Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said authorities already had "huge powers". There had to be a balance between the "right to know" and "the right to privacy", he said. [1]
Unfortunately when it came to actually doing something he provided practically no opposition to the Investigatory Powers Act.
It's one reason I left the UK in the first place; not because of facing personal discrimination for being Irish (I did face some but most British people are pragmatic and fair-minded), but because of the whole securitized atmosphere with security cameras everywhere - it was like being in prison.
However, I have little hope of this changing. As far as I can tell the vast majority of people value security over privacy or autonomy, and of course they never think Bad Things are going to happen to them because they're Good People - like the woman in the news the other day who voted for Trump and is now surprised that her husband is being deported even though he's not a 'bad hombre.'
It's unlikely that there will ever be a mass movement for privacy and autonomy, because the genius and failure o democracy is that it's harder to blame your problems on some antipathetic Other - foreign invaders, aristocrats, an elite social class or whatever. Democracy really depends on people thinking about issues, and most people want to be firmly embedded in a social context, perhaps because were a eusocial species. It's hard for them to conceptualize an oppressive state in the same way that it's hard for most people to imagine hating their parents or the people int heir community.
Happily, as far as digital technology is concerned there is not a whole lot the UK government can actually do about the issue, and May's speechifying is more directed at appeasing the drooling tabloid-reading class than it is reflective of any serious policy initiative. the likely effect sit aht operating systems on computing devices sold in the UK won't be allowed to have built-in encryption and the smart set will be using mods of some sort. Pretty much how it was with PGP 25 years ago.
Please don't attribute homicidal political views to insanity. These people don't have schizophrenia, and people with schizophrenia aren't terrorists.
The only difference is in who they answer to.
Murder is unjust killing. Killing civilians to make a point or to cause chaos is, by definition, murder. Let's not equate that with all the legitimate things armed forces are for.
And coalition is also killing civilians for political reasons, more than thousand of them a month ATM. It is obviously calculated. It's just that someone determined murdering perhaps 5-10 thousands civilians is a OK to give power over Mosul back to Iraqi government, and gave it a go.
The Catholic Church is a good example. The fifth commandment is thou shall not murder. And the Catechism clarifies this by saying
> The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2...
In international arena, there's no universal law.
Some idiots killed a few thousands Americans, and then some Americans did go on a killing rampage as a revenge, murdering 10s of thousands mostly unrelated people. That's about how it looks from the outside.
Pretty much every single person involved in, say, the Iraq war was indeed a murderer. Most of the battles the West has engaged in since WWII were unjust and ill-founded. The people involved in those wars are murderers.
There's a semantic discussion about whether "lone gunmen" type attacks count as "terrorism", but categorizing motivations in real life as politics or insanity isn't so simple.