zlacker

>>robthe+(OP)
This is how you govern from a position of unpopularity.

The government knows they’re on the wrong side of many issues, to the point they know they can’t win an open debate.

So media control, regulation by enforcement, and institutional control becomes the focus of effort.

>>spaceb+ab
I don't agree. The British State has been going in this direction ever since Blair's government and probably before that. I don't remember Blair's government being that unpopular.

>>9Jolly+Nq
New labour really laid the groundwork for alot of the orwellian laws that are in place now. Its a shame nobody who has been elected since sought to roll them back...

>>vablin+U02
There is simply no-incentive to. Generally there are many incentives to increase the number of laws, as they can be seen as doing something about a some recent issue. Many of the recent online safety laws (even before OSA) are good examples of this.

Additionally Britain generally has a problem with politicians believing that the only solution to a problem is banning/regulating things, regardless what the root cause might be. Banning/regulating something requires new legal powers. So more laws.

This been true as far back as I can remember with them talking about banning the Lotus Carlton back in the early 90s because one vehicle the infamous 40RR was used in a spate of ram raids which embarrassed the police. I remember this on the news when I was about 9-10 years old.

>>9Jolly+AC2
40 RA, my mum used to drive a Vauxhall Carlton

> Additionally Britain generally has a problem with politicians believing that the only solution to a problem is banning/regulating things, regardless what the root cause might be. Banning/regulating something requires new legal powers. So more laws.

I mean it's true and it does work for the most part. The bans on knives, drain cleaner etc have reduced the number of these kinds of crimes especially in London. It's hard to argue against something when a lot of this kind of policymaking is effective