Conservative? Has Labour opposed any of it?

I believe here it is used as an adjective, not the name of a political party.

I think it's used as a reference to the UK incarnation of a political philosophy [1], which by no means has a monopoly on promoting the serveillance state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

Labour are not “The Conservative Party” but they are definitely (at the moment) pretty solidly a conservative party.

The surveillance state isn't an exclusively conservative idea though. It has a long and storied tradition on the Left as well.

I believe you're conflating "big-C" Conservative with "little-c" conservative.

The Conservatives (aka Tories) are conservatives. The Labour party are also conservatives as much of the voting public in the uk is small-c conservative and also authoritarian.

Starmer et al. aren't any less authoritarian than the Tories.

I don’t think they were talking about tories specifically just Britain as a whole being very conservative. Indeed as you’ve pointed out even the Labour Party in the UK is quite conservative. I would say the same is true of America, that much of the Democratic Party is actually quite conservative.

So would you call left-wing authoritarianism conservative then? I don't think political historians would agree with this designation.

It sort of depends I guess. I’m not a political historian but it depends on what that “authoritarianism” looks like. In general though, wouldnt authoritarianism exist to maintain a strict status quote? In that sense yes I would call it conservative.

But like I said, I’m not a political historian just an idiot with a half baked opinion.

I think the common theme that unites supporters of the surveillance state is control, which is not the same thing as preserving the status quo. You also need control in order to make effective changes to the status quo.

All political movements and all politicians are convinced that their power is 100% legitimate and they should therefore be able to have 100% control of and visibility into everything that's going on.

The idea is compatible with most peoples' definition of democracy. You don't need to support other aspects of authoritarianism usually associated with right or left wing dictatorships.

What's the purpose of this exercise? What's the value of equating one emotionally-charged label with a different emotionally-charged label?

As to your question: yes, most authoritarians are conservative in nature, given that the world has mostly been moving away from authoritarianism over the past few decades.

My point is very simple: Attitudes (among politicians) toward the surveillance state do not seem to split along political lines between left and right. I wish they did.

Also, I completely disagree that the world has mostly been moving away from authoritarianism. On the contrary. There was a time when at least the direction of travel seemed assured. Now I'm no longer so sure.

Let me elucidate my point further then, as well: I think that any attempt to map a political decision or opinion on a binary scale serves no purpose (other than satisfy our tribalistic vestiges). It doesn't matter if it's left vs right, Tory vs Labour or republican vs democrat. The world just isn't that black and white, no matter how much you wish for it.

So please, debate policies on their content, not on their label. Reducing everything to a binary decision only serves authoritarian agendas.

Yeah. "Small-c conservative". Starmer seems to have decided that the path to victory is to copy Tory policy and attitude as closely as possible, hoping that this will get him favourable press coverage or support from the particular set of "floating" voters in marginal constituencies that he needs.

But the Labour party have never been especially liberal. They're just as likely to enact controlling social policy. And, again, the press are extremely illiberal, they're likely to campaign for more surveillance.

(Don't try to jam the American two-party lens onto UK four-plus party politics, it will not help you make sense of the actual situation).

> (Don't try to jam the American two-party lens onto UK four-plus party politics, it will not help you make sense of the actual situation).

Because the UK has FPTP elections, in practice it's a two party system but which two parties varies by locale, resulting in some weird interactions that aren't really seen in the US.

You aren't going to get elaborate rainbow coalitions under that model, as you might in say Germany.

Long way off topic, but: I've always wondered why the US, fifty states not all of which are even contiguous, separated by huge distances, has not evolved regional parties?

People always seem to conveniently forget this.

Labour are the party who passed that very nasty "Tell us your password or go to prison" law under "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide from law enforcement or the government." mentality.

Red Tories are still Tories.

This leaves the Lib Dems, who sadly have zero interest in repealing the Online Safety Bill if it passes.

> The UK public are extremely conservative, and extremely misinformed by conservative news sources.

While conservative news sources historically act in bad faith here, non-conservative news sources lose all reasoning ability, when it comes to Gov surveillance. They rarely hold Gov accountable unless they have little choice.

The latter probably happens because the public endlessly gives news orgs a pass about it.