Sunday, May 20, 2007

Does Tom Watson have any shame?

How strange, I've just read this on Iain's blog, and, as one his "chums" that equally expressed his disgust at the Friday's second reading passing of the Freedom of Information Amendment to exempt MPs from the Act, I feel compelled this morning to respond. If you go and look at Tom Watson's blog you will find his "four-point explanation" for why he voted in favour of the Bill to restrict the publics' freedom to information about the MPs they pay. Tom says,
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 disingenuous bollocks. For a start, the speaker's "guarantee" is worth shit. There is no legal obligation for his word to be kept, and if, as many expect the Speaker changes in the not too distant future, there is no legal obligation for his successor to maintain it either. Secondly, this is not just about expenses. By trying to paint it as such, Tom is illustrating just how much contempt he has for the publics' freedom to know what the people they vote for are doing.

Tom then links to the profile of the Lib Dem MP that brought the expenses thing all about, Norman Baker, and claims that the expense tables have been available for three years anyway and will remain so. What he doesn't say is that, on the specific issue of expenses, it was never about those limited expense tables that have been previously available.

The issue of expenses was about the detailed breakdown tables, for example on transport, which show us, the public (who are also the paymasters remember), just how much MPs are spending in detail and on what. Telling us that MP X spent £65,000 on travel is not the same as telling us that of that £62,000, he spent the £60,000 on taxis when say, he could have got on a bus or train like the rest of us proles do every day. Next up Tom says,
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.
This is, frankly, a piss poor argument. He's basically conceding that the law exists to protect the people that MPs claim they want to protect with the amendment, it's just that public sector bodies are repeatedly breaking that law. This is a bit like deciding to rip down every house in the country to solve the problem of domestic burglary.

Here's a novel idea for you Tom, how about enforcing the bloody law? Yes, yes, I know it sounds a little radical, and I understand that it might mean the Home Office has to do some extra work on top of all the work it hasn't been doing (incidentally weren't you in the Home Office once?), but seriously, is it really too much to ask?
3. This Bill was put forward by the former Tory Chief Whip. Don’t be fooled by the disingenuous 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 fundamentally dishonest in regard to this piece of legislation.
Besides the fact that Iain himself has comprehensively dealt with the pointless and baseless ad hominen directed at him, what exactly is the point Tom is trying to make here? So it was a former Tory Chief Whip that put the Bill forward, shame on him. As it happens, a few months ago on the day that Maclean first proposed the Bill I was on 18 Doughty Street for the evening with Iain Dale, Karen Allen (ConservativeFuture) and Tim Barnes (Tory Reform Group) and the subject came up.

My initial response to it when I heard was simply to exclaim "well that's bollocks isn't it?". The four of us were in agreement that the Bill was way off the mark, and we went on to pontificate about how we didn't think it would ever reach second reading (how wrong we were!). For Tom to make claims of "synthetic outrage" is - and I mean this from the heart with love - bullshit.
4. Finally - If Menzies Campbell thought so strongly about this Bill, why wasn’t he there to speak and vote against it?
A reasonable point although utterly irrelevant to the fact that Tom voted for it. It was a decent attempt at final point diversion away from his own shameful deed of attempting to legislate out of existence our freedom to find out what (however much or little) the people we pay, and elect, are up too.

The bottom line is simple. Every single one of the MPs who voted for this Bill, be they Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, black, blue, white, pink or polka-dotted, should be ashamed of themselves. The ones who didn't turn up to vote may very well have had good reasons for not attending, however, if there was collusion between the different whips office to get it through without actively endorsing it then that's shameful as well.

N.B: I fully expect to be called Iain's sock puppet, flying monkey, or some such other new and enhanced monkier by Tom Watson's "web guru" Lassie having written this. I'm actually looking forward to it because it makes me chuckle.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tom would have a point, if he had a point.

As of yet they've been unable to show a single example of third party communications being disclosed under the FOI. The Information Commissioner hasn't had any complaints about this.

Old BE said...

Yet another good reason to separate the executive from the legislature. Wasn't that the idea of parliament in the first place?

Anonymous said...

I would suggest we all write to our own MP asking if they voted in this debate, and to justify the way they did vote.
Or if they did not vote, why not, and to clarify their position on this bill.
Then when we have all got our replies, publish them!
See how they like that!

Anonymous said...

Tom behaving like a typical oily politician, my front bench backed the bill, they found the parliamentary time for it and I voted for it, but it is was a tory private members bill so don't look at us!!!!

Anonymous said...

Barnacle_Bill - Yes, make demands on your elected representatives whose salaries - and expenses - you pay. They don't produce revenues; you do. They produce nothing. They are limpets. They are dependent on you. They had better please you.

This is the attitude of Americans, and I do not understand why the British are so deferential to their servants whose salaries (and unexplained 'expenses')they pay.

Tim said...

Get over yourself, Dizzy... or at least try to do some basic research before you flap your lips. It's pretty clear what my position is on this.

Also, I've made it perfectly clear to you and Praguetory what my relationship with Tom Watson is, and that it's identical to my relationship with Boris Johnson, and yet you persist with the "Tom Watson is Tim Ireland's client!" line.

Try flying straight... just this once.

dizzy said...

Nothing to get over Lassie. My comment is merely what happens if you write the drivel that you do. If you going to write total bollocks about me and imply that I'm somehow working for Guido or Iain, then you're gonna get back in spades. Now, kindly, fuck off.

dizzy said...

p.s. I love you really, you know that right?

Chris Paul said...

A shocking bit or Tory law.

Some shocking votes for.

But whips collusion - I do think so.

This is a long way from law isn't it? Or am I being blase, again?

My MP voted for the bloody thing and will have some explaining to do next time I see him.

dizzy said...

Oh give over with this "Tory law" bollocks. The whole bloody lot of those who voted for it, and the Government's tacit support make them all complicit.

Tim said...

"then you're gonna get back in spades."

Minus any actual basis in common sense or evidence, of course. Not being vindictive, are we?

"The whole bloody lot of those who voted for it"

What, that 20% of MPs who voted for it? That lot?

The Tories deserve due credit for this spiffing idea, Dizzy. Go on... at least be honest with yourself.

dizzy said...

*yawn*

Vindictive? moi? Not at all. I just think you're a cunt. A cunt with a reading comprehension problem apparently: "So it was a former Tory Chief Whip that put the Bill forward, shame on him."

Now run along, you ahve your next web failure campaign to launch don't you?

Tim said...

Ah, yes... best be on my way before one of them ad hominen attacks occurs.

dizzy said...

Oh isn't the irony positively delicious? Citing ad hominen (abusive) after having used ad hominen (circumstantial) yourself.

My aren't we a clever intellectual beast this morning? Shame that I am - as always - cleverer.

Tim said...

Well, what is there left to do but bow?

dizzy said...

I accept Paypal

Tim said...

Oh, I'm sure you'll settle for the last word ahead of my two cents anyday.

dizzy said...

I'd rather have both.

Anonymous said...

It's Ad hominem.

dizzy said...

I never claimed I could spell

Anonymous said...

Feeling the love on this thread :)