Just two months into his tenure as Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer has wasted no time in showing us what kind of leader he is and what kind of government he leads.

The Telegraph’s readers unanimously say he is authoritarian, running a two-tier society that suppresses dissent and gives free rein to people who politically and ideologically support the Labour Party.

Following a row with tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, who criticised Sir Keir’s handling of the UK unrest and publicly shamed him by popularising the epithet “two-tiered Keir” (2TK), the Prime Minister announced controls on social media to curb “fake news” and rejected a forthcoming cancel culture law that was intended to protect free speech at universities.

In a bid to punish those involved in the Southport riots, the Prime Minister set up fast-track courts, which made an example of a woman by sentencing her to 15 months in prison for posting a distasteful post on Facebook, while the leader of a left-wing advocacy group was not charged for false claims on X, formerly Twitter, about an acid attack on a Muslim woman.

The Labour Party now wants to brand the rioters as terrorists.

Telegraph readers agree that Sir Keir’s moves to clamp down on free speech constitute excessive government interference and that he is ignoring the underlying issues behind social unrest, instead focusing on waging war on ordinary people with “unacceptable” views.

“They come your way”

Following the riots in Southport, during which a mob attacked a mosque and another group attacked a migrant hotel, those taking part in the riots were described by the government and subsequently the media as far-right.

Telegraph reader Nicola Cane believes this is a deliberate misrepresentation, designed to silence protesters’ legitimate concerns about illegal migration.

He says: “To describe all this as ‘far-right thuggery’, as Starmer has done, is wrong.

“This is a comforting story for our out-of-touch ruling class (left and right), because if all of this can be blamed on ‘far-right banditry’ or even ‘terrorism,’ then there is no need to listen to the protesters, look for a cause or treat their concerns as legitimate.”

Ms Cane believes politicians and the media are operating double standards when reporting on the riots in white communities: “When there was rioting in Harehills by ethnic minorities and migrants, we were told ‘rioting is the language of the unheard’.

“Why is the media so keen to describe white rioters as ‘far-right’, yet when a journalist is forced to interrupt a broadcast by a mob of Asians, including shooting and stabbing the tyres of his van, the situation is portrayed as ‘mostly peaceful’?”

“That’s why many people talk about two-tier society, two-tier police, two-tier media, two-tier politics and ‘2TK’.”

Matthew Clifton wonders whether blaming online disinformation for the riots was not being used by the Prime Minister as a pretext to introduce stricter controls on social media: “9/11 was used to justify the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq and the introduction of mass electronic surveillance of US citizens by the intelligence services.

“The UK riots were aimed at targeting those posting ‘fake’ news on social media, i.e. intimidating providers and their users into accepting the narrative and manipulation of the media and government.”

He continued: “Never waste a good crisis, as they say. In America it is often said of the left that they are coming for your guns, here in Britain they are coming for your thoughts. Very dangerous territory ahead.”

Click here to view this content.

“Authoritarian and dangerous”

When Mr Musk suggested Britain was heading towards civil war, Sir Keir responded by indirectly blaming content shared on X.

He promised to overhaul social media laws to prevent further disorder, so that content vaguely described as “legal but harmful” would have to be blocked or removed by social media companies.

Unhappy that social media content can be judged on its truthfulness, an anonymous reader argued, “If it’s not illegal, it should be allowed. We can’t let the government decide what posts are allowed and what aren’t. It’s authoritarian and dangerous.”

In a similar vein, another anonymous reader asks: “None of us can even begin to question what fake news is, which leads to the obvious question… what is the definition of fake news? Can someone be deprived of their liberty based on a retweet of a tweet sent by their colleague? Who will police that?”

Karen Warner, mocking the government’s intrusive approach, ironically proposes a solution: “Bring in the Ministry of Truth to save us all.”

But Javier Navarro-Reverter is in no mood to entertain such an idea. He says: “When Musk bought Twitter, he revealed that the digital platforms were being manipulated by intelligence services that controlled the information people could receive.

“Why do you think the British government blocked a foreign investor from taking over The Telegraph? Is it strategic? National security? Think again.”

“The goal is to instill fear in society”

Following the Southport riots, readers have been asking questions about unfair decisions to charge and punish some people over others for writing and sharing controversial posts online.

A 53-year-old grandmother has been sentenced to 15 months in prison for a Facebook post calling for the bombing of a mosque. A judge said it could have been read by 5,000 of her friends. The prime minister has fast-tracked riot cases through courts to act as a deterrent.

Brian Johnston called the courts’ response to the latest issues “deeply troubling.” Referring to the grandmother’s online comments, he argued: “I think a dangerous precedent has been set. There are tens of thousands of posts every day that are no worse than those in this article, on a wide range of topics. Is it okay to post comments like that in some circumstances but not others?”

He added: “Legal clarity is needed on freedom of speech. Public expression appears to be stifled and the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged crime.”

During the riots, Nick Lowes, head of the anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate, posted a false report on X that a Muslim woman had been attacked with acid, which he described as “absolutely horrible.” The post was viewed by more than 100,000 people, but Cleveland police denied any claims and he has not been questioned or arrested.

Mr Malone wondered why there was a difference in the way things were being handled: “How was his spreading this inflammatory disinformation any different to the disinformation that the Southport murderer had recently arrived by boat?”

Sylvia Jones was sceptical: “Let’s hope he feels the “full force of the law” as the Home Secretary promised those who stoke hatred online.”

Arriv Edirci believes the disparity may have an ideological basis: “Anyone even remotely critical of any socialist idea can very quickly expect to be denigrated as a racist, xenophobe, homophobe, transphobe, sexist, misogynist or working-class blockhead. It is also understandable that they fear the rattling of the front door by the local flatfoot.”

Finally, an anonymous reader fears the terrifying repercussions of the prime minister’s two-tiered society, which punishes some views but not others. He explains: “The Nazis were masters at inventing new language. By imposing greater control over what the government prescribes as acceptable behavior, the average citizen is increasingly afraid of unwittingly breaking the law.

He continued: “The idea is to intimidate society. Already, when the conversation turns to topics like race, gender, immigration, etc., people tend to keep their voices down. My grandchildren often say to me, ‘You can’t say that, Grandpa.’

Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 3 months with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.