spot on..

One of the themes on this site, over the last wee while, has been a desire to see democracy become more accountable, rather than less. Whether it is obvious within the Palace of Westminster or not, it does seem to be the case that people are being increasingly turned off party politics, although not politics as such. The rise of groups like Greenpeace, MCB, Countryside Alliance, ad infinitum, is probably a reaction to the often juvenile behaviour of our elected representatives.

If the Labour Whips thought it would be a jolly jape to let through a piece of anti-libertarian legislation, just so Cameron would have a red face, then they are not serious custodians of government. And if it makes sense to them then heaven help us.

I know that the Commons is denuded on a Friday, what with MPs returning to their constituencies and all, but it was the second reading of the Bill. MPs were at least aware of it’s content. It was also, that horrible expression, “a good day to bury bad news”. Or, in this case, hope nobody noticed.

I apologise if you were offended by my intemperate language, but they do need to be held to account.

Tell you what, if this comes to anything, you can shout from the top of the Post Office Tower and I’ll do it from the Glasgow Science Tower. Is that a safe enough distance for you?

Actually I agree with Unity and Douglas in that applying for exemption from FOI is like taking a sledgehammer to a nut. As i alluded to earlier it will mean that councils and the like would have to put systems in place that are just not practicable. I also
think that Unity is absolutely right when asking about Maclean’s FOI activity. You will probably find he has been on the wrong end, as he sees it, of a request.

I think my main problem was with what I considered the (ahem) ad hominem nature of Douglas’ comment which I probably did little to help with going off on one. Sorry. Derogating from any legislation is something that needs to be done clearly and, frankly, if that’s what they want then they should fight for it tooth and nail with people like Douglas finding multiple roof tops to shout off. I might even join you (from a safe distance obviously and unless you don’t want me to).

Furthermore, I found Norman Baker’s comment disingenuous in saying that the government whips somehow let it slip through. Friday is trainspotters day in the House. It is not difficult to slip stuff through on a Friday if you want to as it is rarely whipped that strictly. Also letting some tory slip through what seems to be a anti-libertarian piece of legislation when Dave and his mates are being all touchy-feely would make sense politically to even the dimmest of whips.

People like Dismore, Forth (when he was alive obviously) and that bald bloke from the lib dems seem to find it great fun arguing over procedure and all that stuff. Speaking as a voter, this is far more of a turn off than any of the bills that get thrown up by friday business.

Anyway, I just think that in this instance you are barking up the wrong bit of the tree.

Knowing Tony it’d probably be ‘The Reverend In Chief’.

MPs are elected representatives – they are pretty much the public’s only directly accountable person in government – so whaddya expect? the screwy thing is of course that instead of MPs thinking ‘hey my constituents are the ones that elected me, they’re the ones i represent, they’re the ones i work for, their interests are my job’ – no – usually – it’s the Party whose interests MPs seem more bothered about – toeing the party line – and their own careers – which would be fair enough in as much as ‘well if i dont keep my job then the job of representing my constituents’ wouldn’t be done. Yeah sure – in theory – but when the constituents are little more than ‘hey someone’s got to vote me in’ – the reality is pretty different. And given this situation – is it surprising that constituents might want to have some ‘freedom of information’ applied to their MPs?

I do not see how this kind of catch all legislation can even get to first base. It is perfectly clear to me that communication between a constituent and an MP should be private, unless they both agree to publication. That is not in dispute. Much in the same way as our consultations with a GP should be viewed as a private matter.

It is not the lack of accountability over that that angers me, it is the catch all nature of the exclusion. And as the Liberal said it wouldn’t have got this far without the complicit agreement of at least the Labour whips.

Where there is money, there is scandal, whether it is cash for questions, or honours or contracts.

Our Parliament, y’know the one we elect, should have the highest standards of public scrutiny possible. You may recall that previous Parliamentary ombudsmen were given a hard time too. This arrogance of the elected is something we as an electorate, should look out for. And scream at them from the rooftops, if need be. Perhaps they will ignore me, frankly I was quite astonished that they’d even read me, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? We do, in the final analysis.

I appreciate what you’re saying here about the rather between two stools position that MPs occupy in regards to FOIA and the Data Protection Act, although on the latter the biggest problem is that very few people understand the damn thing well enough to apply it properly – and that’s me speaking as someone who was a registered data controller for five years and whose job it was to understand the bugger.

The point I made was essentially that the solution to such problems does not lie in using a legislative shotgun to blow a gaping hole in FOIA. MPs have a need to be able to engage in privileged communications on behalf of their constituents – that’s not a problem – but a blanket exemption is excessive and wide open to abuse, and this a problem for me.

That’s why as well as publicising this bill, I’ve also submitted an FOIA request for any correspondence between MacLean (and any other MPs) on this precise issue and any prior guidance issued by the Information Commissioner.

What I want to see is the full background to this and whether MacLean has either taken advice from, or raised this with the ICO before submitting the Bill. Once that arrives, or its confirmed that no guidance has been asked for or taken, then I can make a fully informed judgement on MacLean’s actions.

*runs off*

I am in fact a bag carrier of the lowest order for a little known MP. Some MPs are rapacious bastards who you just know would liquidise kittens for the sake of their careers, most (no really most) are not. Often the problem is that regardless of your own affiliation you just don’t agree with them.

There is an issue with the FOI (and indeed the data protection act) and MPs offices in that they are not really public bodies in the way that say the Home Office is and they are clearly not private citizens. Under FOI regulations it is possible that constituent’s emails can be released. On a slightly different point, I’ve worked for MPs who have been ‘FOIed’ by the local council (that just so happens to be run by another political party) for reasons that border on the political and others whose letters are passed on to local councillors (who again are members of an opposing party). Oddly enough, some constituents have found this unacceptable. What’s more some of them were actually more likely to vote against my boss at the time. Maclean’s Private Member’s Bill seems to be trying to stop this sort of thing by making correspondence between MPs and their constituents strictly a matter between constituent and MP.

I am not convinced this is a good idea or practicable. The sort of fudging along that currently exists is just about acceptable, and, regardless of what the Guardian says, I promise you the bill will fail.

Furthermore, judging from some of the letters I see, some punters actually think that the only way to get accountability in public bodies is through their MP (no really and again i think it is important to note that a number of them will happily admit they wouldn’t vote for my boss in a million years). I don’t know if exempting MPs from FOI legislation will improve their ability to hold various bodies to account but, guess what, if you actually knew what you were talking about you can see that it could.

Argue about whether it’s a bloody stupid idea all you like but it certainly doesn’t deserve to be slapped down as another example of the desire to be unaccountable. Work for an MP and try phoning almost any utility company’s customer services on behalf of someone old and cold becasue their heating is screwed and you will understand all you need to know about the desire to be unaccountable.

*notices I’m agreeing with “Anon+1″*

*bangs head on desk some more*