Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

[DaGaffer]

These are the last ten pieces of British legislation brought in that you can argue chill freedom of speech, or freedom to assemble/protest.

Law / Regulation	Year	Key Provisions	Concerns Raised
Public Order Act 2023	2023	Criminalises “locking on,” tunnelling, and interference with infrastructure	Vague definitions allow broad police discretion; risk of preemptive arrests
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act	2022	Expands police powers to restrict protests based on noise or disruption	Criticised for undermining peaceful assembly and enabling arbitrary enforcement
Serious Disruption Regulations	2023	Redefined “serious disruption” to include anything “more than minor”	Lowered threshold for police intervention; ruled unlawful in 2025 by Court of Appeal
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) Act	2021	Legalises criminal conduct by undercover agents	Raises fears of surveillance and infiltration of activist groups
Online Safety Act	2023	Regulates online content to prevent harm	Potential overreach into lawful speech; vague standards for “harmful” content
National Security Act	2023	Introduces new espionage and foreign interference offences	Broad definitions could criminalise journalistic or activist work involving foreign contacts
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act	2019	Criminalises viewing terrorist content online even once	Criticised for lack of intent requirement; risk to academic and journalistic research
Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs)	Expanded use post-2014	Local authorities can ban gatherings or speech in public areas	Used to restrict protests, begging, and leafleting; often lacks oversight
Education (No Outsiders) Guidance	2023	Limits teaching of certain topics in schools	Accused of suppressing discussion on LGBTQ+ and racial justice issues
Home Office Protest Guidance Updates	2024	Encourages police to preemptively restrict protests near sensitive sites	Seen as targeting specific causes (e.g. climate, Gaza) and discouraging dissent

When did Labour come in to power again? It was fucking relentless under the Tories.

 

[Scouse]

Bet the ducks are fucking loving it

The geese are indeed very happy.

So much so the boys have started fighting over patches of water. And when they fight, they fucking fight.

 

[Gwadien]

And yeah I am terrified of Reform getting into power, not due to migration but due to them running education, I don't think I'll be able to continue under them when they start to fill history with lies in order to make Britain great again, I won't be responsible for actually brainwashing kids. (and I know Labour are already doing etc etc etc)

 

[Scouse]

I'm getting weary of you telling me I'm a supporter of Labour and I support everything they are doing.

The fact is, I don't support Labour, I didn't vote for them at the last election and ended up with a Tory MP, but I am also intelligent and 'emotion removed' enough to know that exaggerating what Labour is doing to pretend they're somehow on a par with Nazi Germany is fucking stupid when the alternative doesn't have a clue, they'll fuck the country up further and blame all the minorities & political enemies for it.

Doing what you're doing feeds into further support for Reform, that's a fact.

You just compared them to Nazi Germany, for some reason your head keeps going there. Facist doesn't have to mean "gone full retard" - but they're actions taking us in that direction, indeed.

Regardless - you're not engaging with any of the arguments I'm making - and I'm not making them repeatedly, Labour keep doing new stuff and I simply keep posting the new stuff. And each time, you seem to not care - or complain that I'm ushering in or feeding reform.

In the same way that Wij kept saying that the stuff Israel wasn't doing was the least bit indicative of genocide, and each time they did new stuff he kept pointing elsewhere...

 

[Scouse]

And yeah I am terrified of Reform getting into power, not due to migration but due to them running education, I don't think I'll be able to continue under them when they start to fill history with lies in order to make Britain great again, I won't be responsible for actually brainwashing kids. (and I know Labour are already doing etc etc etc)

If they bitch off affirmative action before getting kicked out for being incompetent, then that'd be a win at least. And maybe if they ditch the target of 50% of kids going to university that Blair brought in then maybe we won't be saddling half the country under massive debt to keep a market-driven university sector alive.

But yeah, I get your worries. I really do. A Reform government is not something I'm looking forward to at all.

But it doesn't mean I'm in any way blind to the absolutely atrocious way Labour is acting. They're acting way worse than I ever imagined, and I was trepidacious before they came in.

 

[Scouse]

These are the last ten pieces of British legislation brought in that you can argue chill freedom of speech, or freedom to assemble/protest.

Absolutely. But if we expand it further, rather than just pick the last bits of legislaton introduced under the Tories (which, in a poll of which is the worst: Tories or Tories, then Tories would win):

Labour (1997–2010): Introduced foundational counter-terror laws with sweeping powers: Stuff like indefinite detention, glorification offences, and extended pre-charge detention. These laws laid the groundwork for future authoritarian expansion. Once introduced early on, they strengthened them and included stuff like secret trials for the first time.

Didn't manage to get ID cards through. Universally unpopular and rightfully so.

Coalition (2010–2015): Moderated some excesses and rolled back a few laws / introduced oversight - but maintained core powers. It's a rare government that neuters itself..

Conservative (2015–2024): Expanded surveillance, criminalised passive online behaviour, and weaponised protest regulation. The Investigatory Powers Act and CTBS Act marked a sharp authoritarian turn. Giant, absolute wankers - and I raged at the time. (Nobody blinked, of course).

Labour (2024–Present): They promised reform and promised they'd expand our rights - instead they've doubled down—using anti-terror laws against peaceful protest, proposing new bans, expanding surveillance policies and are going to bring in ID cards and rollout mass facial recognition across the country. It's literally THE "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" nightmare that we were railing against during the 1997 Labour government.

Their response to the ID cards petition (which is currently at 2.8 million signatures): "We're going to do it. We won't make it compulsory, apart from to apply for some things that are compulsory to apply for."


So yes, you could argue that the most authoritarian overall has been the successive Tory governments from 2015-24 with their expanded legislative kosh. But given the foundational nature of Labour government legislation, their announced intention to bring about the dystopian future people have been protesting against for decades and their rapid use and abuse of legislation in manners that go far beyond their original stated intention, coupled with the fact that it's still fucking early days then it's clear that Labour intend to make the Tories look like schoolchildren who were playing at repression.

From a protest standpoint, 100% Labour. They've stated their intention to outlaw any peaceful protest that isn't effectively howling into the wind.

 

[Embattle]

Boris Johnson breached rules designed to stop abuse of contacts made in public office, watchdog finds

Johnson found to have breached rules after refusing to answer specific questions about allegations published by the Guardian

www.theguardian.com

 

[Scouse]

Bankers to get bonuses quicker under rule change

The change is a relaxation of rules that were brought in after the 2008 financial crash.

www.bbc.co.uk

Get in!

Oh, wait. It doesn't mean me.

It means the people who pressured subordinates to fixing the Libor rates under the last Labour government. The subordinates went to jail, but the bosses didn't. They got their bonuses.

 

[Scouse]

But this fucks me off royally:

Nature groups rebuke Reeves for ‘cynical’ 11th-hour planning bill changes

Chancellor accused of removing environmental protections to win short-term growth and save her budget

www.theguardian.com

Labour is the party of environmental race-to-the-bottom.

The Tories would not have done this.

 

[ECA]

But this fucks me off royally:

Nature groups rebuke Reeves for ‘cynical’ 11th-hour planning bill changes

Chancellor accused of removing environmental protections to win short-term growth and save her budget

www.theguardian.com

Labour is the party of environmental race-to-the-bottom.

The Tories would not have done this.

Get rid of all that green shit

 

[Scouse]

Cameron said it @ECA, but Tory policy in subsequent years was exactly the opposite.

Labour says the opposite, but is really getting rid of nature - sucking business cock.

Builders are hoarding huge undeveloped land banks (not to mention we already have enough brownfield to cater to more than demand). Labour is doing fuck all about that - but for the first time ever central government will be able to overrule local planning.

Green belt, actually fuck that, - SSSI's are getting fucked over.

By a LABOUR government.

 

[ECA]

Cameron said it @ECA, but Tory policy in subsequent years was exactly the opposite.

Labour says the opposite, but is really getting rid of nature - sucking business cock.

Builders are hoarding huge undeveloped land banks (not to mention we already have enough brownfield to cater to more than demand). Labour is doing fuck all about that - but for the first time ever central government will be able to overrule local planning.

Green belt, actually fuck that, - SSSI's are getting fucked over.

By a LABOUR government.

Why does an industry ( farming ) that we subsidise massively get to keep the green belt land while we pay them to larp as productive members of society?
It contributes £12bn to the economy and we pay £4.5bn to support it, yet they get inheritance tax breaks and restrict growth under the guise of green belt/nimbyism.

Need to bring back thatcher to do a coal industry on the sponging cunts.

 

[Raven]

Maybe all the farmers should just pack it all in and sell off their land for more Nu-builds, and we just import all our food.

THAT WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA, said every towny cunt.

Or, even better, every generation sells off a bit more land to the megacorps, for true food security. Tesco don't provide your food, the farmers do.

 

[ECA]

Maybe all the farmers should just pack it all in and sell off their land for more Nu-builds, and we just import all our food.

THAT WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA, said every towny cunt.

Or, even better, every generation sells off a bit more land to the megacorps, for true food security.

We give the larpers 4.5bn a year and agriculture generates about 12bn a year revenue.
Tescos annual revenue is 60bn+

Tesco made an annual profit last year of just under 3bn.
That ignores all the other supermarkets, how much of what british larpers produce do we actually consume as part of out diet? Probably under 5%. British farmers do not "feed the nation".

Uk farming is a joke industry. 0.5% of GDP, hoarding 95% of the land to cosplay on and avoid inheritance tax, while only 1.5%-2% of land is built on.
Maybe our productivity would be higher if we stopped handing them free money. ( cuz thats socialist innit )

 

[Raven]

We give the larpers 4.5bn a year and agriculture generates about 12bn a year revenue.
Tescos annual revenue is 60bn+

Tesco made an annual profit last year of just under 3bn.
That ignores all the other supermarkets, how much of what british larpers produce do we actually consume as part of out diet? Probably under 5%. British farmers do not "feed the nation".

Uk farming is a joke industry. 0.5% of GDP, hoarding 95% of the land to cosplay on and avoid inheritance tax, while only 1.5%-2% of land is built on.
Maybe our productivity would be higher if we stopped handing them free money. ( cuz thats socialist innit )

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Scouse]

Why does an industry ( farming ) that we subsidise massively get to keep the green belt land while we pay them to larp as productive members of society?
It contributes £12bn to the economy and we pay £4.5bn to support it, yet they get inheritance tax breaks and restrict growth under the guise of green belt/nimbyism.

Need to bring back thatcher to do a coal industry on the sponging cunts.

Nice try. This is fuck all do do with farming. As much as you might want to try to make it about that.

Keep up.

 

[DaGaffer]

Don't know if it's the same in the UK, but here we have professional Nimbyism to such a degree that a single objector can hold up shit that we actually need to get done (like fixing our Victorian water supply) for years. While environmental protections are important, they're also being abused, and the balance has gone too far the other way. Don't want a data centre? Stop living in the 21st century then.

As for Labour doing this, let's br blunt here, anything they do will be attacked by both the right and the left, they are in a universally hostile media environment. Look at the objections; "oh it's to hit their short term economic goals". So? In the rest of the media that isn't the Guardian, the narrative is "Labour are useless and can't hit any of their economic goals". No win situation. Oh and by the way, the Tories sold off 2.5% of the Green belt between 2012 and 2024, and wanted to do a lot more.

 

[Scouse]

While environmental protections are important, they're also being abused, and the balance has gone too far the other way. Don't want a data centre? Stop living in the 21st century then.

In Blighty we've lost 70% of animal life since 1970.

That's a rate of natural decline that's multiple orders of magnitude faster than the asteroid.

So no. It's not gone too far the other way. It's nowhere near strong enough.

But we need datacentres. Just not on fucking SSSI's and sensitive areas.

My point about builders holding onto vast land banks that easily eclipse the additional land they want, and brownfields alone being more than sufficient to cater to Labour's manifesto commitment is being steadfastly ignored.

We can build twice the number of homes required, not harming a single additional blade of grass over and above that which is already earmarked for construction. But construction companies aren't building because the value of their banks is going up and rapid construction will eat into their profits and actual material value of their companies.

So instead we're unnecessarily harming nature and paying these arseholes hundreds of millions for the pleasure of it.

What we *could* do is pass a law saying they've ten years to build on existing land banks or the land comes back into public ownership.

They'd fucking build on it then. Rapidly.

 

[Gwadien]

In Blighty we've lost 70% of animal life since 1970.

That's a rate of natural decline that's multiple orders of magnitude faster than the asteroid.

So no. It's not gone too far the other way. It's nowhere near strong enough.

But we need datacentres. Just not on fucking SSSI's and sensitive areas.

My point about builders holding onto vast land banks that easily eclipse the additional land they want, and brownfields alone being more than sufficient to cater to Labour's manifesto commitment is being steadfastly ignored.

We can build twice the number of homes required, not harming a single additional blade of grass over and above that which is already earmarked for construction. But construction companies aren't building because the value of their banks is going up and rapid construction will eat into their profits and actual material value of their companies.

So instead we're unnecessarily harming nature and paying these arseholes hundreds of millions for the pleasure of it.

What we *could* do is pass a law saying they've ten years to build on existing land banks or the land comes back into public ownership.

They'd fucking build on it then. Rapidly.

Bring in a law where a 'nazi' regime can force people to sell/use their land?

Can you imagine the headlines?

 

[Scouse]

Bring in a law where a 'nazi' regime can force people to sell/use their land?

Can you imagine the headlines?

Not people. Companies.

They rub their hands every time Labour are in because they're soft marks. We're dropping the amount of "affordable housing" they have to build in London by something like half, and we're going to pay them hundreds of millions - and let them build on land they previously wouldn't be able to build on. All when they've already got shitloads of land they're making a killing by not building on.

They're running a fucking racket and the government is capitulating.


People on the other hand? We have compulsory purchase - and we use it. We force individuals to sell their land and we don't pay over the odds - often below market value.

So if that's your latest definition of "nazi", then we're already there. Just with extra bending over to be fucked by big construction business.