That's basically how the news, including the BBC, tend to report on these laws. "Some think they are good. Others think they don't go far enough. Experts say risk remains." Never ever do they interview the EFF.
The editorial team for news has always been full of Tories (including some that either have tried running as MPs, were in the young conservatives etc).
When the left complains about the BBC they mean its news and political coverage.
The right doesn't like the diversity in its comedy shows.
These are two pretty different concerns.
Quite a mistake to think politicians would act to better anyone's lives, including those who helped elect them.
Labour generally has a "paternalistic authoritarianism" to they way they govern, but this is dialed to 11.
Read this around 2007ish, shocked by what the previous labour government did, so I had zero hope this lot would be any different and it's worse than I thought possible.
I had hoped Labour would roll back the anti-protest legislation, snooper's charter, internet censorship and voter ID laws.
After all, it was mostly left-wing climate protesters getting arrested, and young (more left-leaning) voters being prevented from voting.
Turns out no, quite the opposite - if anything, Labour thinks these laws didn't go far enough.
With hindsight, it was naive of me to think the former Director of Public Prosecutions would share my scepticism about expanding the powers of the system the Director of Public Prosecutions stands at the head of.