Labour seeks broader powers to curb protests
Prime Minister Keir Starmer is pressing for expanded powers to regulate protests, aiming to curb inflammatory chants at pro-Palestinian demonstrations and to address what he describes as the disruptive impact of repeated protests in key locations. Speaking to reporters en route to Mumbai, Starmer signalled that Labour would push for stronger measures beyond those announced by Home Secretary candidate Shabana Mahmood, with a focus on the cumulative impact of protests.
The government has already floated changes to the way police assess demonstrations, considering the “cumulative impact” of protests and allowing authorities to reroute, restrict, or even ban events deemed too disruptive. Yet Starmer indicated there is more to be done, especially in relation to chants that could incite violence or fuel antisemitic sentiment.
Chants and public order under the spotlight
The issue of inflammatory chants has risen to the top of the domestic security agenda following a terror attack on a Manchester synagogue. Civil liberties groups warn that any expansion of police powers could threaten the right to protest and convert peaceful assembly into a monitored or censored activity. Starmer’s comments reflect a delicate balance: protecting citizens from hate and violence while safeguarding democratic freedoms.
“I’ve asked the home secretary to look more broadly at what other powers are available, how they’re being used and whether they should be changed in any way,” Starmer said. “I think we need to go further than that in relation to some of the chants that are going on at some of these protests.”
Officials and observers note that the proposed changes would not only involve new police powers but would also require a uniform application across jurisdictions to avoid a patchwork approach that could be exploited or unfairly targeted.
Reviewing public order powers across Whitehall
Starmer indicated that the review would encompass all of the government’s current public order powers. He signalled a Whitehall-wide exercise to determine where additional controls might be warranted and how existing tools are being used. The aim is to identify practical, legally sound ways to reduce disruption without infringing on civil liberties.
In parallel, Mahmood urged protest organisers not to proceed with planned demonstrations tied to the timing of the 7 October Hamas attack anniversary and the synagogue attack. She described such decisions as “fundamentally un-British” and “dishonourable,” underscoring the political sensitivity surrounding protests in the current climate.
Political and community responses
The discussion comes amid heightened tensions between MPs and protest groups, with some demonstrations drawing mass arrests. The deputy prime minister, David Lammy, faced boos at a Manchester vigil following the synagogue attack. The government has emphasised its commitment to countering antisemitism and protecting Jewish communities, including continued funding for security at Jewish schools and synagogues.
Advocacy groups defending the right to protest argue that expanding powers could chill lawful expression and increasingly marginalize dissenting voices. Critics warn that narrow targeting of chants risks drifting into overbroad restrictions that hamper legitimate political debate. Supporters contend that a measured tightening of rules is essential to prevent hate speech and violence from taking hold on the streets.
What’s next?
The Home Office is expected to publish details of proposed amendments, including potential changes to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. These provisions currently allow police to impose conditions on protests that breach conditions, with penalties including imprisonment and fines. The debate now hinges on how to balance safeguarding public safety with protecting the right to protest and free expression.
As Starmer and Mahmood continue consultations with Jewish community leaders and other stakeholders, the government is steering a careful course through sensitive territory. The outcome will shape how future demonstrations are policed and how inflammatory rhetoric is addressed in the public sphere.
