Brown's Green Paper

Much excitement at Ministry Towers over Brown’s Green Paper on constitutional reform entitled, “The Governance of Britain” with sub-headings of , “Limiting the powers of the executive” and “Making the Executive more Accountable”.

It’s opening gambit clearly states Brown is seeking to, “re-new trust in our democratic institutions”, at least that’s grudgingly admitting there’s a trust problem, though “re-newing” implies there was something there in the first place.

Rather than drag you through the nuts and bolts, suffice to say the real rub’s in the small print. Little concrete action and nothing that actually limits the powers of the executive, makes them more accountable.

They do say it’s only, “the first step in a national conversation” and though we applaud the intention, it feels like we already had the conversation but no-one was listening.

Still, if Brown’s saying he’s ready to listen, it’d be a start if he accepted our interview request - this business of finding an MP to support legislation that would solve the “trust” problem overnight isn’t easy.

A Hiatus

Apologies for the severe lack of posting recently.

We’re still here, but not alone. Broadcasters have taken an interest in our adventures. We’ll see how this pans out. Talk is cheap - money pay da rent.

Meantime, in pursuit of just the one MP who’ll support and introduce the Misrepresentation of the People’s Act, we’ve been battling our way through the occupants of Portcullis House and the Palace of Westminster.

We’re even on nodding terms with security.

This won’t last long.



We have much to tell, and promise to get back to posting more regularly as soon as time permits.

Don’t forget, you can always sign up to the RSS feed and get notified automatically when we post.

Democracy Unaffordable

Photo Montage : Peter Kennard

This BAE business stinks. Cuts right to the heart of a government's genuine desire to “export democracy”. And now the US are really gonna fuck things up.

It’s inconceivable that a UK or US minister of defence would get a kickback to the tune of £100m a year for awarding a military contract. Granted, times have changed, but even in the petro-dollar 70’s morality such behaviour would be seen as a gross breach of public trust and basic democratic principles. The government is supposed to act in the name of and interests of the people – difficult to believe when your minister of defence has just splashed out on a Gulfstream jet (actually a 747 – Ed).

Was there ever a time government policy of “exporting” democracy was thrown into sharper relief ? So long as you’re a pal, so long as we get paid, we don’t mind you screwing your people, in fact we’re happy to help.

Naive ? This Al Yamaneh bizniz is gonna come back to bite us in the arse - in the shape of the US investigation. You gotta wonder if Gordon will stick to the terms of our extradition treaty when they come knocking on BAE directors’ doors (probably the best hope for the Nat West 3).

The Misrepresentation of the People's Act ? - might as well give up.

With this deal, the Saudi’s priced democracy out of business. The thousands of jobs, the treasury contribution – who was gonna say no ? We couldn't afford it. And Bandar’s bung was almost certainly priced into the margin anyway.

The SFO and Goldsmith decided it wasn’t in the UK's interest to continue the investigation. For once, maybe the US and it's investigation is actually acting on behalf of the Saudi people ?

No doubt they’ll get their come-uppence soon enough. Maybe in Diego Garcia.

Harman, "No more spin". Blair, "What spin ?"

Yesterday, Minister for Justice, Harriet Harman was lamenting the press and the government’s approach to it, "We have to do our politics differently, the old embedded habits of briefing the press has got to change and we have to be very open, stop the spin, stop the briefing and respect Parliament."

Meanwhile, across the way, Blair was berating the state of political reporting - the closest he got to admitting “spin” may have something to do with it was, “I first acknowledge my own complicity. We paid inordinate attention in the early days of New Labour to courting, assuaging, and persuading the media”

Amazingly, he blames the simplification and exaggeration of today's press on technology, the speed of communications and the need for “impact”. He says things have got to change. No mention of the words “we'll change", or "we'll stop our institutionalised lying to the press”.

Bear this in mind when you read the full speech to really appreciate how persuasive the man is. You almost feel like he's fessed up, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Cabinet Office fails Standards in Public Life Test

You’d have expected the Ministry of Defence to come out pretty badly in any review of disclosure and “whistle-blowing” policies. What you wouldn’t expect is the Cabinet Office, the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Treasury to come out even worse.

The Cabinet Office actually only scored 3 out of a possible 28 points when measured against good practice criteria endorsed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Public Concern at Work (the guys that ran the review) said: "As there are no sanctions in government for such a woeful performance, it is now down to incoming prime minister Gordon Brown and civil service chief Sir Gus O'Donnell to insist that the Cabinet Office practices what it preaches if it is to earn its place at the heart of government."

Spoke too soon

Oh well. Figured it was worth waiting to see if the diagnosis of a Brown U-turn on Freedom of Information was accurate. Didn’t take long for a better reading.

In our pursuit of an MP willing to support the Misrepresentation of the People’s Act, many of them countered with the fact that FOI requests are all the protection/redress the electorate needs - enforceable by law and a refusal to comply can lead to a prison sentence.

Really ?

So why would a Government department refuse a request ?

In light of Mr Brown’s declaration that his reign would be one of a more honest and accountable government we wonder if he’ll slap the Office of Government Commerce on the wrist.

In Jan 2005 (just after the FOI was introduced) the OGC turned down a request to publish the early reviews of the ID card project. Richard Thomas – the information commissioner, upheld an appeal and ruled in favour of the disclosure. Hurrahhh !!!

The OGC appealed to the Information Tribunal. Booooo.

The Information Tribunal upheld the Information Commissioners ruling. Hurrraaaahhhh !!!!

Earlier this month, the OGC has decided to appeal again – this time to the High Court.

We’ll be watching how this plays out, but one thing’s for sure – GB may talk the talk, but either his government departments don’t give a shit, or GB’s full of it.

Brown U turn

More Freedom of Information...

Gordon Brown promised to reverse the Commons decision to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act. "It will be corrected," he said of the legislation, passed by MPs 10 days ago.

Does this herald a new breed of democracy ?

Step 1 : Pass legislation
Step 2 : Media backlash
Step 3 : React to media backlash
Step 4 : Apologise
Step 5 : Reverse legialation

Probably not the best way to run a country (Assuming he gets to Step 5 - Ed).

Dictators take land from their sovereign subjects – without the quaint ritual

Had a bit of time to re-watch John Pilger’s documentary on the theft of the island Diego Garcia by the US and UK. It really is a shocker - the lies and shamelessness of Wilson's government in the 60's and I’d completely forgotten about the use of the royal prerogative by Blair’s government in 2004 after a court ruling in the islanders favour. Instead of using the normal legislative (democratic ? Ed) process, the Foreign Office bypassed Parliament and changed the law by use of the quaintly named "Order in Council", a remnant of the once all-powerful royal prerogative.

The Queen signed the quaintly named Order on Blair’s behalf to prevent islanders returning to the island forever. Don't forget - this was and after they’d carried out a deliberately protracted feasibility study on whether the island was inhabitable….errrr – there’s 6,000 US troops and contractors living on the fucker right now and before them at least 6 generations of islanders…. of course it’s fucking inhabitable.

The original coverage had this to say about the use of the Order in Council ;

The new order replaces the existing constitution of the territory and "makes clear, as a principle of the constitution, that no person has the right of abode in the territory or has unrestricted access to any part of it".

Richard Gifford, the London-based lawyer for the 4,500 islanders and their descendants seeking a right to return, said: "This is an absolute stab in the back. Not since the days of King John has anyone tried to expel British citizens from the realm by executive order."

In other words, a precedent was set that if the government wants to remove a British national from their land, it has the absolute right to do so via the crown.

Again, don’t forget, this was after the court had ruled against the Gov (and effectively the Crown). This makes yesterday’s ruling all the more sweet.

What also came out of the film is the fact that once upon a time, the islanders were given a hilarious £3,000 compensation for their troubles. Another action they’re taking to court. The foreign office has also got the gall to bitch about the cost of making it re-habitable for the original occupants. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to kick someone out of their home for £3,000 then lease it to someone else and pocket the profits. We wonder what the UK has received in rental income from the US over the past four decades ?

I can feel a Freedom of Information request coming on.

Heh, heh, heh.

Stealing a nation - again, it's the courts got that kinda muscle

Again, it's the courts got that kinda muscle .

We’ve been following closely the fate of the islanders of Diego Garcia. John Pilger lays out the story pretty well in this documentary - if ever there was a case for the Misrepresentation of the Peoples Act, this is it.

It’s one of the low moral points in the history of our special relationship with the US. In the cold war of the 60’s the US needed an airbase in that neck of the woods to keep an eye on the reds.

They asked our government if anywhere sprang to mind. The US only had one criteria - it had to be flat enough and long enough to support a runway capable of landing B52s. Our boys suggested the idyllic paradise of Diego Garcia. The US loved it (what’s not to love) and said they’d take out a lease once we’d got rid of the inhabitants.

Several months later, the British Governor ordered all of their pet dogs rounded up and killed. They also found that when they tried to return home from a trip abroad (generally nearby Mauritius) – they couldn’t. Any islanders left were rounded up, told their island had been sold and promptly deported. Lord Dennis Healey (Defence Secretary), Michael Stewart (Foreign secretary) and Harold Wilson were all in on the scam of pretending there was no indigenous population on the island. Parliament was not consulted.

The next 30 years were spent living in poverty, either in Mauritius or (as British subjects) in a small community near Gatwick airport. They’ve tried to get their case through the courts and won in 2000, and again in 2004. Both times the current gov’t either appealed or changed the island status to wrangle out of the ruling - without going through Parliament.

Fairly despicable behaviour. A foreign office official at the time wrote, "We do not regard ourselves as bound by the rules. In this respect we make the rules up as we go along."

Yesterday, the courts, once again, ruled in their favour, saying the government had acted unlawfully. The Foreign Office response was, "we're dissappointed." Poor things. Our hearts bleed. They now have 30 days to decide whether to appeal once more and delay the inevitable via the House of Lords. Let's see if they're actually big enough twats to try it one last time.

Once again, it seems the courts really are the only answer to government.

only the Courts have that kinda muscle

We’ve already dealt with Lord Falconer, the (ex) Lord Chancellor/hepcat. When we interviewed him he made some strong arguments to counter the Misrepresentation of the People Act (more of which in another post) but left us with a feeling he was coming from the wrong place. Which is why he’s having a bust up with Britain’s most senior judge, the Lord Chief Justice over “not a constitutional crisis”.

The sticking point was Lord Falconer refusing to set up an inquiry into how the courts service could be protected under the new Ministry of Justice.

Alan Beith, MP, chairman of the committee looking into restructuring the new ministry, said he would not let the matter rest and the Lord Chancellor would have to give way. “I have been in Parliament for 34 years and I don’t think I have ever seen such clear anger and concern on the part of the senior judiciary.”

Keith Vaz, a committee member, said that the Lord Chief Justice’s comments amounted to unprecedented criticism of ministers by the judiciary.

As suspected – the courts may be the last authority to have enough muscle and independence to deal with this government.

We shall see. Full story here.

Restriction of Information Act, Chapter 17

Imagine refusing to show your employer copies of your business correspondence. Try it tomorrow and see if you’ve still got a job at 6pm.

One day after Gordon Brown told us his style of government would be more open and honest than the incumbent Blair, the House of Commons voted to exempt themselves from Freedom of Information requests where correspondence contains the personal data of constituents.

Essentially, it asserts there’s an obligation of confidence and a constituent may not have consented to the disclosure of personal details.

Aside from the fact that this is already covered by the Data Protection Act, there are no examples of this actually happening or of any complaints. It’s as if there aren’t enough get-out clauses for Government.

At the moment, there are 36 exemptions to disclosure under the FOI, and a further 300 statutes (not including the Official Secrets Act) that prohibit disclosure.

Of the 60+ thousand requests made since Jan 1^st 2005 under the FOI, only 26,000 have been granted. Seven government departments have refused to give answers to more than half the requests they received.

There’s a legitimate argument for preventing personal details being released under FOI requests, but if they were halfway sincere in dealing with the issue, instead of giving Parliament the right to refuse a request - why not simply make it unlawful to disclose the relevant particulars without consent ? Better still, enforce the existing law.

Abso-fucking-lutely extra-ordinary. Here's a list of the gormless twats who actually voted for it. You'l notice a very poor attendance. That's 'cos 1) it's a Friday (constituency day) and 2) Gordon and his "new style of government" didn't deem it worthy of the whip.

And if you’re not convinced of their idiocy, check out the transcript of the debate in the house. We’ve said it before – it’d be hilarious if they weren’t running the fucking country.

The truth behind the stats

When the government says “tough on crime” what does it mean ?When we’re told more arrests are being made so we’re “winning the fight against crime”, what does that mean ?


David Keane, aged 6, imprisoned for throwing cucumber sandwiches

It’s one thing to lie about stats, quite another to socially engineer them. The Times has this to say ;

“What police describe as a target-driven criminal justice culture will come under attack today as Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC, who was appointed Secretary of State a week ago, faces a debate at the annual conference of the Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers in England and Wales.

The leaders of 130,000 police officers have drawn up a dossier of “lunacy” on Britain’s streets. They say that children are being arrested for throwing cream buns and bits of cucumber and adults are getting criminal records for offences that merit nothing more than a ticking-off.

The pressure to get results is so bad, they say, that officers are criminalising and alienating their traditional supporters in Middle England and many are so disillusioned that they are considering quitting.”

the Bush Pilot project video

Turns out to be even more off-subject than our previous glory-find of secret footage from the Lord Chancellor when he was flat-mates with Tony Blair.

Our teutonic twat of a leak turns out to be amusing none the less. And when it comes to foreign policy, this video explains a great deal.

Who said the Germans don't have a sense of humour ?

Terrifying Brown stuff

No sign of the promised Bush pilot project video yet. We've been assured it will be with us tomorrow. We can only apologise for the unreliability of our East German contact. She professes to be scared shitless. Talking of which...

In our on-going quest to find an MP who’ll support “the Misrepresentation of the People’s Act” we’ve been badgering Gordon Brown.

Having been brushed off too many times to mention, last night, we snuck in to the Fabian Society’s hastily convened “leadership” debate in a last-ditch attempt to confront the man. It didn’t go well.

Long before we got a chance to badger him, we were spotted by the great man himself and immediately recognised.

Check out the look in his eyes - it says, “I know who you are, I know what you’re up to. I eat subversive mother-fuckers for breakfast. Look at me once more and I'll fucking have you”. Gulp. Those unfortunate enough to be sitting near me turned up their nose at the smell of fear. I was too paralysed to even mutter a denial. Besides, it could’ve been the natural odour from any of the unwashed hippies in attendance.

It took all of our courage to approach him afterwards for an interview request. His instructions were succinct ;

1) No longer are we to contact his press officer.

2) All communications should now be made via Damien McBride.

3) Vote Brown.

We googled McBride – he’s a “special advisor”. Little more is known.

Brown was less than impressed by our question, "Do you know you're flying low".

We’ll be sending in our interview request as soon as we’ve bathed.

Naturally, we’ll keep you posted.