The Online 'Safety' Bill and 'legal but harmful' speech

[MikeWM]

Buried below other news today is the announcement that the Labour Party are going to push for the measures to require internet sites to remove 'legal but harmful' speech to be put back into the Online 'Safety' Bill, and if it is passed without them, that they are going to make it a priority to amend the Act as soon as they get into power.

Labour pledges to toughen ‘weakened and gutted’ online safety bill

Shadow culture secretary Lucy Powell vows to target algorithms that bombard children with harmful content if party wins power

www.theguardian.com

Labour pledges to toughen ‘weakened and gutted’ online safety bill

The move by Labour comes weeks after the Conservative government ditched plans to in effect outlaw online material that is judged as “legal but harmful”, and dropped proposals to make platforms such as Facebook and Instagram liable for significant financial penalties for breaching regulations.

Labour said it would attempt to amend the online safety bill to something closer to its original form when it returns to parliament in just over two weeks’ time.

But if it failed, Powell said Labour would legislate as soon as possible to address problems with “legal but harmful” material, impose tough new criminal sanctions on those responsible for promoting damaging content, and create a new ombudsman to adjudicate.

And of course the Government of the day would determine (via secondary legislation) what was considered 'harmful' and therefore cannot be raised on internet platforms (at the peril of them being exposed to 'tough new criminal sanctions' (!)). But conveniently, Labour have offered us a helpful guide to what sort of things they are thinking about classifying as such, here's what Powell said about it last month in the Commons:

Disinformation, abuse, incel gangs, body shaming, covid denial, holocaust denial, scammers - the list goes on

A list that I think should concern pretty much everyone. Firstly she doesn't appear to understand the difference between things that are already illegal and those that are not.

Then, as we've learned over the past three years, the definition of 'disinformation' is pretty much 'anything the government doesn't want you to think', which will now become 'anything the government doesn't want you to think and isn't going to allow you to talk about'.

And as for talking about 'covid denial' - whatever that is, precisely, though presumably she means anything that isn't 'The Science' or from the 'experts', most of which has by now been proven to be wrong - in the same breath as holocaust denial, I think that is utterly beneath contempt.

Over the last few years it has been very difficult to put forward dissenting views on lockdowns, masks, covid vaccine effectiveness/safety, etc. without being banned from such platforms. We know from the 'Twitter files' and from Alex Berenson's lawsuit against Twitter that the Biden administration was leaning on these platforms to ban people that were putting forward ideas that were against the narrative that they were promoting, even people who were experts in the relevant fields, despite such requests being on - to be generous - very shaky legal ground.

Does anyone really doubt that if these powers were codified into law that a government wouldn't use them to try to make their own lives easier? This is really dangerous stuff.

 

[brad465]

Some of them make sense, I agree covid denial generically shouldn't. What I think needs pushing more is critical thinking education, which if widespread, would significantly reduce the negative impacts of most of the above, particularly through being able to resist misinformation and question whether specific narratives are actually correct (such as covid lockdowns).

 

[danm14]

I fear that a lot of people who are supportive of restrictions on "disinformation" fail to consider that just because their definition; the Government's definition; and the broad public consensus definition of the term are all aligned at present, doesn't mean that they always will be.

To raise a topical example, I'm not sure many of those people would agree with a definition that encompasses suggesting that the requirement to present photographic ID to vote is being introduced, at least in part, to lower voting rates among demographics which have lower levels of support for the Conservative Party - but equally I don't think many would be too surprised if the Government's definition were to shift to include that.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I agree with your concerns @MikeWM. Ultimately the people who end up deciding what is ‘harmful’ are always those one would least want in that position.

 

[MikeWM]

What I think needs pushing more is critical thinking education, which if widespread, would significantly reduce the negative impacts of most of the above, particularly through being able to resist misinformation and question whether specific narratives are actually correct (such as covid lockdowns).

If one were cynical, one may think that this would never actually happen, because it makes the life of the powers-that-be more difficult. Far better for them to have an unquestioning (and preferably also fearful) population - one of the reasons they apparently feel it necessary to close off all routes where people may encounter a different narrative.

--

I fear that a lot of people who are supportive of restrictions on "disinformation" fail to consider that just because their definition; the Government's definition; and the broad public consensus definition of the term are all aligned at present, doesn't mean that they always will be.

Yes, and that is why we need the ability to raise dissenting views, however problematic they may be. As I've said on the Twitter/Elon Musk thread a number of times, the solution to 'bad' speech is more speech, not censorship. Though this situation is considerably worse than that, because we're not even necessarily talking about 'bad' speech but simply politically inconvenient speech, which in many cases may well be true and/or a perfectly legitimate perspective.

 

[brad465]

If one were cynical, one may think that this would never actually happen, because it makes the life of the powers-that-be more difficult. Far better for them to have an unquestioning (and preferably also fearful) population - one of the reasons they apparently feel it necessary to close off all routes where people may encounter a different narrative.

There is a large amount of truth to this I suspect, but would add there will be politicians who want critical thinking because it would help them get into power, although they are most likely to be in the smaller parties who have never held power and/or will find it difficult to gain power under the current system. Also, I'd say the group that doesn't want critical thinking is wider than just the current Government and/or other likely governments: certain media corporations don't want it as their power and influence will go if people realise what they write/report is often garbage/sensationalism, while corporations won't want it if it means less people fall for their marketing ploys. These groups will also donate/lobby politicians to ensure their interests remain. Finland has this education widespread, so it can be done, but when its entrenched it's hard to see how to overcome this without an actual revolution (and no, not the Marxist definition of revolution, the generic overthrow of a regime/government definition).

 

[island]

Under the Online Safety Bill I suspect a lot of this forum's COVID subsection would have been at risk of classification as "legal but harmful" because it didn't correspond to the official line.

 

[nw1]

Under the Online Safety Bill I suspect a lot of this forum's COVID subsection would have been at risk of classification as "legal but harmful" because it didn't correspond to the official line.

I'm not sure anyone on here is denying Covid exists ("covid denial") though. People are merely discussing the possibility that lockdown might have caused more harm than good, which isn't exactly Covid denial. No-one voicing such opinions is denying Covid exists. They are just expressing concerns that lockdown might harm more people than it helps in the long run.

This bill might have some positives, too. For example it might help limit casual xenophobia and racism (the "bl***y foreigners taking our jobs yada yada" sort), which is AFAIK legal, but might normalise prejudice towards non-British people and thus, perhaps, should be limited.

 

[island]

I'm not sure anyone on here is denying Covid exists ("covid denial") though. People are merely discussing the possibility that lockdown might have caused more harm than good, which isn't exactly Covid denial. No-one voicing such opinions is denying Covid exists.

I didn't say they were. But several other points made on this forum, such as the ineffectiveness of face coverings, would likely have fallen foul.

 

[Broucek]

This is deeply troubling. Even if we trust the good intentions of a future Starmer-led Labour government, those powers would be available to any successors who may have less benign inte

 

[Towers]

The powers-that-be perhaps ought to stop being quite so obsessed with trying to build a politically utopian society of pure thoughts, and bring their focus back around to the basics of dealing with things like actual, real world crime. Our society is rotting around us while those supposedly in charge of it fiddle with the frilly stuff. Ordinarily one might be tempted to suggest just another Tory distraction, but Labour weighing in suggests otherwise.

 

[Yew]

Would this mean that audible would be unable to distribute Terry Pratchetts "Diskworld" novel series, as the model of a disk-shaped world resting on the back of four elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle doesn't fit in with the "official narrative" of an oblate spheroid?

 

[gabrielhj07]

People are merely discussing the possibility that lockdown might have caused more harm than good, which isn't exactly Covid denial.

No, but that sort of discussion would have you banned from twitter a few years ago.

 

[Watershed]

I agree with you here @MikeWM. If 'legal but harmful' content becomes illegal to publish in most places, it's intellectually dishonest to claim it's still 'legal'. It's like claiming that you "didn't have" to be vaccinated in 2022 if you were a nurse or wanted to travel internationally - even though the consequences were so severe that it was effectively impossible to avoid it.

It's a pathetic attempt to avoid the newspaper headlines and legal difficulties associated with actually making such speech illegal. If it's so harmful that it justifies being banned online, then ban it outright.

 

[yorkie]

I won't be voting for Labour but I suspect Labour will win, regardless of how bad their Covid policies were and also regardless of how bad their policies regarding this bill are.

I didn't say they were. But several other points made on this forum, such as the ineffectiveness of face coverings, would likely have fallen foul.

Which is interesting as several of us used studies to back up our assertions; furthermore, the views many of us held on this matter were exactly the same that Chris Whitty and many others openly said early in the pandemic.

No, but that sort of discussion would have you banned from twitter a few years ago.

I don't think it would have resulted in a ban, but prominent opponents of lockdowns (who were later proven right) were "shadow banned" which means the reach of their Tweets was suppressed, but this is not the same as an actual ban.

 

[brad465]

The powers-that-be perhaps ought to stop being quite so obsessed with trying to build a politically utopian society of pure thoughts, and bring their focus back around to the basics of dealing with things like actual, real world crime. Our society is rotting around us while those supposedly in charge of it fiddle with the frilly stuff. Ordinarily one might be tempted to suggest just another Tory distraction, but Labour weighing in suggests otherwise.

Many politicians don't have the competence to deal with actual issues like real world crime, and/or it suits them to have it not dealt with properly. As a result they have to resort to distraction/divide and rule tactics so voters/the population don't notice the real world problems so much, or are made to believe the causes of the real world problems are things which are actually non-issues.

 

[Yew]

Many politicians don't have the competence to deal with actual issues like real world crime, and/or it suits them to have it not dealt with properly. As a result they have to resort to distraction/divide and rule tactics so voters/the population don't notice the real world problems so much, or are made to believe the causes of the real world problems are things which are actually non-issues.

Given that the typical thing for most politicians to do is to follow the simplistic quest for vengeance, with harsher sentences, and "tough on crime" rhetoric to appeal to the baser instincts. Rather than evidence-based measures to reduce recidivism, and a long term view to reduce the incentives to get into crime; that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[DustyBin]

I'm not sure anyone on here is denying Covid exists ("covid denial") though. People are merely discussing the possibility that lockdown might have caused more harm than good, which isn't exactly Covid denial. No-one voicing such opinions is denying Covid exists. They are just expressing concerns that lockdown might harm more people than it helps in the long run.

Who says?

I didn’t use to think I was an anti-vaxxer, but it turns out I am apparently!

 

[brad465]

I won't be voting for Labour but I suspect Labour will win, regardless of how bad their Covid policies were and also regardless of how bad their policies regarding this bill are.

I wouldn't be surprised if a Labour Government would not be able to implement certain policies that either erode civil liberties or are perceived to, because such bills get defeated in Parliament, and/or are hounded in the press to the point it's too toxic to proceed. This is essentially what happened in the New Labour years with ID cards and trying to extend being detained under the Terrorism Act to 42 days, despite Labour having a decent majority in Parliament at the time.

 

[nw1]

Who says?

I think even the most inept lawyer could easily prove in court that lockdown scepticism does not equal denial of the existence of Covid!

I wouldn't be surprised if a Labour Government would not be able to implement certain policies that either erode civil liberties or are perceived to, because such bills get defeated in Parliament, and/or are hounded in the press to the point it's too toxic to proceed. This is essentially what happened in the New Labour years with ID cards and trying to extend being detained under the Terrorism Act to 42 days, despite Labour having a decent majority in Parliament at the time.

Also, the Tories have already eroded civil liberties significantly, with the Policing Bill, amongst other things I don't want to mention here; anything Labour do will be merely the icing on the cake. Remember Patel and Braverman are the absolute personification of authoritarianism, being probably the two most authoritarian Home Secretaries in my lifetime by a country mile. And both right-wing Tories, of course.

I suspect much of the Labour vote will be from supporters of civil liberties, people outraged by the views and actions of Patel and Braverman, so it would be a bad political mistake for a potential Labour government to sign up to authoritarianism. I suspect the libertarian-left and libertarian-centre is a bigger bloc than most politicians think, so they would do well to listen to us.

 

[MikeWM]

Under the Online Safety Bill I suspect a lot of this forum's COVID subsection would have been at risk of classification as "legal but harmful" because it didn't correspond to the official line.

Yes, and for many reasons that would have been unfortunate. Even leaving aside the civil liberties implications and indeed the practicalities of such a move, I'd say we had mostly very good debates on the covid subforum, with dissection of evidence and so forth - certainly better than on most other places on the internet. I remain grateful to the forum and the moderators that we were allowed to have those interesting discussions in a public place.

--

I'm not sure anyone on here is denying Covid exists ("covid denial") though. People are merely discussing the possibility that lockdown might have caused more harm than good, which isn't exactly Covid denial. No-one voicing such opinions is denying Covid exists. They are just expressing concerns that lockdown might harm more people than it helps in the long run.

It is hard to know what people actually mean by 'covid denial'. The most common use would appear to be what I said in my first post (anything that isn't 'The Science' or from the 'experts') which would pretty much match with what has been said from the Labour front bench for the last couple of years.

Yes, there are a very tiny number of people who deny covid exists at all, but you really have to try to go find them (you may find the occasional one in the below-the-line comments of off-guardian, for example) and it is hard to see what purpose would be served by banning them, so I suspect they mean something rather wider.

--

I wouldn't be surprised if a Labour Government would not be able to implement certain policies that either erode civil liberties or are perceived to, because such bills get defeated in Parliament, and/or are hounded in the press to the point it's too toxic to proceed. This is essentially what happened in the New Labour years with ID cards and trying to extend being detained under the Terrorism Act to 42 days, despite Labour having a decent majority in Parliament at the time.

A decent majority but considerably less than in 1997-2005, when they had a big enough majority to do pretty much anything they felt like. From 2005-2010 there was a fairly large rump of leftists (such as Jeremy Corbyn) who provided opposition to most of this sort of nonsense and managed to stop some of it getting through. Though ID cards did get through anyway - it was the first act of the coalition government in 2010 to repeal the legislation.

After the next election the chances are that Labour will have a rather large majority rather more like 1997-2005. and therefore be able to do whatever it likes. And behind the scenes Starmer is fixing candidate selections all across the country, apparently to try and avoid having such a left-ist rump to irritate him if/when he comes to power.

--

Also, the Tories have already eroded civil liberties significantly, with the Policing Bill, amongst other things I don't want to mention here; anything Labour do will be merely the icing on the cake. Remember Patel and Braverman are the absolute personification of authoritarianism, being probably the two most authoritarian Home Secretaries in my lifetime by a country mile. And both right-wing Tories, of course.

I suspect much of the Labour vote will be from supporters of civil liberties, people outraged by the views and actions of Patel and Braverman, so it would be a bad political mistake for a potential Labour government to sign up to authoritarianism. I suspect the libertarian-left and libertarian-centre is a bigger bloc than most politicians think, so they would do well to listen to us.

It's probably not a massive surprise that I'm very keen indeed on defending civil liberties, and that's one of the main reasons I wouldn't vote for Labour in its current form with a bargepole, as they don't seem to understand the first thing about it, much as the 2005-2010 government failed to do (when I resigned from the Labour party (second of three times!), for the most part over their total disregard for civil liberties issues). The only leader they've had in recent times that appeared to have some understanding of the importance of civil liberties was Corbyn, which was a large part of why I voted Labour in 2017 and 2019. Now I don't see myself ever voting Labour again. Indeed no-one who supports civil liberties should be going anywhere near the Labour party under its current leadership, in my opinion, as a Labour government now with a large majority will almost certainly be considerably worse than even the 2005-2010 one on this issue.

Though of course I agree that the current lot of Tories are attacking civil liberties all over the place too - after all, this Online 'Safety' Bill is theirs, even though they've removed one or two of the worst parts of it.

So there's no way I'll be voting for either of them any time soon, although our electoral system means we'll end up with one or the other yet again

 

[brad465]

A decent majority but considerably less than in 1997-2005, when they had a big enough majority to do pretty much anything they felt like. From 2005-2010 there was a fairly large rump of leftists (such as Jeremy Corbyn) who provided opposition to most of this sort of nonsense and managed to stop some of it getting through. Though ID cards did get through anyway - it was the first act of the coalition government in 2010 to repeal the legislation.

After the next election the chances are that Labour will have a rather large majority rather more like 1997-2005. and therefore be able to do whatever it likes. And behind the scenes Starmer is fixing candidate selections all across the country, apparently to try and avoid having such a left-ist rump to irritate him if/when he comes to power.

Before 2005 they certainly could on almost everything, although Iraq needed Tory support to get through as a huge Labour rebellion existed for that vote in 2003. I don't think Labour will have a huge majority after the next election, as, while they look set to be the largest party, polls tend to narrow before an election, as campaigns do have an effect, and the demographics and distribution of swing voters are different now to 1997. If Labour needed Lib Dem support to govern then I can see PR coming in and a number of controversial things like that in the subject of this thread being binned in order to get support for other legislation, so in some ways this would be my preferred election result.

 

[MikeWM]

Before 2005 they certainly could on almost everything, although Iraq needed Tory support to get through as a huge Labour rebellion existed for that vote in 2003. I don't think Labour will have a huge majority after the next election, as, while they look set to be the largest party, polls tend to narrow before an election, as campaigns do have an effect, and the demographics and distribution of swing voters are different now to 1997. If Labour needed Lib Dem support to govern then I can see PR coming in and a number of controversial things like that in the subject of this thread being binned in order to get support for other legislation, so in some ways this would be my preferred election result.

Certainly harder to get a *massive* majority without winning lots of seats in Scotland, and quite hard to see them doing that in first-past-the-post at the moment.

Agree that an awful lot can happen before the next election. This could be like 1981 or 1990, when Labour looked set to easily win the next election but didn't, or 1995, when they did. Only 20 months ago the Tories won the Hartlepool by-election with a 16% swing from Labour after all. And about 20 months from now seems the most likely date for the next election (September/October 2024).

(as an aside, this is a personal view, but I believe that, especially if the polls don't improve for the Tories by the summer, and the local elections go badly, there is at least a 50:50 chance that Boris Johnson will be PM again by this time next year. Not sure what effect that would have!)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is a horrible area to do correctly, but I'm pretty sure that Labour's approach is wrong and risks damaging free speech.

There are certainly things that should be outlawed - outright lying about matters of public interest, or deliberately inciting hatred or violence against people or groups of people, and being actually abusive or threatening towards someone, for example. But you need very tight control over the definitions of what is considered illegal to make sure those definitions don't inadvertently (or maliciously) stop people from expressing genuine non-conventional points of view, and I'm not convinced Labour understand that nuance.

Disinformation, abuse, incel gangs, body shaming, covid denial, holocaust denial, scammers - the list goes on

Many of the things on that list would worry me.

• Disinformation: Sure, if someone is deliberately lying, but what about people who are stating honest but mistaken opinions?
• Abuse. In principle, yes, abuse is always wrong. But then I look at how many people in Labour and the LibDems seem to consider 'abuse' to include simply pointing out the (IMO) completely correct fact that, if you have male genitals then you are a man, and I start to worry about who gets to decide what constitutes abuse.
• Incel gangs. Yes, if those gangs are spreading hatred or encouraging violence towards women, that should be banned. But what about frustrated, unhappy, men giving vent to their frustrations - should that also be banned?
• covid denial. The problem with this is that some things that were a couple of years ago regarded as Covid denial are today regarded as possibly correct.
• holocaust denial. Yeah, this appears to come under outright misinformation.
• scammers. Yes, scammers should not only have their misinformation banned, but should - for the most part - be in prison. But I would have thought this is more about fraud, and the need to enforce existing laws better?

 

[nw1]

Certainly harder to get a *massive* majority without winning lots of seats in Scotland, and quite hard to see them doing that in first-past-the-post at the moment.

Agree that an awful lot can happen before the next election. This could be like 1981 or 1990, when Labour looked set to easily win the next election but didn't,

Both with explanations of course. AFAIK the Falklands War swung people towards Thatcher in 1982, even though it was completely irrelevant to the domestic policy which had affected huge numbers of people in the early 80s and which was surely a greater consideration when voting. And in 1990, we had a change of leader, which helped them a great deal. We've already had two changes of leader and it certainly hasn't caused a Major-like poll boost.

or 1995, when they did.

I fancy it'll be not as extreme as 1997 but I'd still expect to see at least a small Labour majority. Sunak just doesn't inspire - he comes across dull, weak and pro-austerity.

Only 20 months ago the Tories won the Hartlepool by-election with a 16% swing from Labour after all. And about 20 months from now seems the most likely date for the next election (September/October 2024).

I'd say May/June is considerably more likely. Anything later will smack of arrogance and desperation by the Tories, and will cost them votes. September would be a poor time as it would require an August campaign (with people on holiday) and October can often be wet and sometimes stormy, certainly compared to May/June.

(as an aside, this is a personal view, but I believe that, especially if the polls don't improve for the Tories by the summer, and the local elections go badly, there is at least a 50:50 chance that Boris Johnson will be PM again by this time next year. Not sure what effect that would have!)

I know what you mean as they have probably run out of alternatives, and don't want to waste Mordaunt (relatively well regarded by some it appears) on an election they are likely to lose. But I suspect they'll just struggle on with Sunak, I wonder whether the Tories are now thinking long-term and trying to plan for winning in 2028/9 by saving their better candidates to be Leader of the Opposition in the next parliament.

 

[DustyBin]

I think even the most inept lawyer could easily prove in court that lockdown scepticism does not equal denial of the existence of Covid!

@MikeWM has already made the point, but “covid denial” doesn’t necessarily mean denial of the existence of covid. The term was used variously as a strawman or to gaslight those who dared question the covid dogma.

As for any kind of legal challenge, I’m sure emergency legislation could again be (ab)used to prevent it getting to court.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm extremely concerned about the wide definitions in this Bill, and furthermore don't see any reason for online to be considered separately from any other form of communication.

Indeed, it is making me even more politically homeless, because it's making me more reluctant to vote Labour. I could end up being forced to abstain or spoil. Free speech is very important to me, as is freedom to refute someone being foolish with it. While we already have laws covering things like racism, discrimination on protected characteristics, abuse, scamming, incitement and the likes which just need to be used properly.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I'm extremely concerned about the wide definitions in this Bill,

I agree. If speech is to be restricted (which is a bad idea in itself), then such restrictions must be extremely specific and well-defined.

and furthermore don't see any reason for online to be considered separately from any other form of communication.

I also agree, as having this seperation often leads to conflating online offence with physical violence in terms of repercussions.

 

[MikeWM]

Both with explanations of course. AFAIK the Falklands War swung people towards Thatcher in 1982, even though it was completely irrelevant to the domestic policy which had affected huge numbers of people in the early 80s and which was surely a greater consideration when voting. And in 1990, we had a change of leader, which helped them a great deal. We've already had two changes of leader and it certainly hasn't caused a Major-like poll boost.

Yes to the first point, plus the SDP splitting the Labour vote.

Yes to the latter, but as I said in the summer, they knew *why* they were getting rid of Thatcher, and Major came in and quickly defused the Poll Tax bomb, and it felt rather like a new fresh government for a while. Conversely I don't think the Tories really knew why they were getting rid of Johnson, or at least not what *policies* they wanted changing, and so they are just floundering.

I fancy it'll be not as extreme as 1997 but I'd still expect to see at least a small Labour majority. Sunak just doesn't inspire - he comes across dull, weak and pro-austerity.

Can't disagree with that assessment of Sunak! And pro-austerity was very much not the platform on which this government was elected.

I'd say May/June is considerably more likely. Anything later will smack of arrogance and desperation by the Tories, and will cost them votes. September would be a poor time as it would require an August campaign (with people on holiday) and October can often be wet and sometimes stormy, certainly compared to May/June.

I think that will depend on the polls; we shall see.

I know what you mean as they have probably run out of alternatives, and don't want to waste Mordaunt (relatively well regarded by some it appears) on an election they are likely to lose. But I suspect they'll just struggle on with Sunak, I wonder whether the Tories are now thinking long-term and trying to plan for winning in 2028/9 by saving their better candidates to be Leader of the Opposition in the next parliament.

Again, we shall see I don't know if our democracy or indeed patience can stretch to another change of leader - but realistically the Tories are going to go into the election with one of two leaders, Sunak or Johnson. And if Sunak can't produce any sort of poll recovery and the Tories look to be on track to lose hundreds of seats, then I think there's a good chance they'll gamble with putting Johnson back in.

Indeed, it is making me even more politically homeless, because it's making me more reluctant to vote Labour. I could end up being forced to abstain or spoil. Free speech is very important to me, as is freedom to refute someone being foolish with it. While we already have laws covering things like racism, discrimination on protected characteristics, abuse, scamming, incitement and the likes which just need to be used properly.

Totally agree. As far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with the existing laws. Most of modern law-making seems to be either 'gold-plating' existing laws that are already perfectly fine if used correctly, and/or writing vague stuff that can be twisted in all sorts of ways depending on the current ideology of the government. These proposals combine the worst of both these tendancies.

It is particularly troubling when you have a government-in-waiting already saying very troubling things about civil liberties. Generally a new government comes in and for a year or two tries to get rid of the excesses of their predecessors before they embark on their own infringements, but Labour seem to want to skip that first stage.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I don't think the Tories really knew why they were getting rid of Johnson

Press pressure, mainly.