At least we have a legitimate opposition to try to oppose the decisions she makes.

Unlikely because it makes no logical sense. You can't keep information private online if there is any known way to access it. She wants to create a known way to access this information, so how does it keep it private again? Literally does the opposite of their "intention". It basically says "We collect data on everyone in the UK, but it's ok! we only use this information to capture terrorists and criminals, noone elses will ever be looked at". Which is true for the most part, but for the few cases it isn't true, that raises problems. Very serious problems of "We lied, we actually look at everything you do online, lol can't stop us now".

Also having control of internet can basically limit which sites people can visit. Freedom of expression would be next on the list to remove. This is already a thing though, so nothing entirely new. Pretty sure is regulated by the EU, not the UK government too (not so sure on this). But sites hit are those that stream movies illegally, and likely other illegal content, so not too bad those being blocked imo.

That being said, even if it does go through, 99% of people won't see any difference.

Also, the problem with Corbyn is that he promises everything, can't keep up and will cost labour future elections once he gets in because that's what happens when you don't meet goals you set in your campaigns. He should be focused on completely shutting down May since May knows nothing. Every time May is being interviewed it goes to shit because she literally just memorises numbers and doesn't know what they mean. She puts herself in the firing range and everyone refuses to pull the trigger.

People don't know how to structure campaigns in this country, happened with brexit too. I swear Trump could win this election if he was here since that is all he knows, how to sell himself over others.

Basically this. It would most likely hurt the citizens more than the terrorists she is supposedly 'trying' to stop.

Also he is seen as a 'terrorist sympathiser' by some people which obviously doesn't help.

Reminder that the NSA's spying hasn't prevented a single terrorist attack:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nsa-program-stopped-no-terror-attacks-says-white-house-panel-f2D11783588

Informative video to educate you on the dangers that come with such laws:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv7Y0W0xmYQ

Sensationalist bullshit to appeal to the retards whose critical thinking ceases whenever they have a chance to boast about nationalism (or "patriotism" for nationalists in denial). Disgusting rhetoric and you should be offended that someone is trying to sell you snake oil with such dishonest language.

It's all for datamining purposes, economics and solidifying a grip on population for means that can potentially compromise the liberty of a state.

Breaking news:
If legal encryption can be bypassed criminals will resort to *gasp* illegal encryption. They are almost acting like criminals.

In other news:
FPTP still fucking voters in the ass whenever the two most popular parties are garbage at the same time.

I was amazed at how one sided the Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 was despite it addressing a few of the massive flaws with FPTP.. I really don't understand the British electorate...

i've heard british citizens are more supportive of a high amount of government surveillance than most countries, i could be wrong but seeing how i hadn't even heard of this before today, i guess there's not that many people strongly opposing it

It's because with British people they won't really care that much nor do they want to be seen "kicking up a fuss".

Spy fact: the Post office has always been legally required to help intelligence services monitor mail. A standard field technique to determine if your mail is being monitored is to post a letter to yourself and someone else at the same address. If yours arrives later it has been intercepted.

Unfortunately, freedom and safety have always been juxtaposed. If you are 100% free to do what you wish, you aren't safe. But if you are100% safe, you aren't free. Unfortunately, the fears created by terrorism and other sources are causing more and more people to be ok with a reduction of freedom for an increase in safety. As dumb as her law is to me, there will be people who want to be safer, even if that means not doing what they want. The only way to prevent this from happening is to vote, SO REGISTER YOURSELF.

You gotta be retarded to think you can control/censor the internet.....

then I remember shes a Tory.

He seems more moral (lying aside), but does he have a firm grasp of economics?

It's easy to say 'tax rich people more, grrr', for example.