FoI review - a lack of information shalt make you free? Hancock abuses the concept of cross-party

The announcement by Cabinet Office Minister, Matthew Hancock, of a review in to the way Freedom of Information policy currently works is just another sign that the Conservatives would much prefer to be left alone in peace to run the country.

But, what would be almost amusing if it wasn't so important is the cynicism of his approach. It would not have surprised me to see a review panel stuffed with Conservative sympathisers - after all, it is highly unlikely that they will have launched this unless they have a pretty good idea as to their preferred outcome. That would at least make it obvious where the thinking is coming from, and the resultant report could be judged in the context of Party policy.

No, it's a cross-party panel, whereby Matthew has picked members of other parties whose views are, how might I put it, somewhat controversial amongst their own ranks.

Jack Straw has never really believed that the public deserve an insight into the workings of government. An authoritarian to his fingertips, he has never had any qualms about throwing our human rights, and those of people from other countries, 'under the bus' if it suits his political priorities.

Alex Carlile has what I can only describe as a blind spot when it comes to issues of security. In the past, I have defended him as, for the most part, pretty liberal. However, given that his past activities as the independent security advisor to the Government have generated much outrage amongst Liberal Democrats, his appointment is likely to welcomed with all the enthusiasm of a flying cowpat in a crowded room.

On the other hand, Michael Howard will perform entirely as the Government will wish him to. He is to civil liberties what Herod was to childminding.

There is, somewhat radically, a woman on the panel, Dame Patricia Hodgson, the current chair of Ofcom, and someone likely to play a role in the future supervision of the BBC, another Conservative target. It isn't clear to me what her background is that qualifies her to do this, but if this is intended to be a hatchet job, that probably doesn't matter. She may turn out to be more cover for young Hancock.

And finally, in the chair, that old reliable himself, Terry Burns. If in doubt, he is the establishment's go-to man. He does have some form on Freedom of Information, as in 2007 he indicated in an article in the Financial Times that some information, particularly analysis, supplied to ministers might be better made public. But, you sense, he will do as he is asked, rather than rock the boat.

So, I have some questions for the noble Lord Carlile. Firstly, how do you end up being appointed to the panel, and was there any consultation with the Party leadership before you accepted the invitation? Second, do you believe that it is a genuine cross-party review if your position is likely to be unrepresentative of Liberal Democrat thinking? Thirdly, does the fact that someone like me feels the need to ask such questions not make you wonder whether or not you've done the right thing?

Go on, Alex, prove me wrong...

Al-Megrahi - just the final nail in the coffin of that ethical foreign policy

So, it turns out that the Labour administration knew an awful lot more about the release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi than they had let on. Indeed, it looks as though they lied to Parliament, to the victims of Lockerbie, to the British people and to our ally, the United States. Poor old Robin Cook must be spinning in his grave by now. An illegal war in Iraq, a lack of genuine commitment to Europe, and now putting trade above justice and lying about doing so.

This shabby deceit reminds you exactly why Labour went from 1997 hero to 2010 zero. It wasn't the policy necessarily, it was the hypocrisy, saying one thing for the Guardianistas, another in private.

It might have taken some of the pressure off of the Salmond administration, but no, there is more than a hint that they were bargaining with London to see what might be gained in exchange for al-Megrahi's release.

At some point, someone is going to work out that putting anything in writing means that, in the future, it might come back to haunt you. After all, you can't trust anybody with principles when you haven't got any yourselves...

And to think I had thought they couldn't get worse!

Alright, the lies and the attempts to scare little old ladies were bad, and it is 'unfortunate' that Charles Clarke has released more than a thousand foreign criminals onto our streets as part of his 'tough on crime' strategy, but I never thought that Labour would stoop to personal attacks on one of our candidates.

Banging on about the fact that your candidates are local is one thing (and I'm so pleased that you mentioned it, given the home address of our own dear MP - remember, Tessa Jowell lives in Kentish Town, some considerable distance outside of Dulwich and West Norwood), but attacking one of our candidates for moving ward is quite outrageous, especially given the facts.

Richard Thomas's first ward (Abbey) was abolished in the last round of boundary changes and he moved on to fight, and win, Chaucer in 2002. Since then, he's got married to Julia and has a new daughter, Megan, born last year, so they needed a larger place, so they moved to East Dulwich. As a result, he's given up his safe seat to fight something a bit tougher and, more importantly, close to his home (if his house was on the other side of the street, he'd live in East Dulwich ward).

And so, I have only this to say... Charlie Smith, Les Alden and Helen Morrissey, you are slime, and your agent, Jeremy Frazer, should hang his head in shame (look the word up, Jeremy, there's a good chap...). You have finally debased the political process to the point where you have nothing to offer other than to cast slurs upon someone who wants to serve his community and actually believes in putting something back into it. Are you proud of yourselves? Because if you are, you have disbarred yourselves from any respect from me, now and forever. Oh, and Helen, you should spend more time in church on a Sunday reflecting on whether your campaigning reflects a Catholic ethos. To save you having to think about that though, I'll tell you, it doesn't. Hypocrite!

You have one chance to redeem yourselves in my eyes, and that is to offer a full and public apology, but I suspect that you haven't got the moral or ethical guts to do so. Normally, I make a point of not making personal attacks on my political opponents, a standard which the four of you might well aim to aspire towards. Of course, you probably can't spell ethics, so I'm undoubtedly wasting my time, aren't I?