Integrity · 40%
Do words, votes and money point the same way? Late or missing declarations, standards findings, and speech-versus-vote contradictions sit here. Rebellion is not automatically honest. Whip loyalty is not automatically corrupt.
The algorithm, without mystique
Fair means the same rules, role-adjusted, with the evidence underneath.
A single number cannot capture a human being. It can force a method into the open. If you disagree with a rating, you should be able to see which pillar moved it and what fact would change it.
Three pillars
Promise-keeping · 35%
Did they keep what they asked to be judged on? Ministers carry delivery of the programme they front. Opposition MPs carry consistency of their own platform. Backbenchers are not failed prime ministers.
Performance · 25%
Did they show up and do the job that exists — divisions, questions, the brief they hold? Outside earnings plus low attendance is a cleaner flag than raw expenses on a distant seat.
How the composite is made
Each pillar is scored 0–100 from a structured evidence pass. The composite is a weighted average:
Score = 0.40 × Integrity + 0.35 × Promises + 0.25 × Performance
- Green — 70 or above
- Amber — 45 to 69
- Red — below 45
The three pillar colours are always shown. A minister who hits a target and hides an interest can be green on delivery and red on integrity. Compressing that into one unexplained tile is how these tools become propaganda.
Role adjustment — the rule that stops a rigged comparison
A Home Secretary can be judged on hotels, returns and the bill they are taking through the House. A Liberal Democrat leader cannot. A newly arrived backbencher cannot be blamed for national housing starts. If you skip this step, you either punish the opposition for not running the country or excuse the government because “it’s complicated.” Both are unfair.
Backbench rebels are scored against the claim they made to their own voters, not against a whipped paragraph they publicly rejected. That is why Richard Burgon can outscore a prime minister on this pilot without the site endorsing his programme.
What is deliberately excluded
- Page views, search volume, poll ratings, likes.
- Whether you like the policy. The question is consistency and delivery of the stated policy.
- Unattributed national outcomes pinned on one backbencher.
- Rumour. Live inquiries are flagged as live, not as guilty verdicts.
Inputs, not oracles
The pilot draws on Parliament’s own votes and Register, TheyWorkForYou alignment files, Full Fact’s Government Tracker for manifesto delivery, and contemporaneous reporting of standards processes. Those organisations do not endorse this rubric. Where evidence is thin the honest label is unclear, not a mid-amber guess dressed as science.
A score moves when the record moves. A Commissioner finding, a Budget that contradicts a resignation letter, a pledge Full Fact recodes from “on track” to “not kept” — those change the card. A week of headlines does not.
How a ministerial trip is scored
A social-media claim that “an MP spent £30k of taxpayers’ money on the World Cup” is not accepted at face value and is not ignored. The test is: personal hospitality, or departmental business timed to a tournament? Jake Richards’s July 2026 US visit is treated as official spend with a serious appearance problem — timing, a photographer, a refused itinerary, and a post watching the semi-final — not as a secret match ticket. No Commissioner finding means amber, not red.