|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Jan 21, 2009 13:50:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jan 21, 2009 19:43:48 GMT
Yeah. The Scotsman had a piece on this issue recently. Really makes me angry.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Jan 21, 2009 21:30:15 GMT
It does anger me as well. If MP's want to take public money they should be willing to stand and be accounted for what they have done with it. After all, they are quick enough to demand accountings of anyone else who takes from the public purse.
Interesting to see that for the moment it has all come to nought for the government. I figure that in time though they will attach it to another bill and slide it through the houses that way.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by karla on Jan 21, 2009 23:30:29 GMT
heh, the john lewis list!
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jan 23, 2009 8:00:21 GMT
Well, it seems to me we have two possibilities: 1. We live in a country where MPs want to keep their expenses private and do so with impunity. 2. We live in a country where MPs want to keep their expenses private, but because media and voter unpopularity have implications for them, they give in and release them. I am pleased to say that it seems we live in the second sort of country: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7843787.stmand I find that encouraging. One other point: It does anger me as well. If MP's want to take public money they should be willing to stand and be accounted for what they have done with it. I am all for freedom of information, and agree that MPs' expenses should be disclosable in order to do limited spot checks for corruption. However, since you mention public money, a lot of time and resources of officials these days - paid for by the tax-payer, and which could be spent doing other work - and I'm not just talking about junior admin temps, since it has to be done properly, not least to ensure the security of personally or legally sensitive data - goes on processing FoI requests. Often they are worthy requests for information, on subjects which bring useful, informative knowledge to the public's attention on important subjects. But sometimes requests are made without much thought to them, or for trivial reasons, or to allow the tabloid media to take cheap shots, or to give one political party ammunition over the other. The FoI Act is a step forward for openness, and it is a good thing, but it requires bureaucracy to service it. As long as personally, legally and commercially sensitive data (and data exempted for security reasons) have exemptions to them - which they must be, or no-one would trust MPs and officials with this data - it will cost the tax-payer more money to answer you when you ask how tax-payer's money is being spent. Edit: Also, in my field you tend to get the sad irony of people who want Government to take action on a certain issue FoIing for all records and correspondence on that issue, and thus tying up for days the same people who would love to be spending their time working on the issue instead. It's obvious really that the most streamlined and efficient Government would be one that's totally opaque and unaccountable, and full democracy where every citizen knows and has a say in everything would never get anything done. It's a question of getting the balance right. The UK is probably too far to one side on some things and too far to the other on others, and we just have to keep working on it. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jan 23, 2009 18:30:06 GMT
In any job I've held, I've had to be transparent about every penny I've spent of company funds and record it accurately (especially when I was a support worker and was dealing with vulnerable individual's bank accounts). I therefore think it only reasonable that those elected by the public who use public money show transparency in their use of such money. It really is a staggeringly easy (if time consuming) thing to do. I also found it re-assuring as I knew for sure I hadn't made any cock-ups as I had been required to double-check spending.
MSP's recently had their spending declared. Someone tried to buy a pint of milk with public money. Instant sacking offence in my prior workplaces had I tried to pull that kind of nonsense.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Jan 25, 2009 21:03:29 GMT
I am all for freedom of information, and agree that MPs' expenses should be disclosable in order to do limited spot checks for corruption. However, since you mention public money, a lot of time and resources of officials these days - paid for by the tax-payer, and which could be spent doing other work - and I'm not just talking about junior admin temps, since it has to be done properly, not least to ensure the security of personally or legally sensitive data - goes on processing FoI requests. Often they are worthy requests for information, on subjects which bring useful, informative knowledge to the public's attention on important subjects. But sometimes requests are made without much thought to them, or for trivial reasons, or to allow the tabloid media to take cheap shots, or to give one political party ammunition over the other. I take your point there, and in an ideal world people would be more selective in the sorts of information they requested - and in an even more ideal world we wouldn't need a tabloid media going nosing around for fodder for cheap headlines and synthetic outrage. Regretably we do not live in an ideal world. I do however, consider a little bit of bureacracy to be the "cost of openess" if you like, and a price that I believe is worth paying to establish a situation where there is more of a presumption that people have a right to know what their government and other agencies that puport to serve them are doing, rather than the presumption that the populace should be told what other people think good for them. Indeed, it would be an efficient system. But whose interests would it serve? There is an old-adage about the effects of power that seems apt here.... I would agree that Athenian democracy probably wouldn't work on a national scale - I doubt it could ever function at anything larger than a city-state, and even then I doubt it would work terribly well with the pace of the modern world with its faster-than-thinking communications. I would agree with your general point though - all things in moderation (even moderation itself). Karl |
|
