Liberal Democrat Voice has put together 10 key Parliamentary votes to let you see how liberal or authoritarian your MP is. Just enter your postcode or the name of an MP or constituency:
All MPs are marked out of 100 based on 10 votes held during the last Parliament. The higher their score the more authoritarian they are. The lower their score the more liberal is their voting record.
Full details of the 10 votes are listed below and you can find the full list of MPs here.
You can find out more about the Liberal Democrats' proposals to stand up for the civil liberties of the British people here. http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/
What next?
Pleased or appalled by what you find out about your MP? Please use the Twitter and Facebook links on the page for each MP to let others know how liberal or authoritarian your MP is.
If you would like to blog about this site or the score, you're welcome to use our logo above to illustrate the story - and please link back to this site so that more people find it. Thank you.
The 10 votes
For each vote an MP is given 10 points if they voted for the authoritarian option, 3 points if they did not vote and 0 points if they voted for the liberal option. However, as the vote on freedom of information was called suddenly without advance notice, for that vote abstentions score 0 points rather than 3 as the absence of many MPs was caused by the surprise timing rather than a deliberate decision.
1. ID Cards
The debate: whether to give the Identity Cards Bill its third reading.
The date: 18th October 2005
The vote: 309 votes in favour of the Identity Cards Bill to 284 against.
The Lib Dem position: Lib Dem MPs voted unanimously against the Identity Cards Bill. The Liberal Democrats, unlike the Conservatives, have always opposed the introduction of ID cards - for British citizens and for foreign nationals. We would scrap them immediately and spend the money putting more police on the street. The people of this country and our guests should not have to justify themselves to the State when going about their daily law-abiding business. We should not be made to carry a card to identify ourselves and we should not have all of our most personal data stored on a central database. That is not being free. You can read more about the Lib Dems' opposition to authoritarian ID cards here.
2. Control Orders
The debate: annual vote on whether on the renewal of Control Order powers brought in by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
The date: 3rd March 2009
The vote: 269 votes in favour of the renewal of Control Order powers to 87 against.
The Lib Dem position: Lib Dem MPs voted unanimously against the renewal of Control Orders, which deprive people of their liberty without telling them why. Control orders undermine the separation of powers and the right to a fair trial, as decisions to impose them are made by politicians not judges and are based on secret evidence, which the individual concerned is unable to see and powerless to dispute. They are an affront to British justice and a threat to the freedom that people have fought and died for. You can read more about the Lib Dems' opposition to Control Orders here.
3. MPs' Expenses - exemption from Freedom of Information request
The debate: Conservative MP Private Member's Bill on whether MPs' expenses should be exempted from requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The proposed changes to the law expressed in this Bill would have taken away all Freedom of Information rights with regards to Parliament and MPs.
The date: 20th April 2007 and 18th May 2007
The vote: On 20th April the Bill was 'talked out' by Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, with assistance from Lib Dem colleague Simon Hughes, and a handful of MPs from other parties. But on 18th May 2007 it came back and was voted through by Labour and Conservative MPs, 96 votes to 25.
The Lib Dem position: All Lib Dem speakers, including spokesman Simon Hughes, spoke against the Bill and the party's then leader, Ming Campbell, urged MPs of all parties to reject it. You can read more about Nick Clegg's plans to reform the MPs' expenses system here.
4. Extradition Act 2003
The debate: whether to back an immediate review and reform of the Extradition Act 2003 amid concerns of the lack of reciprocity in US-UK extradition proceedings prompted by high profile cases such as Gary McKinnon, extradited to the US despite a diagnosis of mental health problems.
The date: 15th July 2009
The vote: 291 votes in favour of rejecting a review of the Extradition Act 2003 to 236 against.
The Lib Dem position: Lib Dem MPs voted unanimously in favour of review and reform of the Extradition Act 2003, which the party has consistently opposed since it was signed. Put simply, the government signed an unbalanced treaty which threatens the interests of British citizens and those under our judicial protection. The Extradition Act 2003 has stripped away many fundamental principles of justice and eroded traditional protections against summary and unfair extradition. You can read more about the Lib Dems' opposition to the 2003 Extradition Act here.
5. DNA database - protecting the innocent
The debate: whether to support the Crime and Security Pedicabs Bill which concerned (among other measures) the establishment of a 'new framework for the detention of DNA records' - the UK has the largest DNA database in the world, with 5.5 million people on it, almost 1 million of whom are innocent.
The date: 19th January 2010
The vote: 270 votes in favour of the Crime and Security Pedicabs Bill to 195 against.
The Lib Dem position: Lib Dem MPs voted unanimously to reject the Crime and Security Bill. The effectiveness of the DNA database for innocents as a tool for fighting crime is highly questionable, as the database is random. It includes 1 million innocents and excludes more than 2 million people who were convicted before the database began. The party supports a strict split between innocence and guilt. If a person is found guilty of a crime, their DNA should be retained on the database. The Lib Dems would also support collecting the DNA of the 2 million people convicted before the database began. But if a person is not convicted of a crime, their DNA should be removed from the database at the end of the investigation. It is as simple as that. The principle of being innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. You can read more about the Lib Dems' opposition to retaining the DNA of innocent people here.
6. Abolition of Parliament Bill (Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill)
The debate: whether to give the so-called Abolition of Parliament Bill its third reading drastically reducing parliamentary discussion of future laws.
The date: 16th May 2006
The vote: 259 votes in favour of the Abolition of Parliament Bill to 213 against.
The Lib Dem position: Lib Dem MPs voted unanimously to reject the Abolition of Parliament Bill. David Howarth led the Lib Dems' opposition, highlighting the way the Bill "gives ministers power to alter any law passed by Parliament. ... All ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks and, voila, the law is changed. ... Carrying ID cards could be made compulsory, smoking in one's own home could be outlawed and the definition of terrorism altered to make ordinary political protest punishable by life imprisonment." You can read more about the Lib Dems' opposition to the Abolition of Parliament Bill here.
7. 90 days detention of terrorist suspects
The debate: whether to extend to 90 days the maximum period of detention without making any criminal charges of terrorist suspects.
The date: 9th November 2005
The vote: 291 votes in favour of extending detention to 90 days to 322 against.
The Lib Dem position: Lib Dem MPs voted unanimously against extending the detention period to 90 days. The Liberal Democrats believe that the whole debate around pre-charge detention has been skewed. It should not be about whether to make it longer than 28 days but whether 28 days is too long. The Liberal Democrats believe it is. The time has come to bring it back to 14 days. This would still be longer than any other common law jurisdiction allows. It would still mean that the police had two whole weeks to question suspects without charging them or even without telling them exactly of what they are suspected. You can read more about the Lib Dems' opposition to pre-charge detention here.
8. Trial without a Jury
The debate: whether to give the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill its third reading, allowing judges to sit without juries in complex fraud cases.
The date: 25th January 2007
The vote: 281 votes in favour of trials without a jury to 246 votes against.
The Lib Dem position: Lib Dem MPs voted unanimously against allowing trials without a jury. Simon Hughes led Lib Dem opposition, arguing: "Lay juries are a fundamental guarantee that the public play a crucial part in the criminal justice process. More than ever, we need lay people to have confidence in our institutions. They may not trust us, or even the judges, but they do trust the juries." The Lib Dems would preserve the right to trial by jury as one of the cornerstones of the British justice system. You can read more about the Lib Dems' commitment to preserving trial by jury here.
9. Freedom of Speech
The debate: whether to deny the Religious and Racial Hatred Bill a second reading on the grounds that creating a new offence of inciting religious hatred would disproportionately curtail freedom of expression.
The date: 21st June 2005
The vote: 303 votes against denying the Religious and Racial Hatred Bill a second reading to 246 votes in favour.
The Lib Dem position: Lib Dem MPs voted unanimously against disproportionately curtailing freedom of expression by creating a new offence of inciting religious hatred. Alistair Carmichael led Lib Dem opposition arguing, "With no particular coherent or strategic approach, the Government are seeking to redefine the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the state. It seems to me that they are playing fast and loose with the freedom of religion and freedom of expression, which, once lost, can never easily be regained." You can read more about the Lib Dems' opposition to curtailing freedom of expression here.
10. Government intervention in Coroners' investigations and inquests
The debate: whether to contest the power of the Lord Chancellor, a government minister, to suspend a coroner's investigation and inquest and replace it with an 'inquiry'.
The date: 9th November 2009
The vote: 274 votes against the amendment removing the powers of a government minister to suspend a coroner's investigation to 266 votes in favour.
The Lib Dem position: Lib Dem MPs voted unanimously in favour of removing the power of the government to intervene in a coroner's investigation. David Howarth explained the party's position in the Commons debate: "The key is public confidence. How can the public be confident when someone has died at the hands of a state official - a police officer, a prison officer or an officer of one of the security services - if the investigation into their death is carried out by someone chosen by the Government, with terms of reference chosen by the Government, and in circumstances in which the process can be suspended by the Government? The Government could also determine the terms of the final report to some extent. The independence of such an inquiry would be suspect from the start, and the public would have no confidence in it."
A big thanks to PublicWhip and TheyWorkForYou in providing the key data to help build this site. Thank you, too, to Chris Huhne and his home affairs team for helping identify the 10 key votes on which our table is based.