Here are my top five ideas so far:

• Repeal the Digital Economy Act (see also Coadec’s duplicate idea)
• Abolish the party whips
• Controls on mass surveillance (e.g. ANPR systems)
• Abolish CRB checks
• Repeal the Third Law of Thermodynamics(!) (also, this)

If you’ve spotted any other good ones, please link them in the comments.

Your search terms are highly sensitive and very private. They are also uniquely identifiable. Examining what you search for can reveal deeply personal facts about you, such as your online reading habits, medical history, finances, sexual preferences and political affiliations.

A database of search terms, linked to subscriber accounts, would be a clear violation of the privacy rights of everyone who uses the Internet in Europe.

I’ve written to my MEPs urging them not to sign Written Declaration 29 and to withdraw their signature if they have already signed. You should do the same – it takes two minutes through writetothem.com

Here’s my letter (but, as always, please use your own words for maximum effect).

Dear Timothy Kirkhope, Edward McMillan-Scott, Andrew Brons, Godfrey Bloom, Diana Wallis and Linda McAvan,

Written declaration 29 [pdf] calls on the European Commission to extend the data retention directive (2006/24/EC) to Internet search-engines. If this were to happen all private searches done on Google et al would be monitored. I feel this would be an intolerable violation of article 8 ECHR privacy rights.

Written declaration 29 is being marketed within the European Parliament by using an emotionally-loaded picture of a child and talking about the need to set up an ”early warning system” to combat child abuse. Laudable though that aim is, as a technical expert it’s my opinion that these measures cannot achieve it, and the marketing is therefore misleading. Some MEPs have already said they feel they have been misled into signing the declaration because of the way in which it was presented to them.

If the declaration is adopted the names of the signatories will be made public.

If you have signed written declaration 29 and feel you have been misled I urge you to withdraw your signature.

Christian Engström MEP has published more information on his website.

I thought it would be interesting to compare the contents of the Liberal Democrat Freedom Bill with the new Government’s version:

What do I conclude from this comparison? That the Government’s outline proposals are a massive step in the right direction however there is still more work to do.

1. Scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the ContactPoint Database.
2. Outlaw the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
3. Extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
4. Adopt the Scottish approach to stopping retention of innocent people’s DNA on the DNA database.
5. Defend trial by jury.
6. Restore rights to non-violent protest.
7. A review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
8. Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
9. Further regulation of CCTV.
10. Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
11. A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.
12. End the detention of children for immigration purposes.

Oh my!

As a digital- and civil-rights campaigner this list fills my heart with joy. The successful passage of this Bill through Parliament would not end the need to champion human rights in the digital era* however it would be a famous victory for that cause: we could say with certainty that this election, that the ousting of Labour from Government, was the point at which the high-water mark of authoritarian social policy in Britain was reached.

Some fellow campaigners have today urged caution and are reserving judgement until the details of the Bill are published. I cannot fault them for their cynicism however I am filled with hope that today we have seen not only the dawn of a new politics in Britain, but a new era of liberty, freedom, privacy and respect for human rights in the UK.

I shall be raising my glass to the death of ID cards and the Database State tonight!

* Three omissions stand out: repeal clauses 11-18 of the Digital Economy Act; make the NHS Summary Care Record opt-in rather than opt-out; end the Vetting and Barring scheme, abolish the Independent Safeguarding Authority and reform CRB checks to make them fair. It’s possible that these will be included in the detail of the Bill.

The prospect of a government of national unity* – a coalition including both the Conservatives and Labour – is conspicuous by its absence. Instead both parties are courting the support of the third force in British politics – the Liberal Democrats – to make up the numbers they need to govern.

The situation has given the Lib Dems a rare opportunity to influence Government policy directly. Top of the Liberals’ wish-list is electoral reform – changing the first-past-the-post voting system to some kind of proportional representation. Unfortunately none of the options on the table offer them a realistic prospect of achieving this.

The Tories are opposed to electoral reform, as the current system favours them (disproportionately), while Labour’s death-bed conversion to the cause lacks both conviction and the requisite mandate to see it through. A Lib/Lab alliance would still fall short of a commons majority so it would require the support of a hodge-podge of minority-party MPs in order to get anything done. Such a rainbow coalition would be unlikely to provide stable government in the national interest, would exclude from government the party with the biggest share of the vote, and might disagree with itself so violently on other matters that it could even collapse before it managed to get anything done.

The Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, has become the first for generations to catch a whiff of government yet he has been presented with an agonising dilemma: to share power with the Conservatives he would have to abandon the most cherished ambition of his party and set aside the reason he says he went into politics in the first place.

Much depends on the detail of the power-sharing offer being made by the Tories however, when it comes down to it, Clegg will have to decide whether he thinks working with the Tories or against them serves the Liberal agenda best. In other words, will he choose to join a Conservative-led Government and fight within it for that in which Liberals believe, or will he choose to sit opposite a minority Tory administration and fight against that in which they do not?

On that point I think my previous advice applies.

But oh! The irony…

* With Cameron as Prime Minister, Brown as Chancellor and Clegg as Home Secretary, what could possibly go wrong?