LABOUR’S APPROACH TO FREE SPEECH COULD COST THEM VOTES AT THE NEXT ELECTION, NEW POLLING CONFIRMS

New polling from human rights organisation Liberty has found that free speech will be a major concern for voters at the next General Election – and the Government’s current approach on high-profile issues has been bad for free speech in Britain.

The new research, conducted alongside think tank More in Common, highlights the importance of free speech to the British public.

• A majority (58%) say a political party’s position on free speech would affect how they vote at a General Election.

The research also shows that Prime Minister Burnham’s stance on free speech is indistinguishable to the public from Keir Starmer’s. Asked whether they feel Andy Burnham cares more or less about protecting free speech than Keir Starmer:

• only 16% think he cares more than Keir Starmer about protecting free speech.

The study highlights specific examples of Labour’s approach to high-profile  issues over the past two years that have had a negative impact on freedom of speech in Britain, which Liberty said sends a clear message to the Prime Minister to change course.

More than four in 10 (43%) believe that people being arrested for holding signs in support of Palestine Action has had a negative effect on freedom of speech in the UK. Only 22% believe that it was positive.

Thousands of people have been arrested for holding signs since the proscription of Palestine Action. In September, the latest Home Office data published by the Guardian showed that nearly half of the arrests for terrorist-related activity since 2001 had happened in the previous year.

Successive governments have cracked down on people’s ability to protest, with new laws, criminal offences and police powers coming into force – most recently with the Crime and Policing Act 2026 in July 2026. The findings showed that the electorate were split on whether this was good or bad for free speech.

• 33% believe that giving police greater powers to restrict protests or marches is bad for free speech.
• 34% believe it is good.

The Starmer government also repeatedly signalled that certain phrases used at protests, such as “globalise the intifada”, could be banned and those chanting them prosecuted. The polling shows that:

• More people (36%) than not (27%) said that calling for phrases to be banned at protests is bad for free speech in the UK.

Additionally, the majority of people (53%) say calling protests “hate marches” or “thuggery” has had a negative effect on free speech in the UK.

Liberty is calling on the Prime Minister to show urgent leadership on free speech and adopt a consistent and non-partisan approach that balances the public’s right to express views which are offensive or insulting with the need to protect people from discrimination.

The human rights organisation argues that to do this the Government must apply laws that govern speech consistently across the political spectrum, rather than through heavy-handed policing and greater restrictions on lawful speech.

Previous polling commissioned by Liberty published in August 2026 showed that a majority (51%) of Britons’ confidence in the then-Starmer Government protecting people’s right to express their views had got worse during its two years in office.

Akiko Hart, Liberty Director, said:

“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.

“We’re fortunate to live in a nation shaped by many identities and perspectives, which means differences of opinion and sometimes uncomfortable views that could upset or offend others. This requires the Government to adopt a consistent, non-partisan approach to safeguard everyone’s right to speak freely while protecting people from discrimination.

“The Prime Minister must show urgent leadership on an issue that is dividing the country, and change course away from heavier restrictions and towards a principled defence of free speech.”