The Bill is being finalised now so December will probably be too late.
The present campaign is lacking in credibility because it tries to say there is no need to regulate electric music. I live between two pubs. Before anyone says "Well why did you move there", neither had electric music before I did so. Anyone who says there is no need to regulate electric music, or that the law already effectively does so must be from another planet. Even if you think I am wrong (ie if you argue there is already the means of regulation to the extent necessary) you will NEVER convince the millions of ordinary people who live with or see others living with the problems talking in a normal voice in their own homes, sweeping up the broken glass in the road before they can drive their own car away, calling the police or ambulances to street fights, or even safely walking out of their own house after 10 pm. Whatever the current law actually says, it seems to be impossible to get these things sorted. So regulation is needed - for this.
What does NOT need the regulatory mechanism that the above demands is acoustic music. Apart from a limited few singers (one is a 'catter, so no names) of extraordinary power (and collections of trombones etc), acoustic music does not need regulation for reasons of noise, safety or public order. But one electric musician with one of those small Hughes and Kettner rigs (two small satellites and one sub) can be heard 300 yards up the road.
I'm quite likely to join you all (and if we win, I'll have cut my own throat as far as living in peace at home ever again is concerned) - but the unnecessary threat is to acoustic music.