Free Speech Emerges as Key UK Election Issue

Published: 28 September 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Freedom of speech is emerging as an important issue for voters ahead of the next UK general election, with new polling indicating that a large proportion of the public could consider political parties’ positions on free expression when deciding how to vote.

The research, commissioned by civil liberties organisation Liberty and conducted by More in Common, found that three in five people surveyed said a political party’s position on free speech would influence their voting decision at a general election. Liberty has argued that the findings should prompt the Labour government to reconsider its approach to protest, policing and freedom of expression.

The polling also found significant differences in how voters viewed a number of recent government policies and political statements. In several areas, respondents were more likely to describe developments as harmful to freedom of speech than beneficial, although views varied depending on the issue.

The findings were released ahead of a joint Liberty and More in Common panel discussion at the Labour party conference. They add to an increasingly prominent public debate over the balance between protecting free expression and preventing intimidation, hatred, violence and other unlawful activity.

Liberty director Akiko Hart said the ability to express opinions freely was fundamental to British society and argued that the government should adopt a consistent approach to protecting freedom of expression.

Hart said the findings indicated that public confidence in the government’s handling of the issue had weakened. She called for what Liberty described as a more principled defence of free speech and urged ministers to reconsider policies that the organisation believes have placed greater restrictions on public protest.

The polling, however, does not itself establish that free speech would determine the outcome of a future election. It measures respondents’ stated attitudes at a particular point in time, and voting decisions are influenced by a wide range of issues, including the economy, public services, immigration, health, taxation and political leadership.

More in Common surveyed 2,017 people across Great Britain between 11 and 15 September. The sample was designed to be nationally representative, although, as with other opinion polling, the findings represent public opinion during the period when the research was conducted rather than a prediction of future electoral behaviour.

One of the most controversial areas examined was the arrest of people who displayed signs expressing support for Palestine Action, which has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation. Around two in five respondents said such arrests had a negative effect on freedom of speech, while approximately one in five considered them to have had a positive effect.

The issue has become a significant point of disagreement over the boundaries between political expression and restrictions imposed for public safety and national security reasons.

Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation in July 2025. Since then, thousands of people have reportedly been arrested in connection with expressions of support for the group, including people carrying placards opposing the proscription.

The legal status of the ban remains under scrutiny. The UK Supreme Court is due to hear an appeal concerning the proscription in November. The court has previously indicated that there is an arguable case that the ban could represent a disproportionate interference with rights protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concern freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

The government’s position is that there is a distinction between expressing a political view and engaging in unlawful activity. A Home Office spokesperson said freedom of speech and peaceful protest were fundamental rights that the government would protect, while arguing that the state also had a responsibility to respond to incitement to hatred or violence and support for proscribed organisations.

The debate has also focused on the powers available to police when managing demonstrations. More than a third of respondents said calls by politicians to prohibit certain phrases at protests had been harmful to free speech, while slightly more than a quarter considered such restrictions beneficial.

When asked about expanded police powers to restrict protests and marches, views were more evenly divided. Around one-third considered greater police powers positive, while a similar proportion viewed them negatively.

The language used by politicians to describe demonstrations also attracted concern. More than half of those surveyed said describing protests as “hate marches” or “thuggery” had a negative effect on freedom of speech.

Such findings reflect a broader dispute over the tone of political debate in Britain. Politicians from both the left and right have complained about what they describe as “cancel culture”, while often accusing political opponents of using social pressure or institutional power to silence dissenting views.

The issue has become particularly sensitive around demonstrations relating to the conflict in the Middle East. Former prime minister Keir Starmer had called for tougher action against certain phrases used at pro-Palestinian protests, including “globalise the intifada”. Several people have been arrested in connection with demonstrations involving such slogans.

The government has maintained that restrictions are intended to address potential risks rather than suppress lawful political disagreement. The distinction between protected expression and conduct that crosses into criminal or discriminatory behaviour remains central to the debate.

Another significant development was the Crime and Policing Act, which received royal assent in April under the previous Labour administration. The legislation expanded police powers in relation to demonstrations and allowed authorities to take into account the cumulative impact of repeated protests in the same location when imposing conditions.

Civil society organisations criticised the changes, arguing that broader police powers could make it more difficult for people to organise repeated demonstrations and exercise their rights to peaceful assembly.

Supporters of the measures have argued that police need adequate powers to manage repeated protests, particularly when demonstrations cause significant disruption or create risks for residents, businesses or public services.

The dispute therefore involves competing considerations. Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are protected rights, but those rights are subject to legal restrictions in circumstances where public authorities consider that other interests, including public safety and the prevention of crime, are at stake.

The latest polling suggests that voters are paying attention to where political parties position themselves within that debate. Three in five respondents said a party’s stance on free speech would affect their voting decision, making the issue potentially relevant to future political campaigning.

The research also examined perceptions of political leadership on the issue. Only about one in seven respondents believed Andy Burnham was more committed to protecting free speech than his predecessor, Keir Starmer.

That finding should be understood in the context of the timing of the survey and the transition in Labour leadership. Public assessments of a relatively new administration can change as voters become more familiar with its policies and actions.

Liberty has interpreted the findings as evidence that the government needs to demonstrate greater leadership on freedom of expression. The organisation has argued that protecting free speech should be approached consistently, regardless of whether the views being expressed are popular, controversial or politically inconvenient.

The government’s response places greater emphasis on the limits of free expression. Ministers have argued that protecting speech does not require authorities to permit conduct that involves incitement to hatred or violence, or public support for organisations that have been legally proscribed.

That difference in emphasis reflects a longstanding challenge for democratic governments. Freedom of expression is intended to protect political debate and dissent, but governments must also enforce laws designed to prevent violence, intimidation and other forms of unlawful conduct.

The debate is unlikely to disappear as the next general election approaches. Political parties will have to address questions about protest rights, police powers, public order legislation and the boundaries of acceptable political expression.

For voters, the importance of free speech may depend on how those issues intersect with their wider concerns. The new research indicates that the subject has sufficient public salience to influence the decisions of many voters, but it does not establish how that concern would translate into support for any particular party.

The findings also come amid wider evidence of unease about political discussion in Britain. Separate research commissioned by UCL and More in Common earlier in September found that many people believe it is becoming harder to express disagreement openly, while a large majority said political disagreements often become hostile or unpleasant.

Together, the research points to a wider public discussion about the quality of political debate, although different surveys examine different aspects of the issue and should not be treated as identical measures.

For the Labour government, the challenge is to maintain the legal boundaries around public safety and unlawful conduct while demonstrating that legitimate political disagreement remains protected. For civil liberties organisations such as Liberty, the emphasis is on ensuring that restrictions do not unnecessarily discourage people from expressing unpopular or controversial opinions.

As the next election approaches, freedom of speech is therefore likely to remain part of the wider political debate. The latest polling provides evidence that many voters consider the issue important, while the contrasting responses from Liberty and the government demonstrate that disagreement remains over where the appropriate boundaries should lie.

The eventual political significance of the issue will depend not only on public attitudes but also on future government policies, court decisions, developments in protest law and how political parties address freedom of expression during the election campaign.