The Freedom of Information Act 2000 was introduced early on into the New Labour administration, following a manifesto pledge at the 1997 General Election to create a more open form of government. Although not a Labour supporter, this legislation gave me some early hope that New Labour were on the right path.*
Although the current issue of MP expenses claims was promulgated through a leak, it was the FOI culture that was going to lead to an official disclosure, albeit with a significant amount of redaction by all accounts.
The stuff that comes out... it would have been highly sensitised.
A quote from John Wick, the former SAS officer who passed the information to the Telegraph
Some are less than happy about the FOI culture. Conservative MP Anthony Steen asked in an interview with the BBC: ‘What right does the public have to interfere with my private life?”. Listen to the full interview below.
Well Anthony, the public has no right to interfere with what you spend your salary on, but in the opinion of this author it has every right to know where your expenses payments go. These are certainly non-private and their disclosure is the epitome of good governance. Not just for the Commons though – full disclose should extend to Local Authorities, Schools, NHS Trusts and any other organisation that is publically funded. The public have a right to know this information without challenge and organisations should not hide behind FOI requests and should not implement delaying tactics.
I wonder if the litany of government IT contract failures of the years would have been reduced if people without entrenched views could have seen the project information upfront?
* sadly it later become woefully apparent that this was not the case.
Having just returned from a spending a few days in the Latvian capital, Riga, I found striking the disparity between the economic have’s and have not’s.
As it happens a couple of days before travelling I caught a piece of the PM Programme where reporter Jonny Dymond had visited the country as part a series of reports about the forthcoming European Elections. What I found interesting was the high level of unemployment and the feeling that the country had been let down by the EU in some way.
Most tourists to Riga will probably stay somewhere in the old town, but we had booked in to a very nice hotel off the beaten track. The walk between the hotel and the old town gave an insight into a microcosm of Latvian life and left me wondering if the path from USSR to independence to EU membership had been worth it for many. Most striking was the level of poverty that appears to manifest dramatically in the elderly, with old ladies rummaging in bins for food and selling a couple of bunches of flowers in the market in order to make ends meet. Presumably no state pension for them. Given the wealth in the EU, and the large sums of money that the MEP gravy has at it’s disposal surely this should be able to be sorted?
Rise of nationalism
I suppose what is of most concern is if this disillusion with the EU ultimately leads to a rise of nationalism across the various member states, as over the last decade we have already witnessed an increase in far right parties and neo-Nazi rallies.
A introverted Europe will be no good thing and as a society we must do all that we can to ensure that there is no repeat of the 1930s as clearly there are already parallels with the global economic situation.
With all of the furore over MP’s expenses and ever shifting second homes in order that the tax payer can pick up the cost for repairing dry rot (Rosa Prince and Holly Watt - Telegraph 9th May 2009)) – the MP then benefiting from any capital gain on the property at sale, I can’t help thinking that Ken Livingstone had the right idea on Any Questions a few weeks back. (10th April 2009 – click for transcript)
I mean what it seems to be is I resented the fact that those MP’s who were getting this when they retired would sell this home and have a huge benefit so I was always in favour why don’t we build a block of flats for all those MP’s who have to live in London and when they stop being an MP their replacement will take their flat
Seems to make perfect sense to me. The state owns the asset, gains any capital appreciation, handles maintenance and there will always be a tenant. MPs are then free to become property speculators using their own capital.
The stuff that comes out... it would have been highly sensitised.
I mean what it seems to be is I resented the fact that those MP’s who were getting this when they retired would sell this home and have a huge benefit so I was always in favour why don’t we build a block of flats for all those MP’s who have to live in London and when they stop being an MP their replacement will take their flat
