Know us, like us, vote for us!

Transatlantic trade requires Transatlantic trust. We need openness.

STOP DRIP - No to Mass Surveillance

Are we citizens or suspects? Stop spying on us!

Your Health - Your Data

Whistleblowers- Speaking Up For All of Us Protect the Right to Speak Up

When you block it, you break it. Lets keep the web alive.

Copyright and Patent Reform

Everyone is part of the digital economy

Thursday, 2 October, 2014 - 18:00

The Prime Minister has confirmed that future majority Conservative government would repeal the Human Rights act and replace it with a yet undefined “British Bill of Rights”. 

In his speech to the Conservative party conference he said "This country will have a new British bill of rights to be passed in our parliament rooted in our values. And as for Labour’s Human Rights Act? We will scrap it, once and for all.”

Further details were released on

Net Neutrality



Local Debates not Leaders' Debates

Loz Kaye's picture

Anyone would think we are going to elect a president next year. Politicos, the media and the Twittersphere have been obsessing about the format of the Leaders' debates in the run up to the General Election.

What this has really been about is the largest forces in UK politics, from the Tories to the Greens promoting their own self interest rather than really doing what would reinvigorate creaking British democracy.

Mark Chapman : Secret Courts - A silent start

Lady Justice - Old BaileyUnremarked upon, a mere footnote in the newspapers, but Justice took a significant step backwards this week with the start of a trial that will be held, at least in part, 'in secret'. The trial of Erol Incedal at the Old Bailey will - according to the judge - "have some unusual features. The usual way that justice is administered is in public. Some of this trial will be conducted in that way. However there will be other sessions of this trial that will be conducted in private. The public will not be able to attend these".

Not just the public, but journalists as well will be restricted from certain sections of the trial, so that the contents disclosed will never be public. Furthermore, the public will not be given an outline of what it is that is being discussed in secret, or any reasons why it must be secret.

That this has come about at all is as a consequence of the bill passed by the Coalition government last year. At the time there was a fair amount of media comment on it and the Lib Dem MPs defied the vote of members at their conference in voting for the bill. Now however, reporting a case which is affected, and there is silence - merely a footnote at the end of the standard court report. It seems as though the battle has already been lost, and the media have moved on.

Just because the media move on, however, doesn't mean that we should. The principle and practice of secret courts are dangerous and should be challenged wherever and whenever possible. We should take the time to understand the Justice that is being done in our name, and seeking to ensure that it is, above all, Just.

There are 2 major issues with the existence of secret courts. Firstly, it removes one of the fundamental tenets of the right to a fair trial - that the trial be conducted in public. As recently as 2011 in a landmark hearing (Al Rawi) the Supreme Court of the UK upheld the principle of open justice. The removal of this openness means that the accused can either never hear evidence which helps to convict them, removing them of the ability to accurately refute that evidence; or alternatively it means that they too are restricted from talking about certain aspects of the trial in public meaning that even if found to be innocent, they have restrictions placed on their freedom of speech.

Introducing our new Community site!

Ed Geraghty's picture

Community LogoAs part of our ongoing work to totally revamp our websites, I'm pleased to announce the launch of!

Wendy Cockcroft : Opinion: 'Middle-Out' A Pirate Solution For The Economy?


I'm basically a moderate conservative who sees the need for a well-funded welfare state governed by and for the people via a decentralised, distributed democratic process. My personal motto is,

"The individual must be free to act and the will of the people must be respected."

If this principle is not at the core of every policy those policies will fail. The needs and desires of BOTH the many and the one must be kept in balance, with neither gaining the advantage over the other if we want a fairer world. It's the reason I don't vote for the major parties; each of their philosophies tends towards nanny-knows-best authoritarianism and I don't like being told what to do by people who don't care about me.

At the moment, we're caught between the Left/Right dichotomy with either Socialism or Free Market Supply-side ideologies being touted as the solution despite neither of them ever having been proven to work in practice. Middle-out is a departure from both and would create a more inclusive society by providing incentives for production, rewarding labour, and funding a robust welfare state. Let's take a closer look at it.


More Information

Twitter icon
Facebook icon
Google+ icon
YouTube icon
RSS icon

The Party on Twitter