Archive for January, 2009

If Gordon loves Obama so much, let's see him follow his lead on FOI

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

I’m not into this whole cult of personality surrounding Barak Obama. While I’m pleased he got in, I wish a similar amount of energy and focus went into fixing Britain’s own failing democracy. There are plenty of ways people could get involved in this country to shake up the political system and make it more responsive to the people. Let’s not outsource all our hopes and dreams to America!

Individual effort does make a difference as evidenced by today’s Government u-turn on exempting MPs spending from public scrutiny. MPs are utterly out of touch and their failure to keep pace with the changing demands of their constituents particularly on openness and accountability will lead to their eventual demise.

On the day of the inaugeration of the American president, British politicians couldn’t say enough about how closely allied they were with Obama. Here’s one way they can tangibly show their support. Follow his lead on beefing up the Freedom of Information Act instead of constantly trying to water it down or making it apply to everyone except MPs.

Obama announced today he would make government more transparent by tightening the the disclosure laws on lobbyists (in the UK there are no disclosure laws on lobbyists) and strengthening the freedom of information act.

For a long time now, there’s been too much secrecy in this city,” Obama said.
He said the orders he was issuing Wednesday will not “make government as honest and transparent as it needs to be” nor go as far as he would like.
“But these historic measures do mark the beginning of a new era of openness in our country. I will, I hope, do something to make government trustworthy in the eyes of the American people, in the days and weeks, months and years to come.”

Who is going to make British politics trustworthy in the eyes of the British people? Is there any MP in that rats’ nest with the integrity and leadership to make this happen? Or is the entire system broken?

Expenses U-Turn

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has just told the House of Commons that plans to amend Freedom of Information laws to exempt MPs expenses will be abandoned. As readers of the blog will know, MPs were due to vote on this shameless bill tomorrow. Now it seems the issue is shelved.

The Times reports that Mr Brown made the announcement in response to a question from Douglas Carswell, the Tory MP, who asked why the Prime Minister had issued a three-line-whip to pass the bill. Then it became clear that the House of Lords (increasingly the saviour of what little democracy is left in Britain) were preparing to vote against the bill.

Victory yet again. Will these shameless MPs’ ever learn? Why don’t they just publish the receipts and be done with it. End of story. Some of the more unscrupulous heads may roll, but once they do we will have a better Parliament and all MPs can begin to rebuild their reputation with their constituents.

Enough is enough

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

There is a fantastic advertisement in today’s Times getting the word out to the public about MPs’ shameless behaviour. It’s sponsored by Unlock Democracy. Take a look if you’ve not seen it. And remember that you only have until tomorrow morning to write to or telephone your MP!

Expenses claimed by MPs in 2008:
£87.6 million

Margaret Beckett’s garden plants and pergola:
£1,920

Barbara Follett’s window cleaning (wife of millionaire author Ken Follett):
£1,600

Derek Conway’s son’s salary (who was a full-time student at the time):
£40,000

Nicholas and Ann Winterton’s house rent expenses paid to their children’s trust fund;
£21,600

Exclusiong of MPs’ expenses from the Freedom of Information Act:
SHAMELESS

“There are some things money can’t buy. For everything else there’s MP Expenses.”

Backwards in coming forwards

Monday, January 19th, 2009

New Blogger Lucy Jordan writes…

Interesting that the least transparent government office is the most central one. Private Eye reports this week that the Information Commissioner has served the Cabinet Office with a formal notice after refusing to supply him with information to resolve a FOI request from Private Eye for eight months. That’s eight times the legal time allowed.

Despite the reprehensible reticence of the cabinet, we should be thankful that the Information Commissioner at least has the power to issue this notice, even if his requests have had little effect thus far. As Heather’s previous post stated, this Thursday (January 22nd) will see MPs and peers exempt themselves from having to publish details of their expenses. Can it be a coincidence that the move comes only weeks before MPs were due to be forced to disclose more than 1.2 million receipts covering claims for the last three years?

Apart from anything else, it’s a proposal which only serves to reiterate that the majority of MPs are deeply out of touch with their public. The move would, after all, see MPs and peers as the only paid public officials who will not have to disclose the full details of their expenses and allowances.

One MP told the Guardian last night: “MPs’ expenses should not be an entertainment show for the public.” But that’s just the point. We don’t feel ‘entertained’ by the revelation that £1,920 of our public money went on plants and a pergola for Margaret Beckett’s Derbyshire constituency home. Nor are we particularly tickled by Barbara Follett claiming £1,600 for cleaning the windows of her London home. We are simply dumbstruck and appalled at the cavalier and almost arbitrary (£1920 for potted plants? Why the devil not!) way in which those who run the country choose to waste money.

MPs’ expenses – We have until Thursday to stop this rot

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Just when you think MPs couldn’t sink any lower in the public’s esteem, they do something so outrageous that it boggles the mind.

Last Thursday, Ministers sneakily put forward a proposal that would exempt MPs’ expenses from the Freedom of Information Act. Apart from the fact this is taxpayer money, MPs have a duty to set the highest example of open and transparent government. Instead, they want a separate exemption from the tax laws that all the rest of us must follow. Not only that, MPs tried to bury this shabby piece of news by publishing it on the same day as the controversial announcement of a third runway at Heathrow.

I will write more about this issue in the coming days, but right now we must all take action to ensure this law isn’t passed. This is one instance where YOU, the public, can make a difference. But you only have until Thursday January 22nd to do so.

You can help in the following three ways:

1. Please write to your MP about this www.WriteToThem.com – ask them to lobby against this concealment, and tell them that TheyWorkForYou will be permanently and prominently noting those MPs who took the opportunity to fight against this regressive move. The millions of constituents who will check this site before the next election will doutbtless be interested.

2. Join this facebook group and invite all your least political friends (plus your most political too). Send them personal mails, phone or text them. Encourage them to write to their politicians too.

3. Write to your local paper to tell them you’re angry, and ask them to ask their readers to do the above. mySociety’s never-finished site http://news.mysociety.org might be able to help you here.

Secret Policemen are having a ball at our expense

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Secret Policemen are having a ball at our expense
The Big Issue, December 2008
By Heather Brooke

Once upon a time people complained of rarely seeing a bobby on the beat. Now they’re lucky to get a full glimpse of a policeman’s face.

Watching the video footage of police searching the office of MP Damian Green I noticed that practically the first words out of the investigator’s mouth were: “turn that camera off.’ This was in response to another MP daring to film the police in action as they searched and seized Green’s possessions without a warrant.

According to the Tory party, the posting of the video footage was delayed because the Metropolitan Police demanded that the officers’ faces be blanked out. Why?

Robert Peel created the principals of policing when the Metropolitan Police was first created in 1829. He ensured every police officer be issued a badge number, to assure individual accountability. His most famous principal:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public…

That’s worth keeping in mind as the police increasingly demand special rights which they deny the law-abiding citizen. Here’s an example: Go to any protest or an event held outside Parliament and you will see police officers filming people who have committed no crime yet if any Joe Public attempts to film the police he will quickly find himself harassed, threatened with arrest or have his camera seized or film deleted.

Go into any police station and you will find yourself under the gaze of CCTV, yet if you dare to get out your own camera you’ll be ordered to stop immediately; if you persist you’ll be threatened and likely ejected from the building.

Don’t be fooled. This is not about security. It is about power. We know it’s about power because if citizens wear masks, the police force their removal. Being able to identify someone is the primary way of holding that person to account.

It is well documented that people behave differently when granted anonymity, and not usually for the better. In a crowd or under the orders of a powerful leader, people will commit all sorts of outrageous behaviour, say all kinds of offensive things if they feel cloaked by the mantel of anonymity.

The police have a monopoly on force so it is right that in a democracy, police officers are individually accountable for how they exercise this force. Anonymity invites abuse. Yet police forces are increasingly demanding anonymity for their officers. The officers who shot Jean Charles de Menezes remain unidentified, as do the officers who killed Derek Bennett, 29, when they thought his cigarette lighter was a handgun.

I’ve worked as crime reporter in the US and the default position there is the opposite: police are identified by name and their photographs are published unpixilated. Anonymity is granted rarely and only if there is a quantifiable threat to the officer. Even FBI agents are named in court cases. Individual accountability is the cornerstone of public service effectiveness. Common to all totalitarian systems is that agents are hidden. Is this what we want from our police?

(more…)