All sarcasm aside, this is horrendous. But let's not pretend this is to curb "terrorism", for whatever that means. It's simply a way to slowly erode the peoples democratic rights. Very sad times to be in.
The word you're looking for is "totalitarian", not socialist.
This Red Scare preoccupation with socialism as the ultimate evil is, frankly, laughable.
Spying on citizen has historically been used by every non-democratic regime, from the right-wing fascists to left-wing communists and west-wing Nixons.
The word you're looking for is fascist, there is nothing socialist about the Conservatives.
Edit: Following your edit it's clear you have no idea what socialism is.
Yes
> ...until we become a socialist (possibly communist) state.
Erm, what?
There's nothing about socialism (or even communism, in principle) that precludes democracy. "Dictatorship" is the term you're looking for.
I live in UK now and it's absolutely terrifying how every move by the UK government reminds me of the stories told about the communism back home.
Sure, communism itself might not be about reducing democracy, but I guess it would be very hard to find an example where it didn't.
Edit: ok, according to wikipedia, I'm wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_United_Workers%27_Party
"Until 1989, the PUWP held dictatorial powers"
I believe there are two separate axes. You can have a free market without civil liberties (i. e. Singapore, or Germany ca. 1933-1945), or a less-free market with civil liberties (maybe the Nordic model). "Dictator" is really only concerned with the latter, apparently, although I have always associated it with the political right.
You're right in thinking that it appears hard to be truly democratic without (some form of) a free market. At least I can't think of an example. And I've met many eastern Europeans with an aversion to even slightly left-of-center economic policies because of their history. But communism doesn't have a monopoly on being terrible to its citizens.
A system of authority and security does not operate at an economic level of autonomy. A regimented heirarchy differs from the conceptual model of interaction among autonomous individuals and organizational collectives.
Replacing "communism" with "government" may be just as accurate.
However, I think I was trying to make a different point, although failed in my writing. A big reason policies like this get passed, without protest, is because the people of the UK trust the government to "look after them" as a parent would do. It's all about (don't worry about thinking or using your brain, we'll do that for you).
The snoopers charter was met with protest, it got struck down and blocked by the Lib dems, so they shoved it through with minimal debate and no meaningful public consultation once they got majority power. This is a proposed law which has been leaked (why do laws need to be leaked?) which they will force through, public opposition or not.
The scariest thing about this is not the proposals but the wilful ignorance of those in power.
Can't you see that the very same establishment that is attempting to install a totalitarian corporate regime (a political contribution of Benito Mussolini, by the way) is the one that has indoctrinated you with this anti-socialist rhetoric?