In Britain, a question once confined to academic debate and culture-war skirmishes has arrived at the ballot box: three in five voters say they will weigh a party's commitment to free speech when they next vote. The polling, commissioned by the human rights group Liberty, reflects a public unsettled by the arrests of thousands for holding placards and by legislation expanding police powers over protest — developments many associate with the Labour government's tenure. As the UK Supreme Court prepares to hear a November appeal on the proscription of Palestine Action, the country finds itself as
Free speech emerges as key election issue, with voters skeptical of Labour's record
Over 3,600 people arrested for displaying placards supporting Palestine Action since the group's proscription in July 2024.
The government has lost the public's confidence on protecting free speech
Mark
So three in five voters say free speech will affect their vote. That's a real number. But what does it actually mean when someone says that in a poll?
Mimi
It means they're telling a pollster that this issue matters to them—that they're paying attention to how parties handle it, and it will factor into their decision. It's not nothing. But you're right to push back. People say lots of things will affect their vote in abstract polling.
Luke
Exactly. And we don't know yet whether those three in five will actually change their behaviour, or whether they'll vote Labour anyway because of the economy or the NHS. The polling captures stated concern, not demonstrated behaviour.
Mark
Fair. So what's actually driving that concern? Is it the arrests themselves, or the broader feeling that the government is too restrictive?
Mimi
Both, I think. The polling shows people are troubled by specific policies—the Crime and Policing Act, the arrests over Palestine Action placards, politicians calling for phrases to be banned. But there's also a broader anxiety about the direction of travel.
Luke
And here's what I want to flag: we have 3,600 arrests for holding placards. That's a concrete number. But we don't know from this polling how many of those people were actually prosecuted, convicted, or what happened to them. The arrests themselves are the story Liberty is telling, but the full picture of enforcement is missing.
Mark
The Supreme Court appeal in November—that could change things, right?
Mimi
It could. The court has already said it's arguable that the proscription is disproportionate. If they rule against the ban, it undermines the entire enforcement action.
Luke
But we're speculating about what the court will do. What we know is that the government believes it's drawing a line between speech and unlawful behaviour. Liberty believes that line is in the wrong place. The polling shows voters are skeptical of where Labour has drawn it.
Mark
So this is really about whether the public trusts the government to get the balance right.
Mimi
Yes. And the polling suggests they don't—at least not on this issue, not right now.
The Pulse
- Over 3,600 people have been arrested since July 2024 simply for displaying placards expressing support for Palestine Action, a number that has quietly become one of the most contested facts in British civil liberties discourse.
- Liberty's polling reveals that public confidence in Labour's stewardship of free speech has eroded sharply — two in five voters see the placard arrests as harmful, and more than half say politicians labelling protests 'hate marches' has damaged the principle.
- The Crime and Policing Act, now law, hands police new powers to restrict demonstrations based on their 'cumulative impact,' a provision civil society groups warn could be used to silence sustained dissent rather than manage genuine disorder.
- The government insists it is drawing a necessary line between lawful expression and unlawful behaviour, but that distinction is precisely what the UK Supreme Court will be asked to scrutinise in November — with the proportionality of Palestine Action's proscription itself on trial.
- With Andy Burnham now Prime Minister and only one in seven voters believing he is more protective of free speech than his predecessor, the political pressure on the government to recalibrate is building ahead of the next general election.
In Britain, a question once confined to academic debate and culture-war skirmishes has arrived at the ballot box: three in five voters say they will weigh a party's commitment to free speech when they next vote. The polling, commissioned by the human rights group Liberty, reflects a public unsettled by the arrests of thousands for holding placards and by legislation expanding police powers over protest — developments many associate with the Labour government's tenure. As the UK Supreme Court prepares to hear a November appeal on the proscription of Palestine Action, the country finds itself asking an old and unresolved question: where does the protection of order end and the suppression of conscience begin?
Three in five British voters say a party's stance on free speech will influence how they vote at the next general election — a finding from Liberty-commissioned polling that suggests the issue has migrated from the fringes of political argument into the heart of electoral calculation.
The poll, conducted by More in Common across a nationally representative sample of 2,017 people, found widespread unease about the direction of free speech protections under Labour. Two in five respondents said the arrests of people holding placards in support of Palestine Action — proscribed as a direct action organisation in July 2024 — had harmed freedom of speech. More than half said politicians describing protests as 'hate marches' or 'thuggery' had been bad for the principle. Opinion was more divided on expanded police powers to restrict marches, but the overall picture was one of a public increasingly troubled by the government's approach.
The scale of enforcement has been striking. Since Palestine Action's proscription, more than 3,600 people are believed to have been arrested — most for holding placards reading 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.' Arrests have continued under Andy Burnham, who succeeded Keir Starmer as Prime Minister, though only about one in seven respondents believed Burnham was more committed to protecting free speech than his predecessor.
Liberty's director Akiko Hart described the results as 'a stark wake-up call,' calling on the Prime Minister to show urgent leadership and move away from heavier restrictions. The government, for its part, maintained that it would always protect peaceful protest, but drew a firm distinction between expressing a view and engaging in unlawful behaviour such as supporting proscribed organisations.
The legal reckoning may come sooner than the electoral one. The UK Supreme Court will hear a November appeal against Palestine Action's proscription, having already found it arguable that the ban disproportionately interferes with Convention rights protecting free speech and protest. That ruling could redraw the boundaries of lawful state restriction — and cast a long shadow over the government's enforcement record.
Three in five British voters say a political party's stance on free speech will shape how they cast their ballot at the next general election. That finding, drawn from polling commissioned by the human rights group Liberty, suggests the issue has moved from the margins of political debate into the centre of electoral calculation—and that the government's handling of it may carry a cost.
The polling, conducted by More in Common between September 11 and 15 across a nationally representative sample of 2,017 people in Great Britain, reveals a public increasingly concerned about the direction of free speech protections under Labour. A significant share of respondents believe recent government policies and political rhetoric have damaged rather than defended the principle. Two in five said the arrests of people holding placards in support of Palestine Action—a group proscribed as a direct action organisation in July 2024—had a negative effect on freedom of speech. Only one in five saw those arrests as positive.
The specific policies troubling voters extend beyond individual arrests. More than a third believe politicians calling for certain phrases to be banned at protests is harmful to free speech, compared with just over a quarter who view such calls positively. When asked about police receiving greater powers to restrict marches and demonstrations, opinion split roughly evenly—a third thought it good, a third thought it bad. But when the question turned to the language politicians use about protests themselves, the picture clarified: more than half said calling demonstrations "hate marches" or "thuggery" had been bad for free speech.
These concerns have crystallised around specific government actions. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for "tougher action" against people using phrases such as "globalise the intifada" at pro-Palestinian demonstrations, and arrests followed. The Crime and Policing Act, which received royal assent in April under Starmer's tenure, expanded police powers to restrict protests by requiring officers to consider the "cumulative impact" of repeated demonstrations in the same area when deciding whether to impose conditions. Civil society groups criticised the measure sharply.
The scale of enforcement has been substantial. Since Palestine Action's proscription, more than 3,600 people are believed to have been arrested for displaying support for the organisation—most for holding placards stating "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action." Arrests have continued under Andy Burnham, who succeeded Starmer as Prime Minister. When asked whether Burnham cared more about protecting free speech than his predecessor, only about one in seven respondents thought he did.
Akiko Hart, director of Liberty, framed the polling results as a warning. "The ability to express ourselves freely makes us all who we are," she said, and the findings should serve as "a stark wake-up call for the government, which has lost the public's confidence on protecting this fundamental human right." She called on the Prime Minister to show "urgent leadership" and change course away from heavier restrictions toward a principled defence of free speech.
The government's response emphasised the distinction between protected expression and unlawful behaviour. A Home Office spokesperson said the government would always protect freedom of speech and peaceful protest, but noted there was "a clear difference between expressing a view and engaging in unlawful behaviour—such as inciting hatred and violence or supporting proscribed organisations." The statement suggested the government sees its enforcement actions as drawing a necessary line, not erasing one.
The legal landscape may shift. The UK Supreme Court will hear an appeal against Palestine Action's proscription in November, having already decided it is arguable that the ban represents a disproportionate interference with articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect freedom of speech and protest. That hearing could reshape the boundaries of what the state can restrict in the name of public order—and potentially vindicate or undermine the government's enforcement record to date.
Notable Quotes
The ability to express ourselves freely makes us all who we are, and free speech is of vital importance to the British public. These findings should serve as a stark wake-up call for the government, which has lost the public's confidence on protecting this fundamental human right.— Akiko Hart, director of Liberty
There is a clear difference between expressing a view and engaging in unlawful behaviour—such as inciting hatred and violence or supporting proscribed organisations. It is right that as a society and a government, we draw that line clearly.— Home Office spokesperson
Want the full story?
Read the original at The Guardian ↗