Same reason parties in various countries, particularly the US do it. In an attempt to force through insane bullshit by making it so if you vote against it, you’re voting against putting rapists in jail or whatever. It’s naked political chicanery of the cheapest and dirtiest kind.
And yes it’s absolutely as bad as it sounds. If it helps at all, I’m currently being forced to read the right-wing broadsheets (which aren’t actually broadsheets anymore apart from the Torygraph but whatever), and they seem to be making increasingly discontented noises over it, when days ago they were gung-ho for it. The Daily Mail also did a piece a few days ago which was basically a hit on it - though it was the Mail Online which is way less right-wing than the physical Mail. A couple of them even had “This protects statues not women” stuff.
What they’re proposing is insane and would potentially end legal protest entirely because there’s zero oversight and zero conventional ability to fight whatever demented restrictions that dimwit Priti decides to make up on the spot - also she’s recently been outed as an amazing liar, because she agreed with attacking the Clapham protestors on the phone with Crappida Dickhead (sorry but fuck that shitbird, she’s been promoted despite being incompetent to the point of murder, and won’t resign because she’s too fucking stupid to realize she’s done anything wrong, and she has no clue what “policing by consent” is), and then after it happened, immediately made out like she was shocked SHOCKED I tell you by what happened. The powers she’s demanding would basically mean that instead of this being a rare incident, it’d be a Tuesday.
Judicial review would work as a fightback but only after the fact and the government is simultaneously attempting to destroy judicial review.
What they’ve realized is that, essentially, they can authorize a “review” of any part of the law they want, put some incredible shitbag in charge, like say putting someone in charge of anti-racism who has made statements along the lines of “blacks are fundamentally lazy and shiftless” and “racism doesn’t exist”, have them deny they made those statements, or say their “view has changed” (fuck off it has), then that shitbag gives them the result they want and they feel free to change the law and say it was justified by this “independent” commission. This is actually quite novel. Prior to 2010, governments didn’t seem to realize they could get away with this - and maybe they couldn’t because the press would shred them.
So they’ve done that with judicial review, which is already incredibly rare (down to like 600 cases/year from 14000 a decade ago or something), and basically planning to abolish it. At which point they’d have the ability to basically make up any laws they liked without any fear or in any way of being challenged.*
And the press only exist to support the centre-right through far-right now, because of the aging of the press’ customers.
This is never more obvious than reading the papers. I’m currently forced to read all the broadsheets (as noted, won’t be for long), and frankly, newspapers should be banned. They’re pure agit-prop. All of them. The I and the Guardian are less bad but the I is for people with a subnormal IQ and the Guardian is a fucking mess so they’re no great loss. But just ban printed newspapers entirely. People who get their news from them? Fuck 'em. They’re basically reading extremist propaganda that’s creating an absolute fantasy world. The Telegraph is bad, but it’s always been like that. The Times is much worse, because it’s completely insidious and treats all stories as an opportunity for agenda-pushing and bias (which even the Telegraph doesn’t stoop to). What’s incredibly clear is that they’re solely targeting an over-50 audience. I mean, that makes sense but you’d think maybe they’d want some younger people reading them? Only the I and the Guardian even seem tor realize people under 40 aren’t schoolchildren. The Times had some spectacular article, I forget what it was about, but it was supposedly news not opinion, where they were essentially dismissing the opinions of all people under 40 as basically the same as children, and this is pretty routine. They’ve also got this “culture war” bullshit which literally no actual normal human is involved in. Like it’s fucking imaginary. It’s just dozens of right-wing columnists in their 60s, many of whom used to be edgelords, and are now like, whatever the granddad equivalent of an edgelord is, all railing against shit that’s essentially a done deal for everyone under 40-50. I mean seriously done too, like, not even stuff people discuss. One of them devoted a two-page spread to a dude arguing against bike lanes and acting like this was some kind of new-age culture-war thing being forced on him. It’s like, motherfucker, is this the 1970s? Maybe when you were like 15 this was new.
Anyway point is printed newspapers should be outright banned. The Times, once a respected publication, is now literally agit-prop on par with ACTUAL communist newspapers.
* What they don’t seem to get though is that by shrinking the police and squeezing them for a decade, they’ve basically made it impossible for police to even slow down any kind of riot or civil unrest, so all they’re doing is creating a situation where the only is illegal protest, and thus when things get bad enough, instead of it being civilized steady protests, it’ll be unstoppable rioting like with the poll tax.