Liberty and More in Common polled 2,017 people across Great Britain between 11 and 15 September and found a straightforward signal: free speech is now a vote-deciding issue, and the government is losing the argument. Three in five respondents said a party's position on free speech would affect how they voted. That is not a culture-war fringe — it is a structural electoral risk. The specific policy flashpoints are damaging. Two in five said arrests of people holding signs in support of the proscribed group Palestine Action had been negative for freedom of speech; only one in five said those arrests were positive. More than half said calling protests "hate marches" or "thuggery" had been bad for free speech. When asked about police gaining greater powers to restrict protests, opinion split evenly — a third for, a third against — suggesting the government cannot even claim a mandate for its own Crime and Policing Act provisions. The Palestine Action proscription is the sharpest edge. Since the group was banned in July last year — the first direct action protest group to be proscribed — more than 3,600 people have been arrested, most for holding placards reading "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action." Arrests have continued under Andy Burnham. The UK Supreme Court will hear an appeal against the ban in November, having already found it arguable that proscription disproportionately interferes with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Only about one in seven respondents believed Burnham cared more about protecting free speech than his predecessor Keir Starmer. That is a devastating number for a new leader. It means the leadership transition has not reset public perception on civil liberties; the brand damage from Starmer-era policies has carried over. Labour's position is caught in a familiar trap: security-state measures poll well in the abstract ("tougher on extremism") but poll badly when people see the concrete application (arresting placard-holders, banning protest phrases). The Crime and Policing Act's requirement that police consider the "cumulative impact" of repeated demonstrations sounded reasonable in Parliament; in practice, it hands authorities a discretionary tool to suppress persistent dissent. Liberty director Akiko Hart framed the findings as a call for "consistent, non-partisan" free speech protection. The Home Office responded with the standard formulation: peaceful protest is protected, but inciting hatred or supporting proscribed organisations is not. That line only holds if the public believes placard arrests are genuinely about security rather than chilling legitimate speech — and the polling suggests a plurality does not. The 20-year question is whether Labour is building a durable electoral coalition or eroding one. Free speech concerns cut across left-right lines — both sides have complained about cancel culture, and both see the other as the chief culprit. A party that alienates civil libertarians on its own flank while failing to win over security hawks on the right ends up losing from both directions.
