Via Iain Dale, I come across Tom Watson’s spirited defence of his decision to back the Freedom from Information (none of your fucking business) Bill. Apparently, the Tories Made Him Do It. But, for a bit more detail, here is his argument point-by-point (I’d comment on his blog, but he banned me years ago):

1. If the speaker had not guaranteed that MP’s expenses will continue to be published, I would not have supported the Bill. I repeat - you will still be able to see the expense tables like you have been able to for the last three years.

This is a mischevious half-truth. The fact is there are currently numerous appeals to the Information Commissioner calling for MPs to disclose more detailed information. The Commons’ expenses disclosure isn’t even close to the Scottish Parliament where literally every single invoice is available to view online.

Note that he says “you will still be able to see the expense tables like you have been able to for the last three years” - in other words the detailed information about travel expenses published earlier this year as a result of a case brought forward by Norman Baker would be the first to go.

2. Despite people saying that there is protection under the Data Protection Act, public sector bodies are still revealing the private correspondence between them and MPs regarding constituents.

If it is illegal now and yet people are doing it, it follows that it will still happen if this new Bill is passed. How does passing another law stop people who are already breaking the law? The issue is enforcement - yet the government forces the Information Commissioner to get along with a shoestring budget.

3. This Bill was put forward by the former Tory Chief Whip. Don’t be fooled by the disingenous comments and synthetic outrage of Iain Dale and his chums. Incidentally, he seemed to know how many MPs from each party had voted on the Bill yesterday afternoon - before they are made available in Hansard. He can only have got this information from a source in one of the Whips offices (I’m certain the parliamentary clerks would not help him). This suggests to me that he is part of a Tory spin operation - understandable but funadamentally dishonest in regard to this piece of legislation.

This is worth looking at because it is simply hilarious. Like Iain Dale, I was following the debate on Hansard, which now has less than a three hour time lag. I certainly agree with Tom that the Tories were equally complicit, but I don’t extend that criticism to individuals like Richard Shepherd, John Redwood and, yes, Iain Dale, any more than I do Labour rebels like David Winnick. For Watson to try to blame the Tories for this Bill when Labour has a majority and three times as many of them voted for the Bill as Tories is just eye watering, Comical Tommy stuff.

4. Finally - If Menzies Campbell thought so strongly about this Bill, why wasn’t he there to speak and vote against it?

Because like most MPs he usually has constituency work on Fridays. We can’t all lounge around in Westminster ready to serve as government lickspittles at a moment’s notice.

If I wanted to sum up everything that I truly find deplorable about the Labour Party, it is Tom Watson. A dirty tricks campaigner par excellence, a House of Lords abolitionist (and simultaneously supporter of the status quo), anti-electoral reform, pro-compulsory voting, bemoans the civil liberty implications of RFID tags while voting enthusiastically for ID cards, die-hard Blairite loyalist right up until he can detect the wind has changed whereupon he attempts to orchestrate a coup for newfound best friend Gordon Brown, friends of even bigger moron Sion Simon… what it all adds up to is a nasty little man who is just a little bit too much in love with totalitarianism.

Oh, and if you haven’t done so already, join the Protect Freedom of Information Facebook Group.

Share This

Warning: this product leaves a white sheen on surface but does not actually clean. May leave a bitter aftertaste. Not to be taken seriously.

See the new facebook group for more information.

Share This

Interesting to see that, of the 6 SNP MPs, 1 voted for the sexual orientation discrimination regulations, 1 voted against, and 4 sat on their hands.

This, just days after receiving half a million pounds from Scotland’s homophobe-in-chief, Brian Souter.

Did they abstain to avoid provoking their new cash cow? What implications does this have for the Scottish Parliament? The Scottish public have a right to know.

Interesting to note that the MP who voted against them was Angus MacNeil. Angus has been lionised in the media over the last few months because of his involvement in the cash-for-peerages allegations. To read the Guardian over the last year, you would think he was a candidate for sainthood. Perhaps those journalists might want to revise their opinions of the man.

Share This

Denis MacShane’s article on the evils of the government’s proposals for Lords reform is, to be charitable, a little confused. Let’s get this straight:

So why, then, will I go into the opposition lobby next week? It is over the proposal to tear up more than seven centuries of history and require MPs to sit rather than stand to vote. The Government wants MPs to take a multiple-choice exam on its proposals to reform the House of Lords. Instead of MPs voting in lobbies for or against different proposals, scratch cards will be handed out, which we can take away to list in order of preference what the composition of the Lords might be.

Don’t you think it says a lot about the Labour Party that one of its most senior MPs regards the “innovation” of a ballot paper as tantamount to a “scratchcard”? Makes you think about how much they value your vote and indeed the whole democratic process, doesn’t it?

Also, how do you square his “deeply held” belief that such an innovation would “tear up more than seven centuries of history” with his claim that “All my political life, I have argued that a smaller, elected chamber is the only way forward.” So, changing the way the Commons votes ONCE is too great a step, but fundamentally altering the way the Lords is composited is fine?

He seems to have barely read the White Paper, claiming that it would lead to the British second chamber to “grow like topsy” when in fact it proposes cutting the size of the Lords. Perhaps not to the extent that he would like, but a cut (by one third no less) is still a cut.

(I could extend this point to Vernon Bogdanor’s piece on Lords reform in the Telegraph yesterday. Quoting approvingly from John Major is always a fraught with danger, and citing his statement “If the answer is more politicians, you are asking the wrong question,” when the White Paper proposes reducing them is particularly foolish).

A lot of politicians appear to be imagining up all sorts of “principled” reasons for throwing out the government’s proposals before even getting a chance to vote on them. The bottom line is, if you want a fully elected second chamber, the free vote next month is your best and last chance to do it for a generation. Moaning about scratchcards is pathetic beyond belief. It makes them sound like they have become so completely institutionalised in Parliament that if they were released into the real world, they’d quickly starve to death.

More here.

Share This