier later added: 'Contrary to this, I found myself two or three years ago going to the memorial service of one of my constituents who was a truly wonderful person, and she too had died of pancreatic cancer. 'But because she had been in Spain at the time – she spent quite a lot of time in Spain with her husband – she had the opportunity to go through the state-provided assisted dying programme that they do there. 'And I spoke to her widower – very briefly, but I spoke to him – and he was fascinating about it. He said it was an extraordinary, incredibly sad thing to have gone through, but it was something that made her suffering much less.' He said he was 'yet to be persuaded' that paving the way for assisted dying was 'a bad thing to do', and added: 'The only way I can possibly end today is by going through the 'aye' lobby.' Glasgow North East MP Maureen Burke said her brother David was aged 52 when he went to hospital with what he later learned was advanced pancreatic cancer. The Labour MP said David suffered in 'silent pain' with ever stronger painkillers before his death, and added: 'One of the last times when he still was able to speak, he called out to me from his bed and told me if there was a pill that he could take to end his life, he would very much like to take that.' The Bill would apply in England and Wales, not in Scotland where members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) are considering separate legislation, but Ms Burke said she spoke to 'ask colleagues to make sure that others don't go through' what her brother faced. If MPs back the Bill at third reading, it will face further scrutiny in the Lords at a later date.
