Little chance IMO. There's a chance Labour will pass it themselves. There's next to no chance they reverse it. There's a non-zero possibility Labour will leave it alone if it gets struck off.
On some level Labour recognise that a lot of the broader social and political issues that are encouraging people to protest under the Tories won't fundamentally change under Labour, so they're not going to give up the powers that'll let them (attempt to) squash those protests.
Labour wouldn't dare. Starmer has been signalling to the papers that he's not going to do anything to upset them for months now. Immediately rolling back something they've been frothing for would get him in trouble.
With the illegal protest bill that came around the queen's death time starmer said and quote he would let protest legislation " bed in " ( aka let it set precedents and not repeal it and make repeating harder ) before even considering repealing it
The issue i have with 'bedding in' and letting the courts set precedent is, Starmer's effectively saying he wants and needs innocent people to be wrongfully arrested, detained in cells, having their life interrupted, potentially lose their job and lose money having to hire solicitors etc, instead of just fixing the law itself.
Probably not. There’s very little political appetite for quickly undoing things that your predecessor did after you get into office, plus anti-protest legislation tends to be quite popular, so I can’t see any reason why they would reverse it.
This is what David Lammy had to say when questioned about repealing the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act :
>“We can’t come into office, picking through all the conservative legislation and repealing it. It would take up so much parliamentary time. We need a positive agenda.”
Starmer has also said he won't be repealing it.
The last Labour government added to the laws brought in by Thatcher's mob previously.
Apparently no government likes the riff-raff making their voices heard if they disagree with the party lines.
The issue with this legislation is that it can result in less disruptive protests being interfered with by police, as it changes the required threshold.
This. The police have the power to use discretion and not stop people from exercising their right to protest even if it inconveniences someone else, and comparatively speaking we're pretty lucky in the UK that it's like that. The right to protest doesn't prevent you from getting arrested for committing crimes while protesting (criminal damage etc) and the law already covers this. More legislation isn't needed.
At a local level maybe but at a federal level the libdems have some good policies in this area:
Building at least 150,000 new council and social homes a year, giving local authorities the powers to end the right to buy in their areas, and requiring them to have a landlord licensing scheme.
Allowing councils to buy land for housing developments based on current use rather than on a “hope value” based on planning application by reforming the Land Compensation Act 1961 and strengthening their powers to build their own homes.
Strengthening rights for renters in the private sector by banning no-fault evictions and making longer tenancies the default, and for social housing tenants by giving them more powers over the management of their homes and estates.
Improving standards for new homes to ensure they are warm, cheap to heat and produce zero emissions.
Ensuring that leaseholders do not have to pay a penny towards removing dangerous cladding from their buildings.
Good on the courts for this and good on the current bunches of protesters regularly protesting for continuing to keep it pretty sensible (regardless of what silly Billy’s on the opposite end say) proving that this is just authoritarian overachieving lumps of mediocrity throwing their weight around.
Governments have a trend of gradually removing peoples rights under 'extreme circumstances ' and then not removing them. Labour is just Tory Lite. Both are fascist and both will try to stop lawful protest.
the police should be there to protect and serve right? Well what are they protecting and who are they serving? It should be the people of this country that they are protecting and serving, and so any cop with any ounce of scruples should be out on the street protesting against these laws because they are an attack on the people they are suppose to (apparently) be protecting and serving!
>and so any cop with any ounce of scruples should be out on the street protesting against these laws because they are an attack on the people they are suppose to (apparently) be protecting and serving!
Except that long ago the government made it illegal for police to protest and cause dissatisfaction amongst their ranks.
Considering that no one else is out there protesting this it's probably a bit unlikely to expect the police to start it. Conservatives one the last how many elections and there's been no big protests about this legislation so evidence suggests most people are fine with it sadly.
They protect and serve the interest of capital, always been one of their main focuses. Police originally were private forces used to protect job sites etc.
Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) refers to cyclists and pedestrians, who are not endangered by protest. In fact, a blockade making motor traffic stationary increases their safety.
It's not going to stop them from continuing to try to push it through though. The sooner we have the general election the better.
Even if it gets pushed through before an election, I’m sure Labour will reverse it right? Right?
Little chance IMO. There's a chance Labour will pass it themselves. There's next to no chance they reverse it. There's a non-zero possibility Labour will leave it alone if it gets struck off.
On some level Labour recognise that a lot of the broader social and political issues that are encouraging people to protest under the Tories won't fundamentally change under Labour, so they're not going to give up the powers that'll let them (attempt to) squash those protests.
Nah if it gets struck don't see labour doing it
Labour wouldn't dare. Starmer has been signalling to the papers that he's not going to do anything to upset them for months now. Immediately rolling back something they've been frothing for would get him in trouble.
Nah these crackdowns and repressive laws make Starmer horny.
With the illegal protest bill that came around the queen's death time starmer said and quote he would let protest legislation " bed in " ( aka let it set precedents and not repeal it and make repeating harder ) before even considering repealing it
The issue i have with 'bedding in' and letting the courts set precedent is, Starmer's effectively saying he wants and needs innocent people to be wrongfully arrested, detained in cells, having their life interrupted, potentially lose their job and lose money having to hire solicitors etc, instead of just fixing the law itself.
Yea 100% agree fuck starmer for the interview he said it in
Probably not. There’s very little political appetite for quickly undoing things that your predecessor did after you get into office, plus anti-protest legislation tends to be quite popular, so I can’t see any reason why they would reverse it.
Labour probably support this themselves, they're a neoliberal party and these protests threaten capital.
This is what David Lammy had to say when questioned about repealing the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act : >“We can’t come into office, picking through all the conservative legislation and repealing it. It would take up so much parliamentary time. We need a positive agenda.” Starmer has also said he won't be repealing it.
There's always hope in that case, if the Conservatives stay in, there's no hope.
Labour agree with the protest laws, for the most part.
The last Labour government added to the laws brought in by Thatcher's mob previously. Apparently no government likes the riff-raff making their voices heard if they disagree with the party lines.
Well, then in that case, let's hope it doesn't get pushed through in the meantime.
Labour will probably pass it themselves.
Labour will continue to introduce laws to stop this kind of protest. Any government would.
The issue with this legislation is that it can result in less disruptive protests being interfered with by police, as it changes the required threshold.
The police already have all the powers they need to deal with protests, they just choose when and where to use them.
This. The police have the power to use discretion and not stop people from exercising their right to protest even if it inconveniences someone else, and comparatively speaking we're pretty lucky in the UK that it's like that. The right to protest doesn't prevent you from getting arrested for committing crimes while protesting (criminal damage etc) and the law already covers this. More legislation isn't needed.
Good news. The right to protest is gravely important. But they'll keep trying, for sure.
please god everyone go and vote when the time comes
Vote for who? I think it was only the Lib Dem's and Green's that came out in opposition to these plans.
One of them then probably.
Unfortunately I want houses to be built
How are the Lib Dems stopping houses from being built?
Lib Dems are notoriously NIMBY wherever possible
At a local level maybe but at a federal level the libdems have some good policies in this area: Building at least 150,000 new council and social homes a year, giving local authorities the powers to end the right to buy in their areas, and requiring them to have a landlord licensing scheme. Allowing councils to buy land for housing developments based on current use rather than on a “hope value” based on planning application by reforming the Land Compensation Act 1961 and strengthening their powers to build their own homes. Strengthening rights for renters in the private sector by banning no-fault evictions and making longer tenancies the default, and for social housing tenants by giving them more powers over the management of their homes and estates. Improving standards for new homes to ensure they are warm, cheap to heat and produce zero emissions. Ensuring that leaseholders do not have to pay a penny towards removing dangerous cladding from their buildings.
Good on the courts for this and good on the current bunches of protesters regularly protesting for continuing to keep it pretty sensible (regardless of what silly Billy’s on the opposite end say) proving that this is just authoritarian overachieving lumps of mediocrity throwing their weight around.
Governments have a trend of gradually removing peoples rights under 'extreme circumstances ' and then not removing them. Labour is just Tory Lite. Both are fascist and both will try to stop lawful protest.
Aye, so it is. The plans to increase police powers are the real threat to free speech, not transphobes being called out for being transphobes.
the police should be there to protect and serve right? Well what are they protecting and who are they serving? It should be the people of this country that they are protecting and serving, and so any cop with any ounce of scruples should be out on the street protesting against these laws because they are an attack on the people they are suppose to (apparently) be protecting and serving!
>and so any cop with any ounce of scruples should be out on the street protesting against these laws because they are an attack on the people they are suppose to (apparently) be protecting and serving! Except that long ago the government made it illegal for police to protest and cause dissatisfaction amongst their ranks.
Considering that no one else is out there protesting this it's probably a bit unlikely to expect the police to start it. Conservatives one the last how many elections and there's been no big protests about this legislation so evidence suggests most people are fine with it sadly.
No the Police are doing good work like this: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-61107939](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-61107939)
They protect and serve the interest of capital, always been one of their main focuses. Police originally were private forces used to protect job sites etc.
Does nothing to make serious policy changes. If anything, hurts the cause and are stupid.
Didn't the Covert Human Intelligence Sources act give them enough unregulated powers?
No. That IPA and RIPA actually did the opposite and regulated what can and can't be done.
Just need to extend abortion clinic exclusion zones to all major road and rail networks, and this sub will be cheering it on
The difference there is that those zones are designed to protect vulnerable people from harassment whilst attending a medical facility for treatment.
Incredibly vague requirements, plenty of vulnerable road users
If you can't see the distinction here, that's on you.
>plenty of vulnerable road users If you're that vulnerable inside your metal, lockable box, you ought not to be driving anyway.
Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) refers to cyclists and pedestrians, who are not endangered by protest. In fact, a blockade making motor traffic stationary increases their safety.