The race to lead Ofcom, the United Kingdom’s powerful communications regulator, has taken on new urgency and public interest as Baroness Margaret Hodge, a Labour peer with a storied and sometimes controversial political past, emerges as the frontrunner for the chairmanship. The appointment, expected to be finalized by Technology Secretary Liz Kendall in April 2026, comes at a moment when Ofcom’s remit and influence have expanded dramatically, raising questions about the future of free speech and the regulation of online content in Britain.
Ofcom was once a relatively contained agency, focused on licensing television and radio, allocating spectrum, and adjudicating complaints about taste, decency, and impartiality. But, as The Guardian and other outlets have reported, the passage of the Online Safety Act in 2023 has utterly transformed the regulator. Today, Ofcom oversees tens of thousands of services, employs roughly 1,500 staff—including a dedicated Online Safety Group of around 200—and receives at least £70 million annually in government funding to support its new duties. Its expanded role covers not only broadcast media, but also the sprawling and unruly world of online platforms, social media, and digital communication.
This transformation is not just bureaucratic; it is cultural. As The Spectator points out, a regulator that grows rapidly and acquires sweeping new powers inevitably strains to use them, especially as it becomes central to national debates over online harms and the boundaries of acceptable speech. Ofcom’s codes of practice, shaped by its leadership, now have the power to influence how platforms moderate content, often nudging them toward caution—and, critics warn, toward the suppression of legitimate journalism and dissenting voices.
Baroness Hodge’s candidacy is particularly noteworthy against this backdrop. According to The Times, Hodge began her career in teaching and market research before becoming an elected councillor in 1973. She went on to serve as Leader of the London Borough of Islington from 1982 to 1992, then as Labour MP for Barking from 1994, holding various ministerial positions under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Notably, she was the UK’s first Children’s Minister and, from 2010 to 2015, the first elected and female Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, where she was known for her vigorous campaigning against corruption and for greater transparency in government spending.
Yet Hodge’s public service has not been without controversy. In 2003, while serving as Minister for Children, she was compelled to issue a formal apology in the High Court and pay £30,000 in damages after describing a former child abuse victim as an “extremely disturbed person” during her tenure as Islington council leader. Later, in 2014, she apologized again for what she called her “shameful naivety” in ignoring the pleas of victims of paedophiles, after police uncovered possible evidence that Jimmy Savile had sexually assaulted vulnerable children in an Islington care home. These episodes have left a mark on her public reputation, with some questioning her judgment in matters of child protection and institutional accountability.
More recently, in the 2024 election, Hodge was seen campaigning for Labour alongside Peter Mandelson in Islington, demonstrating her continued influence within the party. She has also been outspoken on issues related to online safety and speech. As reported by The Telegraph, in 2020 Hodge campaigned for the government to ban online anonymity or make social media directors personally liable for defamatory posts—a stance that has alarmed some free speech advocates who fear increased surveillance and the erosion of digital privacy.
The current recruitment process for the Ofcom chair is being led by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), with an interview panel of civil servants and independent members set to submit a shortlist to Secretary Kendall. Other key candidates include Jeremy Wright, a former Conservative Culture Secretary known for his criticism of Ofcom’s implementation of the Online Safety Act, and Ian Cheshire, the former Chairman of Channel 4. As of February 20, 2026, Hodge has not responded to inquiries about her potential candidacy, according to Filmogaz.
Whoever takes the helm at Ofcom will inherit a regulator at a crossroads. The agency is preparing for an extensive review of the telecommunications sector, addressing the rapid changes driven by artificial intelligence and satellite technology—an evolution that demands nimble, forward-thinking oversight. Yet, as both Liz Kendall and Jeremy Wright have noted, delays in implementing key areas of the Online Safety Act could erode public trust, especially as the public grows more wary of how government and big tech handle sensitive content.
For many observers, the stakes go beyond technical regulation. As The Spectator warns, the expanded powers of Ofcom bring with them the risk of a chilling effect on journalism and free speech. The Online Safety Act does not ban journalism outright, but it creates powerful incentives for platforms to err on the side of caution, potentially leading to the removal, downranking, or demonetization of controversial material—even when that material serves a legitimate public interest. The Act contains protections for recognized news publishers, but modern journalism is not confined to major outlets; it includes independent investigators, freelancers, and citizen commentators, all of whom may struggle to navigate the new regulatory landscape.
There are also deeper constitutional concerns. Ofcom’s codes and guidance now shape the very architecture of the digital public square, determining how easily investigative reporting circulates, how securely sources can communicate, and how freely citizens can debate contentious issues. As the Labour government signals a determination to clamp down on what it regards as harmful or destabilizing narratives—including, potentially, the oversight of emerging AI systems—the interpretative stance of the new chair will be decisive.
Supporters of Hodge point to her record as a campaigner for transparency and her experience in government as evidence that she can steer Ofcom through these turbulent times. Detractors, however, caution that her past misjudgments and her support for stricter online controls could tip the balance too far toward intervention and censorship. The question, as The Spectator frames it, is whether Ofcom under Hodge’s leadership will consciously embed freedom of expression as a co-equal principle alongside safety, or whether safety—under political and cultural pressure—will become the dominant lens through which its new powers are exercised.
As Ofcom’s transformation accelerates, the public’s attention is fixed on who will shape the rules of Britain’s digital future. The outcome of this appointment will not just affect the regulator’s internal workings; it will help define the boundaries of speech, dissent, and democracy in the United Kingdom for years to come.