DEMOCRACY & RIGHTS

A BILL TO
Regulate the use of algorithmic systems by social media platforms, ensure transparency in content ranking and recommendation systems, prohibit manipulative design practices, and empower users with control over their digital experiences.

PART 1: KEY DEFINITIONS

1. "Algorithmic system" – Any automated process used to rank, recommend, suppress, or personalize content for users.

2. "Social media platform" – Any online service with user-generated content and algorithmic distribution, with over 10 million UK users.

3. "Manipulative design" – Interfaces or algorithms designed to exploit cognitive biases to increase engagement (e.g., infinite scroll, deceptive notifications).

4. "Political manipulation" – Algorithmic interference in political discourse, including:

(a) Unequal amplification/suppression of political parties, candidates, or issues.

(b) Microtargeting based on psychological profiling.

(c) Foreign interference via artificially boosted divisive content.

5. "Electoral silence period" – The 48-hour window before any UK election or referendum.

PART 2: TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS

1. Algorithmic Disclosure

    (a) Platforms must publish annual transparency reports detailing:

           - How their algorithms prioritize content.

           - Key factors influencing user feeds (e.g., engagement metrics, user history).

    (b) Significant changes to algorithms must be publicly logged with 30 days’ notice.

2. Independent Audits

     (a) Platforms must undergo yearly audits by Ofcom-approved researchers to assess:

            - Bias in content amplification (political, racial, gender-based).

            - Psychological and societal impacts.

     (b) Audit results must be submitted to Ofcom and made public.

     (c) Logs must be kept documenting how often humans reversed algorithmic decisions)

     (d) Algorithms must pass bias testing by meeting compliance criteria with equalities legislation.

PART 3: USER CONTROL & OPT-OUT RIGHTS

1. Right to a Non-Manipulated Feed

     (a) Users must be able to switch to a chronological feed free from algorithmic ranking.

     (b) Platforms must offer a "neutral mode" that minimizes engagement-driven amplification.

2. Customization & Consent

     (a) Users must be able to adjust algorithmic preferences (e.g., "see less political content").

     (b) Platforms cannot penalize users (e.g., shadow-banning) for opting out of algorithmic feeds.

PART 4: PROHIBITED PRACTICES

1. Ban on Exploitative Algorithms

     (a) Platforms must not prioritize harmful content (e.g., misinformation, hate speech) for engagement.

     (b) Microtargeting based on sensitive data (e.g., mental health status) is prohibited.

2. Restrictions on Addictive Design

     (a) Allowing infinite scrolling without breaks shall be prohibited.

     (b) Deceptive notifications (e.g., "You’re missing out!") must be opt-in.

3. Strict Ban on Political Manipulation

     (a) Electoral silence period:

            - All algorithmic changes to political content must be frozen 72 hours before elections.

            - Political ads and major party content must be delivered equally with no shadow-banning or artificial boosting.

     (b) Microtargeting restrictions:

            - Political ads may only target broad demographics (age, region), not behavioural profiles.

            - All political ad targeting parameters must be publicly searchable.

     (c) Foreign interference:

            - Platforms must immediately suspend accounts linked to state-backed disinformation.

     (d) Crisis events:

            - No algorithmic amplification of unverified claims by state/partisan actors during emergencies.

4: Prohibition of Inauthentic Account Networks

     (a) It is illegal to operate or financially benefit from coordinated inauthentic accounts (10+ accounts with fake

            identities) for:

            - Political influence.

            - Artificial trend manipulation.

            - Harassment or fraud.

     (b) Platforms must:

            - Detect & remove bot farms within 24 hours of discovery.

            - Report bot networks to the National Crime Agency (NCA) if linked to foreign actors.

     (c) Penalties:

            - Individuals: Up to 5 years imprisonment (if linked to foreign interference).

            - Platforms: £100k/day per undetected bot farm after notification.

PART 5: ENFORCEMENT & PENALTIES

1. Regulatory Oversight

     (a) Ofcom’s "Digital Rights Unit" will enforce compliance, with powers to:

            i. Conduct unannounced audits.

            ii. Impose fines up to 25% of global revenue.

     (b) Users may sue platforms for breaches of their rights under this Act.

2. Whistleblower Protections

     (a) Employees reporting unethical algorithmic practices are protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act

            1998.

     (b) Employees exposing violations receive 10% of fines  which will be uncapped.

3. Corporate & Executive Liability

     (a) First violation: 10% UK revenue fine + 5-year independent monitoring.

     (b) Repeat violation: Class A offence for executives; potential corporate dissolution.

     (c) CEOs/CTOs must submit annual compliance affidavits (false statements: £500k personal fines).

PART 6: COMMENCEMENT & REVIEW

1. This Act comes into force 6 months after passing.

2. A Parliamentary review must assess its impact every 3 years.

Schedule: Exemptions

• Small platforms (<10M UK users) are exempt from audits but must still provide transparency.

• National security and law enforcement exceptions apply (with judicial oversight).

Explanatory Notes

• Why? Social media algorithms have distorted democracy (e.g., Cambridge Analytica, TikTok election interference) and been linked to mental health crises, polarization, and misinformation. This Act ensures:

  • Transparency: No secret manipulation.

  • User control: People, not corporations, choose their digital experience.

  • Election integrity: Prevents covert foreign or corporate interference.

• Precedents: Combines strongest elements of EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), France’s election algorithm freeze, U.S. Honest Ads Act and proposed U.S. Filter Bubble Transparency Act.

ENFORCEMENT FRAMEWORK

Administered by a Digital Rights Unit (DRU) based inside OFCOM

1. Regulatory Structure

• Digital Rights Unit (DRU)

  • A dedicated Ofcom division with 100+ staff (technologists, lawyers, data scientists).

  • Powers: Unannounced inspections, subpoena authority, real-time API access to platform data.

  • Funded by: 0.5% levy on UK revenues of regulated platforms (>10M users).

• Expert Advisory Panel

  • Independent academics, civil society (e.g., ORG, Demos), and industry technologists.

  • Role: Advise on algorithmic risk assessments and emerging threats.

2. Compliance Mechanisms

(a) Mandatory Transparency Audits

• Annual Deep Audits

  • Platforms must submit full algorithmic documentation to DRU and independent auditors.

  • It will includes source code snippets (redacted for IP), training data samples, impact assessments.

  • Penalty: £10M per day for delayed/non-compliance.

• Spot-Check "Algorithmic Stress Tests"

  • Quarterly DRU-run simulations (e.g., "Does TikTok’s algorithm boost pro-China content in UK elections?").

(b) Real-Time Monitoring Dashboard

• Platforms must integrate DRU’s "Algorithmic Observatory" API, providing:

  • Live political content amplification rates.

  • Demographic breakdowns of ad targeting.

  • Red flag triggers: Sudden algorithmic shifts during elections.

(c) User Complaint Portal

• Public can report suspected violations (e.g., shadow-banning, addictive design).

  • DRU must investigate within 14 days.

  • Platforms fined £50k per upheld complaint.

3. Escalating Penalties

Example 1 - Deliberate opacity

• First offence: 5% UK revenue + audit costs

• If repeated within 3 years: 10% revenue + CEO disqualification

Example 2 - Political manipulation

• First offence: 10% UK revenue + 5-year monitoring

• If repeated within 3 years: 15% revenue + UK service suspension

Example 3 - Addictive Design

• First offence: £50M flat fine*

• If repeated within 3 years: Higher of £50m fine or 5% revenue + feature ban (e.g. no infinite scroll)

*Fines will be based on global revenue not profit to deter creative accounting.

4. Whistleblower & Public Incentives

• Bounty Program: 10-30% of fines awarded to whistleblowers (uncapped).

• "Public Interest Algorithmic Research"

  • £20M/year fund for universities/NGOs to investigate platform compliance.

5. Judicial Oversight

• Tech Tribunal

  • Specialized court to handle appeals (judges + technical assessors).

  • Can order: Algorithmic shutdowns, mandatory redesigns.

• Corporate Death Penalty

  • For 3+ violations: Courts may revoke UK operating licenses (e.g., TikTok banned if persistently non-compliant).

6. Global Coordination

• Data-Sharing Pacts with EU (DSA enforcers), Australia, Canada.

  • Joint investigations (e.g., Meta cross-border election interference).

  • Mutual recognition of fines.

Implementation Timeline

• Month 1-6: Ofcom DRU staff-up, API development.

• Month 7: Platforms submit first algorithm documentation.

• Month 12: Full enforcement begins + first spot-checks.

ALGORITHMIC TRANSPARENCY & USER CONTROL ACT 2029

DETAILS

CORE FEATURES:

1. Party Manifestos Anonymised

• Each party submits its manifesto broken down into key policy areas (e.g. health, education, defence).

• On the ballot, policies are grouped by issue (not party) and stripped of party branding.

• Example ballot structure:

  • NHS Funding:

    • (Option A) Increase funding by 5%, raise taxes.

    • (Option B) Freeze funding, cut admin costs.

    • (Option C) Privatise some services.

  • Climate Policy:

    • (Option A) Net zero by 2030, high taxes.

    • (Option B) Net zero by 2050, moderate spending.

    • (Option C) Reject net zero, focus on growth.

2. Voters Select Preferred Policies Across Categories

• Voters rank policy options within each category (like a multi-issue referendum).

• They can mix-and-match (e.g., Labour’s NHS policy + Tory tax policy + Lib Dem climate plan).

3. Post-Election Policy Matching & Government Formation

• Whichever candidate/party wins the most policy areas wins the seat.

4. Accountability Mechanism

• Parties must implement the voted-on policies or face early dissolution.

• A neutral body (e.g., Electoral Commission) verifies compliance.

REQUIRED CONSTITUTIONAL & LEGAL CHANGES:

1. Ballot Reform

• Amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to allow policy-based voting.

• Replace "vote for one candidate/party" with multi-policy selection ballots.

2. Government Formation Rules

• Tie government legitimacy to policy mandates, not just seat counts.

• Possibly codify a new "policy confidence" test (replacing the Queen’s/King’s Speech).

3. Party Transparency Laws

• Require parties to register policies in advance with an independent body.

• Ban post-election backtracking (via legally binding manifesto pledges).

4. Judicial Oversight

• Expand the Supreme Court’s role to adjudicate disputes over policy implementation.

BENEFITS:

• Voters judge policies, not labels, which will break party tribalism. Voters might find themselves backing another party’s policy if it’s more appealing which they may not otherwise do if they knew it wasn't from the party they usually vote for.

• Ends the media's obsession with personality politics. They will have to talk about policy if they want the party they usually propagandise for to win.

• Parliamentary stability remains with MPs still debating details, but the broad mandate is fixed.

ANONYMOUS POLICY-BASED VOTING SYSTEM

ARTICLE 1: RIGHT TO DIGITAL PRIVACY

• No entity (governments, corporations, or individuals) shall surveil, collect, or exploit personal data without explicit, informed consent.

• Individuals have the right to encryption and anonymity where legally permissible.

ARTICLE 2: RIGHT TO DATA OWNERSHIP & CONTROL

• Individuals own their personal data and must be able to access, modify, or delete it upon request (e.g., "right to be forgotten").

• Data monetization by third parties requires opt-in consent and fair compensation.

ARTICLE 3: RIGHT TO SECURITY & PROTECTION

• Entities holding user data must implement robust cybersecurity measures.

• Breaches must be disclosed promptly, with accountability for harm caused.

ARTICLE 4: RIGHT TO FREE EXPRESSION & ACCESS

• No unjust censorship or deplatforming without transparent, appealable processes.

• Access to an open, affordable, and uncensored internet is a universal right.

ARTICLE 5: RIGHT TO TRANSPARENCY & ALGORITHMIC FAIRNESS

• Users must know how algorithms affect their lives (e.g., social media, credit scoring).

• AI systems must be auditable and free from discriminatory bias.

ARTICLE 6: RIGHT TO HUMAN REVIEW

• In high-stakes decisions (e.g., healthcare, employment, criminal justice, welfare benefits, housing), individuals have the right to:

  • Request a human review of any algorithmic decision.

  • Receive a clear explanation of how the algorithm influenced the outcome.

• Prohibited uses: No fully automated decisions in:

  • Medical diagnoses (e.g., AI alone cannot deny treatment).

  • Finance (e.g. mortgage/credit applications)

  • Policing/predictive policing (e.g., no arrest decisions based solely on risk scores).

  • Employment/firings (e.g., no algorithmic layoffs without human oversight).

ARTICLE 7: RIGHT TO DIGITAL LITERACY & AGENCY

• Education on digital safety, critical thinking, and rights must be universally accessible.

• No "dark patterns" or deceptive designs to manipulate user behaviour.

ARTICLE 8: RIGHT TO REPAIR & INTEROPERABILITY

• Users can modify, repair, or transfer their digital devices/software without restrictive proprietary barriers or software locks.

• Hardware devices must be modular as far as possible (e.g. replacing a phone/laptop screen should not also require replacing the webcam, backlight, bezel as well because they are all fused/glued/soldered together; some phone manufacturers glue their batteries to the motherboard)

• Manufacturers must provide spare parts, repair manuals and proprietary tools for at least 10 years after the date of sale.

• Warranty periods will be increased to a minimum of 5 years, and the expected product lifespan and repairability score must be clearly disclosed on the product packaging.

ARTICLE 9: RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM SURVEILLANCE CAPITALISM

• Targeted advertising must be opt-in and non-paid only, not a default condition for service access.

• Minors’ data must never be used for commercial exploitation.

ARTICLE 10: RIGHT TO DIGITAL DUE PROCESS

• No punitive actions (e.g., account bans, content removal) without fair notice and appeal.

• Governments must obtain warrants for digital searches, respecting proportionality.

ARTICLE 11: RIGHT TO POST-MORTEM DIGITAL AUTONOMY

• Individuals may dictate the handling of their digital assets/legacy after death.

ARTICLE 12: RIGHT TO DIGITAL OWNERSHIP

• (a) Permanent Access or Refund Guarantee

  • If a consumer pays for a digital product (e.g., software, e-books, games, cloud storage), the seller must:

    • Grant permanent, DRM-free access (even if the product is delisted or the company shuts down) (E-books, single-player games, software), or

    • Provide a full refund if access is revoked (Streaming content, multiplayer games, cloud-dependent apps).

  • Exception: Subscriptions (e.g., Netflix, cloud SaaS) are exempt if clearly marketed as temporary access.

• (b) No Surprise Licenses

  • All digital goods and services should always have the option to be purchased with a one-time payment alongside a subscription. Users of media subscription services should be able to buy individual shows/films which are then permanently available to watch in their personal digital library.

  • Companies cannot retroactively reclassify purchases as "licenses" in fine print.

  • Pre-purchase disclosure required: If a product is a revocable license (not a permanent purchase), this must be:

    • Displayed in bold on the storefront (e.g., "RENTAL: Access may be removed").

    • Acknowledged via separate pop-up consent before payment.

• (c) Right to Transfer/Resell

  • Consumers may resell, gift, or transfer digital purchases (unless explicitly exempt, e.g., personalized accounts).

  • Platforms must enable legal secondary markets (e.g., used e-book resale).

• (d) "Lifetime Access" Labelling

  • Digital stores must tag products as:

    • "Own Forever" (guaranteed permanence), or

    • "Access Licensed" (revocable, with refund policy).

• (e) Data Portability

  • Users must be able to download purchased content in an open format (e.g., EPUB, MP4, DRM-free executables).

• Enforcement & Penalties

  • (a) Automatic Refund Triggers

    • If a paid product is removed or license terminated, refunds must be issued within 14 days.

    • Failure triggers a £50/day penalty per affected user (enforced by the CMA).

  • (b) Class Action Rights

    • Consumers can collectively sue for violations (e.g., Steam removing paid games from libraries).

ARTICLE 13: RIGHT TO CANCEL

• All subscription services must make cancelling the subscription as easy and prominent as the sign-up process.

BILL OF DIGITAL RIGHTS 2029

PREAMBLE:
This Act constitutes the supreme framework for rights in UK law. Where its provisions conflict with retained EU law or the Human Rights Act 1998, this Act shall prevail, except where foreign law provides broader individual protections that do not contravene Parliamentary sovereignty or democratic consent, or provides fundamental rights not covered herein.

ARTICLE 1: RIGHT TO DEMOCRACY

1. Every citizen has the right to free and fair elections, with equal suffrage.

2. Parliament shall be sovereign, and no government may suspend democratic institutions.

ARTICLE 2: RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, & SECURITY

1. No person shall be deprived of liberty except by lawful arrest, trial, or detention in accordance with due process.

2. Habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

3. No person shall be sentenced to death, including during wartime or other national emergencies.

ARTICLE 3: FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, & EXPRESSION

1. Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech, factual press, free association, and peaceful protest, subject only to necessary and proportionate restrictions for national security, public order, or the rights of others.

2. The government and police shall not censor or suppress lawful dissent.

ARTICLE 4: FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE, RELIGION, & BELIEF

1. All citizens have the right to practice, change, or abstain from religion and other beliefs without persecution.

2. No official state religion shall infringe upon individual belief.

ARTICLE 5: EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW

1. No person shall face discrimination based on race, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or any other status.

2. Public authorities must uphold equal protection under the law.

ARTICLE 6: RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND A FAMILY LIFE

1. Citizens have the right to privacy in personal communications, data, property, and family life, free from unjust surveillance, tracking, or seizure.

2. Warrants for searches or surveillance must be judicially authorized.

ARTICLE 7: RIGHT TO PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY AND A FAIR TRIAL

1. The right to a fair and public hearing before an impartial tribunal is inviolable.

2. Serious criminal charges shall be tried by a jury of peers, except where exceptional circumstances require alternative arrangements.

3. Presumption of innocence, legal representation, and protection against self-incrimination shall be guaranteed.

4. No person shall be punished for an act that was not a criminal offence at the time it was committed.

5. Penalties cannot exceed those prescribed by law.

ARTICLE 8: SOCIAL & ECONOMIC RIGHTS

1. Access to education, employment, energy, food, healthcare, housing, transport, and water shall be protected as fundamental to dignity.

2. Mental healthcare shall be treated with parity to physical healthcare, with guaranteed NHS access to counselling, crisis intervention, and community support.

3. Education - from early years to higher education - shall be publicly funded and free at the point of access. Vocational. adult, and special needs education must be equally accessible.

4. The state shall ensure a reasonable standard of living for all citizens and provide sufficiently-funded public services to this effect.

ARTICLE 9: RIGHT TO PROPERTY

1. No person shall be deprived of their property except in the public interest, under conditions prescribed by law.

2. Nationalisation without compensation shall be permitted only where:

a) It is necessary for essential public services;

i) For the purposes of this Act, essential services shall mean the following sectors, where interruption or private

control would threaten:

(a) National survival,

(b) Basic human dignity, or

(c) Collective economic security of the population:

1. Public Health:

- NHS healthcare services, including hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and emergency care.

- Pandemic response infrastructure (e.g., vaccine production).

2. Utilities & Infrastructure:

- Water supply, sewage, and flood defences.

- Electricity/gas grids (excluding competitive retail markets).

- Public transport networks (rail, buses) but not airlines or ride-sharing.

3. Housing:

- Social housing stock and homelessness shelters, but not privately owned homes not used for speculative

investment.

4. Food Security:

- Emergency food distribution (e.g. during shortages).

- Agricultural land only if monopolized or left fallow unjustly.

5. Education & Childcare:

- State schools, nurseries, and special needs provision.

6. Communications:

- Broadband infrastructure (e.g. fibre networks), but not content providers.

- Emergency alert systems.

7. Banking & Finance:

- Retail banking services (if systemic collapse occurs) but not investment banking absent a crisis.

Exclusions:

8. Media, arts, small businesses (<50 employees), and religious institutions unless directly providing an

essential service (e.g. faith-run homeless shelters).

b) It is justified by urgent social or economic need (e.g. preventing monopolies, ensuring fair access);

c) A democratic mandate exists (e.g. parliamentary approval, election manifesto promise, or referendum); and

d) Fair judicial review is available to challenge abuse of power.

3. Personal possessions, homes, and small businesses shall not be subject to uncompensated seizure unless in cases of criminal confiscation or extreme public necessity.

4. Compensation shall be paid in all other cases of state acquisition, as determined by an independent tribunal.

ARTICLE 10: FREEDOM FROM TORTURE, INHUMANE TREATMENT & SLAVERY

1. No form of torture, cruel, or degrading punishment shall be permitted.

2. No person shall be subjected to slavery and/or forced labour.

ARTICLE 11: RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

1. All citizens may challenge unlawful government actions in court.

2. Public authorities must act within legal limits.

ARTICLE 12: RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITIZENSHIP

1. Citizens shall uphold the law, participate in civic duties, and respect the rights of others.

ARTICLE 13: RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT

1. Every citizen has the right to:

• Clean air, safe water, and a sustainable climate.

• Access to nature and protection from ecological harm.

2. The government must:

• Enforce strict environmental laws to prevent pollution and biodiversity loss.

• Pursue real-zero emissions in line with scientific consensus.

3. Citizens may sue the state for failing to uphold these obligations.

ARTICLE 14: DIGITAL RIGHTS & PRIVACY PROTECTIONS

1. Right to Digital Privacy:

• No mass surveillance without judicial warrant.

• Personal data cannot be sold or exploited without consent.

2. Freedom from Algorithmic Discrimination:

• AI and automated decision-making must be transparent and fair.

3. Access to the Internet:

• A universal right to affordable, uncensored broadband.

• Protection from corporate or state deplatforming without due process.

ARTICLE 15: RIGHT TO HOUSING

1. All citizens have the right to secure, affordable, and dignified housing. The state must prevent homelessness through proactive measures, including social housing investment and rent controls where necessary.

ARTICLE 16: RIGHT TO STRIKE & WORKER PROTECTIONS

1. Workers shall have the right to unionise, to strike, and to bargain collectively.

2. Employment contracts must guarantee a living wage.

3. Automation shall not deprive workers of fair compensation.

ARTICLE 17: RIGHT TO CULTURAL HERITAGE

1. All citizens have the right to access, preserve, and participate in cultural heritage, including minority languages (e.g. Welsh, Gaelic) and historic traditions that do not infringe upon the rights of others.

ARTICLE 18: ENTRENCHMENT & AMENDMENT

1. This Bill of Rights may only be amended by a supermajority (⅔) vote in Parliament or public referendum in which 75% of the electorate participates and a supermajority of 66.7% is received.

BRITISH BILL OF RIGHTS 2029

SECTION 1: INDEPENDENCE OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

• The Electoral Commission shall exercise its functions free from direction or influence by any Minister of the Crown, political party, or other governmental authority.

• No Minister or public authority may issue guidance, set strategy, or alter the Commission’s governance in a manner that undermines its operational or enforcement independence.

SECTION 2: CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS & ENTRENCHMENT

• This Act shall be regarded as a "Constitutional Statute" under the principles established in Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] and may only be amended or repealed by express provision in subsequent legislation.

• Any bill to amend or repeal this Act must-

  • (a) be passed by a two-thirds majority of the House of Commons;

  • (b) be approved by a two-thirds majority of the House of Lords;

  • (c) be submitted to a national referendum (requiring 66.7% of voters approving on a minimum 75% turnout).

SECTION 3: JUDICIAL SAFEGUARDS

• Any attempt by a Minister, public authority, or Parliament to circumvent the independence of the Electoral Commission shall be subject to judicial review.

• Courts may issue declarations of unlawfulness and injunctive relief against actions violating this Act.

• The Commission may initiate legal proceedings to defend its independence without requiring government approval.

SECTION 4: FUNDING & BUDGETARY AUTONOMY

• The Commission’s budget shall be determined by an Independent Parliamentary Panel (comprising the Speaker, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and representatives of all major parties).

• Funding shall be drawn directly from the Consolidated Fund, bypassing Treasury discretion.

SECTION 5: APPOINTMENT & REMOVAL OF COMMISSIONERS

• Commissioners shall be appointed by a Cross-Party Committee (with seats allocated proportionally to Commons party representation).

• No Commissioner may be removed except for misconduct or incapacity, as determined by a judicial tribunal.

SECTION 6: INTERNATIONAL & CIVIL SOCIETY OVERSIGHT

• The Commission shall submit to biennial reviews by the OSCE/ODIHR or equivalent international body.

• Designated civil society organisations (e.g., Electoral Reform Society) may intervene in court proceedings challenging the Commission’s independence.

SECTION 7: OFFENCE OF UNDUE INTERFERENCE

• It shall be a criminal offence for any person in public office to-

  • (a) coerce or intimidate the Electoral Commission;

  • (b) withhold funding for improper purposes;

  • (c) manipulate appointments for partisan gain.

SECTION 8: REFERENDUM LOCK

• No amendment to this Act shall take effect unless approved by a national referendum in which at least 75% of the electorate participates and a minimum approving vote of 66.7%.

SECTION 9: COMMENCEMENT

• This Act comes into force three months after royal assent.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION INDEPENDENCE ACT 2029

PROPOSAL: THE INFORMED ELECTORATE FRANCHISE

1. PURPOSE

This proposal outlines a system to enhance the quality of democratic participation in the United Kingdom by introducing a voluntary, knowledge-based supplementary vote mechanism. Under the Informed Electorate Franchise (IEF) Scheme, every eligible citizen retains a fundamental and equal right to one vote. Individuals can then choose to earn up to four additional votes (for a maximum of five per election) by successfully passing a non-partisan, independently administered test of political and current affairs knowledge. The primary objectives are to incentivise political engagement, reward informed deliberation, and strengthen the epistemic quality of electoral outcomes without disenfranchising any citizen.

2. RATIONALE & OBJECTIVES

• Enhance Democratic Deliberation: To encourage voters to move beyond tribal allegiances or single-issue politics and engage with the full spectrum of policy proposals and ideological debates.

• Incentivise Political Literacy: To create a tangible, positive incentive for citizens to actively seek out information from diverse and reliable sources, potentially countering misinformation.

• Recognise Informed Choice: To acknowledge that a vote cast from a position of detailed understanding may carry more weight in shaping the country's future, while still upholding the principle of universal suffrage.

• Increase Accountability: A more informed electorate could place greater pressure on political parties and candidates to run campaigns based on detailed policy, factual accuracy, and rational argument.

3. KEY DESIGN PRINCIPLES

• Universal suffrage remains protected: The foundation of the system remains One Person, One Vote. The IEF scheme only adds supplementary votes; it removes nothing.

• Voluntary participation: No citizen is obligated to take the test. It is an opt-in process for those who wish to have a greater say based on demonstrated knowledge. Those who have no wish to know about politics are free to continue not engaging.

• Strict political neutrality: The test must be scrupulously fair and balanced. It will be designed to test knowledge about all major parties and their positions, not endorsement of them.

• Accessibility and equality of opportunity: The test must be freely available and accessible to all, with provisions for disabilities and language barriers, to prevent it from becoming a barrier based on socio-economic status.

4. MECHANISM & IMPLEMENTATION

• a) The Test (The "Political Knowledge Certificate")

  • Content: The test would be a multiple-choice and/or short-answer questionnaire administered online and at designated public centres (e.g., libraries, council offices).

  • Focus: Questions would cover:

    • Key policy positions of all major parties standing in the election (e.g., "Which of the following parties has proposed a target of X% renewable energy by 2030?").

    • Understanding of the UK constitution (e.g., devolution, role of the monarchy, separation of powers).

    • Knowledge of current major events and international affairs.

    • Basic economic and social statistics (e.g., approximate inflation rate, NHS budget).

    • Crucially, it would not ask for personal opinions or which party the test-taker supports.

  • Scoring and Tiers: Scoring would be out of 100. Results would correspond to additional votes:

    • 0-49%: No additional votes (retains the 1 fundamental vote).

    • 50-74%: +1 additional vote (2 votes total).

    • 75-84%: +2 additional votes (3 votes total).

    • 85-94%: +3 additional votes (4 votes total).

    • 95-100%: +4 additional votes (5 votes total).

• b) Administration

  • Independent Body: The test would be created and administered by a completely independent, non-governmental body, such as the Electoral Commission or a newly established Office for Democratic Engagement. Its board would include cross-party representatives, academics, and civil society figures to audit questions for bias.

  • Validity Period: A passed test would be valid for one general election and any other elections (local, devolved) occurring within the following 2-year period, after which it must be retaken to ensure knowledge is current.

• c) Voting Process

  • Upon passing the test, citizens would receive a unique certification code linked to their electoral registration number.

  • When voting (either in person or by post), they would present this code. The presiding officer would issue them with the corresponding number of ballot papers (e.g., 3 papers for a 3-vote citizen).

  • Critical Rule: The citizen can distribute their multiple votes across different parties/candidates or cast them all for a single candidate. This allows for nuanced expression—e.g., giving two votes to a preferred candidate and one to a second-choice candidate.

5. POTENTIAL BENEFITS

• Higher Quality Debate: Parties may be compelled to engage with more sophisticated policy discussions to appeal to informed voters with greater electoral weight.

• Civic Empowerment: Provides a pathway for engaged citizens to have a greater impact, reinforcing positive civic behaviour.

• Mitigation of Polarisation: By requiring knowledge of all sides, the scheme encourages a more holistic and less partisan view of the political landscape.

6. ADDRESSING CRITICISMS & CHALLENGES

• "It's Elitist."

  • Rebuttal: The scheme is voluntary and additive. It does not create a "class" of voters but a "category" of engagement that is open to anyone. Free resources, study guides, and accessible test centres would ensure it is not exclusive. The core principle of universal suffrage remains untouched.

• "It's a 'Poll Test' in disguise."

  • Rebuttal: Historical poll tests were designed to disenfranchise and were often impossible to pass. This test is designed to enfranchise further and is based on objective, learnable knowledge available to all, not subjective literacy or moral character.

• "Who decides what the 'correct' knowledge is?"

  • Rebuttal: This is the greatest challenge. It is mitigated by the independent, multi-party administration body. Questions would be fact-based ("What is Party X's stated policy on Y?") rather than normative ("Is Policy Z a good idea?"). The source for answers would be official party manifestos and publicly verifiable data.

• "It adds complexity to the voting process."

  • Rebuttal: While true, the benefit of a more informed electoral outcome could outweigh the administrative burden. Robust systems would be developed to manage the issuance and verification of additional ballots.

EXTRA VOTES FOR INFORMED VOTERS

A BILL TO
Introduce a maximum age limit for Members of the House of Commons.

SECTION 1: MAXIMUM AGE FOR MEMBERSHIP OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

• No person may be nominated as a candidate for election to the House of Commons if they have reached the age of 75 years.

• A Member of the House of Commons shall vacate their seat upon reaching the age of 75 years.

SECTION 2: EXCEPTIONS & TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

• This Act shall not apply to any MP elected before its commencement until the next dissolution of Parliament.

• A by-election triggered under Section 1(2) shall be conducted in accordance with the Representation of the People Act 1983.

SECTION 3: LEGAL SAFEGUARDS

• This restriction is a proportionate means of ensuring:
   (a) the effective functioning of Parliament,
   (b) reasonable turnover of representatives, and
   (c) alignment with retirement norms in other public offices.

• The Secretary of State may amend the age limit in Section 1(1) by statutory instrument, subject to affirmative resolution.

SECTION 4. SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, & EXTENT

• This Act comes into force six months after Royal Assent.

• This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (MAXIMUM AGE) BILL

A future Inquiry will consider:

• 1. Government Policy & Arms Exports

  • Whether UK arms sales to Israel violated domestic or international law (e.g., Export Control Act 2002, Genocide Convention, Geneva Conventions).

  • If ministers ignored legal advice on complicity in war crimes.

  • Diplomatic efforts: Did the UK obstruct international accountability (e.g., blocking ICC investigations or UN resolutions)?

• 2. Media Bias & Propaganda

  • Did UK media outlets systematically downplay civilian harm or amplify Israeli state narratives without scrutiny?

  • Were journalists pressured (overtly or covertly) by government or pro-Israel lobby groups?

  • Did broadcasters (BBC, Sky) and newspapers (Daily Mail, Telegraph, Guardian) meet ethical standards in reporting?

• 3. Suppression of Dissent

  • Were pro-Palestinian protests unfairly restricted under counter-terrorism or public order laws?

  • Was there disproportionate policing of pro-Palestine activism compared to other causes?

  • Did government or media rhetoric (e.g., "hate marches", "extremism" labels) delegitimise legitimate criticism of Israel?

• 4. Corporate & Financial Ties

  • Did UK companies or financial institutions aid illegal settlements or military operations?

  • Were pension funds (e.g., Local Government Pension Schemes) invested in firms complicit in violations?

• 5. Legal & Parliamentary Failures

  • Did MPs or peers with financial ties to Israel declare conflicts of interest?

  • Did the UK fail in its erga omnes duty to prevent genocide under international law?

POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS & PUNISHMENTS

If complicity were proven, we would like to see the Inquiry recommend:

FOR GOVERNMENT MINISTERS & OFFICIALS:

• Referrals to the International Criminal Court or domestic courts for criminal prosecutions in the aiding war crimes.

• Sanctions and travel bans on officials who approved illegal arms sales.

• Policy changes in the form of forced-suspension of arms licences and sanctions on settlement-linked firms.

• Politicians found to be negligent forced to resign their seats and lose their pensions.

FOR MEDIA:

• Ofcom fines for biased or dehumanizing coverage.

• Referrals to the ICC or domestic courts for aiding war crimes.

• Mandated public apologies for false reporting.

• Withdrawal of press credentials for outlets that spread disinformation.

• Require outlets to submit to real-time audits of source logs, editorial decision records, and corrections for high-stakes stories (e.g., war crimes allegations).

• Appoint independent human rights experts to audit coverage of conflicts (similar to BBC’s Editorial Standards Board but with enforcement power).

• Examination of whether artifical intelligence or algorithmic tools amplified bias (e.g. social media trends) and mandated disclosure of curation processes.

• Require mention of Israeli occupation, blockade and ICJ rulings in future Gaza reporting to ensure viewers have the full story from day one.

• Journalists/editors must declare funding from pro-Israel or pro-Palestine groups like the register of interests for MPs.

• Embedded Reporter Rules: Outlets using IDF-escorted journalists must disclose access limitations (as with Pentagon embeds).

• Anonymous tip lines for staff to report editorial bias without retaliation.

• Creation of a third-party Ombudsman (e.g., a retired judge) to assess complaints.

FOR CORPORATIONS:

• Forced divestment from investments in illegal settlements.

• Fines and bans for companies violating UK or international law.

STRUCTURAL REFORMS:

• War Crimes Amendment: Strengthening the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to prosecute UK complicity.

• Lobbying Transparency: Mandatory disclosure of pro-Israel lobbying ties.

• Independent Oversight: A new watchdog to monitor UK foreign policy on human rights.

PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO UK GOVERNMENT & MEDIA COMPLICITY IN THE GAZA GENOCIDE

A Bill to reform the declassification of government documents, ensure timely public accountability, and prevent unjustified secrecy.

SECTION 1: PURPOSE

• Purpose: To amend the Public Records Act 1958 and Freedom of Information Act 2000 to:

  • Reduce the default declassification period from 20 years to 10 years.

  • Establish tiered release schedules for sensitive documents.

  • Create an Independent Declassification Authority (IDA) to oversee exemptions.

  • Introduce a "public interest override" for scandals involving misconduct.

SECTION 2: TIERED DECLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

• All government records shall be publicly released no later than 10 years after creation, unless exempted under this Act.

• Exemptions & staggered release:

  • 5 years: Ministerial communications, policy drafts, and internal discussions (unless national security applies).

  • 10 years: Intelligence, diplomatic, and defence documents (subject to review).

  • 20+ years: Only legitimate national security secrets (e.g., active agents, nuclear codes).

• Sunset clause: No document may be withheld for more than 25 years without Parliamentary approval.

SECTION 3: INDEPENDENT DECLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY (IDA)

• A new Independent Declassification Authority (IDA) shall be established, composed of:

  • 1 senior judge (appointed by the Lord Chief Justice).

  • 2 historians (nominated by the British Academy).

  • 1 national security expert (approved by the Intelligence & Security Committee).

  • 1 representative from civil society (e.g., Transparency International UK).

• Powers of the IDA:

  • Review all redactions and exemptions claimed by government departments.

  • Can override secrecy claims if no provable harm to national security.

  • Publish an annual transparency report on withheld documents.

SECTION 4: PUBLIC INTEREST OVERRIDE FOR SCANDALS

• Expedited release: Documents relating to:

  • Military interventions (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan).

  • Public health emergencies (e.g., COVID-19 PPE contracts).

  • Gross misconduct or corruption.

  must be reviewed for release within 5 years.

• Whistleblower protections: Individuals who leak documents in the public interest (as defined by the IDA) shall not face prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.

SECTION 5: ENFORCEMENT & PENALTIES

• Government departments that unlawfully withhold documents shall face:

  • Fines of up to 1% of their annual budget.

  • Personal sanctions for ministers who knowingly suppress evidence.

• Judicial review: Courts may order immediate release if secrecy is deemed unjustified.

SECTION 6: COMMENCEMENT & REVIEW

• This Act shall come into force six months after passing.

• A Parliamentary committee shall review its effectiveness every 5 years.

PUBLIC INTEREST TRANSPARENCY ACT 2029

SECTION 1. TERRORISM & SECURITY LAWS

We want to see the following either repealed or amended:

• Terrorism Act 2000 (Stop & Search without suspicion)

  • Reform: Restrict stop-and-search powers to cases with reasonable suspicion and explicitly exclude journalists, academics, and protestors unless there is credible evidence of violent intent.

• Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001 (Indefinite detention of foreign suspects)

  • Repeal: End indefinite detention without trial (already partially struck down, but replaced with control orders). The State should not be able to hold people indefinitely without subjecting them to a free and fair trial in open court.

• Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Control Orders & TPIMs)

  • Reform: Replace TPIMs (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures) with stricter judicial oversight and time limits.

• Terrorism Act 2006 ('Glorification' of terrorism)

  • Repeal/Clarify: Narrow the vague definitions of "encouragement" or "glorification" of terrorism to prevent overreach and require direct intention to incite violence or harm.

Key Change:

• Requires "probable cause" for terror-related arrests rather than a broad pre-emptive detention.

SECTION 2. MASS SURVEILLANCE & PRIVACY

• Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)

  • Reform: End bulk data collection and require specific warrants for surveillance.

• Investigatory Powers Act 2016 ("Snooper’s Charter")

  • Repeal: Scrap Internet Connection Records (ICRs) and bulk hacking powers.

  • Require: Judicial approval (not just ministerial sign-off) for surveillance warrants.

• Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA)

  • Repeal: Already ruled illegal by EU courts, but UK still retains similar powers - needs full abolition.

Key Change:

• Restores privacy protections by ending warrantless mass surveillance.

SECTION 3. PROTEST & FREE SPEECH RESTRICTIONS

• Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA)

  • Repeal: Remove restrictions on protests near Parliament.

• Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSC Act)

  • Repeal: Roll back restrictions on noisy protests, "public nuisance" offences, and police powers to ban demonstrations and halt actions deemed too disruptive.

• Public Order Act 2023 (Expands stop-and-search for protests)

  • Repeal: End suspicion-less stop-and-search for protest-related offences.

Review:

• List of proscribed groups/organisations

  • Are they on this list legitimately or were they proscribed because they were politically inconvenient for the government of the day e.g. Just Stop Oil & Palestine Action.

Key Change:

• Restores the right to peaceful assembly without fear of pre-emptive policing.

SECTION 4. IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS

• Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (Removal of citizenship without notice)

  • Repeal: Ban secret citizenship-stripping and ensure due process.

• UK’s "Hostile Environment" Policies

  • Reform: End mandatory immigration checks by landlords, banks, and NHS. Service providers should not be expected to act as immigration agents.

Key Change:

• Restores due process for citizenship and immigration cases.

SECTION 5. CRIMINAL JUSTICE & POLICE POWERS

• Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Double jeopardy reform – allows retrials after acquittal)

  • Reform: Limit retrials to cases with new, compelling evidence.

• Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)

  • Reform: Strengthen safeguards against extended detention without charge.

Key Change:

• Restores the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" in counter-terrorism cases.

SECTION 6. RESTORING HABEAS CORPUS & JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT

• End "secret courts" (Closed Material Procedures under the Justice and Security Act 2013). Justice must be seen to be done.

• Restore full access to legal representation for terror suspects. Everyone has the right to a fair trial, and rights apply to everyone. They cannot be cherry-picked for in-groups and excluded for out-groups.

• Require judicial approval (not just Home Secretary) for TPIMs, deportations, and surveillance.

SECTION 7. REPEAL OF "PRE-CRIME" MEASURES

• End Prevent Duty (Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015)

  • Reform: Stop mandatory reporting of "extremist" views in schools/universities or narrow definitions to violent threats only.

Historical Evidence: Do These Powers Even Work?

• Stop-and-search (Section 44): Only 0.1% of stops led to terror arrests (Home Office stats).

• Bulk surveillance: No major attacks prevented by mass data harvesting as stated in multiple UK/US reviews.

• Prevent Duty: 80% of referrals lead to no action and critics say it fuels distrust in Muslims.

• Many post-9/11 powers are more intrusive than effective. Reforming them wouldn’t cripple security, it would refocus efforts on precise, lawful methods.

RESTORING CIVIL LIBERTIES LOST SINCE 2001

SUBSCRIBE

Subscribe to our mailing list to hear about news and policy announcements