Every Bit of "Tyrannical" Legislation the Labour Government Has in the Works
Policing, education, infrastructure, they've got their fingers in all of it...
Since taking office last July, the Labour government has faced its fair share of crisis and controversy—from nationwide unrest to economic volatility. Much has been self-inflicted, some has arguably not.
But while attention has focused on more visible chaos, ministers—alongside a deeply politicised civil service—have been quietly pushing through a raft of new legislation.
It cuts across various sectors, including education, infrastructure, and policing—some provisions are blatantly authoritarian, others buried in vague, bureaucratic language.
What follows is a breakdown of the legislation, its aims, the most troubling clauses, and how close they are to becoming active policy.
Crime and Policing Bill
In February, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper tabled the Crime and Policing Bill in the House of Commons, with the aim of “halving knife crime and violence against women and girls” in a decade.
To be sure, the bill contains some arguably solid ideas, such as, harsher sentences for knife crime, stopping protestors climbing on war memorials, and establishing a new and specific spiking offence.
But, true to form, ministers, civil servants, and OPC lawyers have slipped in vague clauses that quietly hand the state sweeping new powers.
Take the very first clause.
It introduces something called a “Respect Order”, which authorities—including police and potentially other public bodies—would apply for through the courts.
The order can essentially force someone to do or stop doing “anything described in the order.”
The threshold? Minimal.
A judge simply needs to believe, on the balance of probabilities, that the person “has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”
A court can then impose an order without notice, which could be indefinite for all we know, and if breached, the penalty is an unlimited fine or up to two years in prison.
In theory, police could persuade a judge that an online post caused someone “distress”. The poster could then be legally compelled to delete it, avoid the topic entirely, stay off social media, or even hand over their device passwords.
In short, the bill hands public authorities the power to pre-emptively restrict lawful expression—without a trial and without a warning.
According to Big Brother Watch, Cooper’s bill would also impose a huge data grab.
Buried in Clause 120, the Bill gives police expanded access to data held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)—covering more than 50 million motorists.
This includes names, addresses, dates of birth, photographs, driving endorsements, past convictions, and even medical information deemed relevant to a person’s ability to drive.
Currently, police can only access DVLA records while investigating road traffic offences. But under the new bill, that access will extend to all criminal investigations (“hate crimes” possibly included).
Combined with the use of live facial recognition software, the availability of official driver’s photographs provides law enforcement with a vast biometric database that could be used for real-time surveillance and targeting.
And pretty recently, we heard the technology is far from accurate.
In 2019, the Metropolitan Police admitted their facial recognition system had a false positive rate of 81%—meaning the vast majority of people flagged were misidentified.
One such case occurred last year when 38-year-old Shaun Thompson, an anti-knife crime campaigner, was wrongly flagged by the system and dragged off the streets by police.
The bill has already passed its first and second readings and cleared the Committee Stage. It now awaits its third reading, before scrutiny in the House of Lords.
Employment Rights Bill
In October 2024, Business Secretary John Reynolds and Baroness Margaret Jones of Whitchurch introduced the Employment Rights Bill—framed as a way to “help more people stay in work, support productivity, and improve living standards.”
At its core, the bill shifts power away from employers—including small businesses—and hands more to employees.
It proposes to ban so-called “exploitative” zero-hour contracts, raise statutory sick pay, fast-track union strikes, and make it harder to dismiss staff—whether “fairly” or not.
But buried in Clause 20 is something else entirely.
The provision would require employers to “take all reasonable steps” to protect their staff from “harassment” by third parties—which includes customers, clients, or even passersby.
Pub owners, venue managers, café operators—anyone with employees—could be held liable for offhand remarks or jokes made by patrons.
To avoid this, employers may have to hire compliance staff or legal advisers, train workers to monitor speech, or even display lists of “banned words”—preemptively censored by risk of tribunal.
Given how some activist groups interpret language—words like “mother,” “woman,” or “breastfeeding”—could become unutterable in any space with staff present.
In short, what began as a bill to reform workers' rights has morphed—if passed—into policy that turbo-charges the Equality Act and, by extension, builds yet another framework to censor speech.
For context, we already live in a world where Tribunals award £28,989.61 in compensation to workers for being compared to Darth Vader by other staff—because it was deemed a form of “detriment.”
Another point: even if, say, a tribunal rules against a trans-identified individual claiming “harassment” over a patron using the word “mother,” just think of the time, cost, and legal burden already dumped on the employer (especially a small business owner).
In some ways, the process could be the punishment.
The bill is well-advanced, being in the Lords’ committee stage. It could receive Royal Assent by the end of this year, if not, early 2026.
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill
In December 2024, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and Baroness Jacqueline Smith of Malvern introduced the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, claiming it would “protect children and raise education standards.”
In reality, it may be Labour’s most draconian bill yet—something that dramatically expands state authority at the direct expense of parental rights.
Clause 30 sets the tone.
For the first time, parents would be required to seek local authority consent to remove a child from school in two cases: if the child attends a special school under an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan, or if the local authority is conducting an enquiry and believes the child is experiencing “significant harm.”
That term, “harm,” by the way, doesn’t just extend to physical abuse.
Under current law, it includes ill-treatment or the impairment of physical, emotional, intellectual, social, or behavioural development. It can be interpreted very broadly and subjectively.
Even if the council agrees a child would receive a suitable education at home, it could still block the withdrawal—on the grounds that school is in the child’s “best interests.”
Clause 4 deepens the alarm.
It proposes assigning every child a “consistent identifier”—a name or number from birth, designed to follow them through their school years and beyond.
Critics say this builds the infrastructure for lifelong surveillance, treating children less as members of a family and more as subjects of the state.
A similar scheme in Scotland was struck down by the UK Supreme Court in 2016 for violating the right to private and family life.
Clause 32 escalates the assault on home education.
Since 1876, parents in England have had the legal right to home educate their children. If a local authority believed a child wasn’t receiving a suitable education, it could issue a School Attendance Order (SAO).
But at any stage—including in court—a parent could halt proceedings by demonstrating the education is, in fact, suitable.
Phillipson’s bill changes that.
Parents could now need to prove not only that home education is suitable—but that school would not be better. That hands decision-making to the state, even in cases where home education is already working.
It also opens the door to forced home visits by social workers and the right of entry into private homes, should officials believe the child’s education isn’t up to standard.
While such visits may follow repeated warnings to the parent, they mark a profound shift in the balance of power.
Yes, child protection is one heck of a complex topic. Where there’s abuse or neglect, the state has a role to play. But this Bill accommodates state intervention like never before, almost by default, not as a last resort.
Additionally, Clause 27 introduces universal “free” breakfast clubs in state primary schools, framed as a cost-saving measure for families—up to £450 annually.
But it isn’t free. It’s taxpayer-funded.
Labour is subtly redefining the parent-state relationship, turning citizens into collective providers for other people’s children—whether they agree or not.
Perhaps the most chilling element of the bill, however, lies in how it’s being justified.
Campaign group Support Not Separation has condemned Labour ministers for citing the tragic murder of Sara Sharif as a pretext for expanding state power.
Sara was removed from her mother by social services and the family court—then murdered by the very father they placed her with.
But instead of being a lesson in restraint and due diligence, the case is being used to demand even more intrusive powers for the very institutions that failed her.
This is becoming somewhat of a pattern.
To justify the Online Safety Act, Conservative ministers invoked Molly Russell's suicide—a law that has since been cited in the arrest of a woman for effectively speculating online about a child murderer’s identity.
Invoke tragedy. Expand state power. Shrink personal freedom.
The bill passed its second reading in the House of Lords on May 1, 2025, and is now in committee stage. It could receive Royal Assent by the end of the year.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
In March 2025, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner introduced the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
Its stated aim is to “streamline” the delivery of 1.5 million homes and fast-track 150 major infrastructure projects—cutting through a planning system widely acknowledged to be dysfunctional.
Few would disagree.
At a recent committee hearing, former No. 10 adviser Sam Richards described Britain’s planning process as a regulatory swamp.
The Lower Thames Crossing project, for example, has so far cost over £250 million in planning alone—more than it cost Norway to build the world’s longest tunnel.
In another case, the UK is spending over £100 million to construct a 900 meter “bat tunnel” for the HS2 train line to protect approximately 300 Bechstein’s bats.
On paper, reforms are very welcome.
But once journalists and shadow ministers began reviewing Rayner’s bill, a familiar pattern emerged: expansion of state power—at the expense of citizen’s rights.
Clause 82, for example, hands Natural England—a quango—the power to compulsorily purchase land with authorisation from the Secretary of State.
Natural England is central to Labour’s plan to balance development with “environmental offsetting.”
Instead of requiring property developers to mitigate “ecological damage” locally—which causes delays—they will pay into a national nature restoration fund. So Natural England will offset the environmental costs—by seizing land elsewhere for rewilding or reserves.
The result? Farmland, allotments, and other green spaces could be forcibly acquired to offset development happening miles away.
Note these compulsory purchase orders extend to local councils.
So property owners of all kinds could have their assets seized for a fraction of its potential value, as the Bill makes it easier for them to ignore the what they call ‘hope value’.
The Conservatives set this motion by scrapping the right for property owners to claim the projected uplift in land price if granted planning permission (hope value) for certain properties in 2023.
Clause 76 also outlines “powers of entry”—allowing officials to enter, survey, or inspect land before it’s force-acquired. Refusing to comply can result in a summary conviction and fine.
Landowners can still object to a compulsory purchase order—but only on limited grounds such as procedural error or “unreasonableness”. Even then, the process can trigger lengthy, costly legal battles with little hope of success.
In summary, the Bill embeds a governance model where “public good” trumps personal ownership—a logic that sits at odds with Starmer’s professed “political project”.
As he wrote in a Guardian article six months ago: “I am determined to show that traditional democratic British values are the only way to deliver the change that working people need—that is my political project in a nutshell.”
That nutshell certainly didn’t take long to break…
The Bill is currently in the report stage of the Commons, which will likely take place next month, given its priority status.
Do you really believe our best days lie ahead?
Will you keep watching as our politicians and broadcasters push for yet more surveillance, censorship, and control?
If you want to push back—if not today, maybe someday—supporting independent journalism can, genuinely, make a real impact.
In the past year, The Stark Naked Brief reached over 100 million people on X. Sometimes, all it takes is one post—one uncomfortable truth—to wake someone up and put another dent in the system.
Farage needs to commit that a future Reform government will introduce a Great Repeal Bill to cancel every piece of legislation enacted by this despicable authoritarian government.
The hidden truth is going to affect so many who object to the way we are be treated as taxpayers.