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...

How faithful do you have to be to a party's policies to be a member?

I see that the position of Alex Carlile as a member of the Liberal Democrats has been brought into question by one of my former colleagues at Liberal Democrat Voice, following his signature on Lords amendments intended to bring back the 'Snooper's Charter'.

Having spent quite a lot of time examining the voting records of Liberal Democrat peers, it has to be said that, whilst his overall voting record isn't brilliant - he does do other things, it should be noted - he is not a frequent rebel against the Party whip. And yes, the right to privacy is core to the beliefs of liberals, but so are many other things - equality, freedom, internationalism and, perhaps more relevantly here, freedom of association.

I am reminded that every political party is formed of a coalition of interests, and that, to succeed, getting more people involved and attracting more voters, some of whom might not have defined themselves as being liberal or socialist or whatever, is key. We don't insist that our voters agree with every dot and comma in the manifesto, so why do we get upset when some of our members disagree with individual planks of our policy?

After all, if a political party is to be a group of purists, how does it change and develop policy? Are those seeking change to be cast into the outer darkness if they are challenging a point of principle to be worshipped as though a holy relic?

Political parties do not, in my experience, spend a lot of time investigating potential new members for ideological purity, nor do they spend a lot of time debating ideas - there is too much campaigning to be done for that - but one would be reasonable in assuming that new members agree broadly with your message and, most importantly, with more of it than with any of the other choices out there.

So, how much of your party's policy should be supported in order to remain a member? 70%? 80%? 99%? And what is essential? After all, there are key Labour Party figures that believe in allowing the market into public services, Conservatives who support European integration (up to a certain point) and Liberal Democrats who are sceptical about Europe.

Yes, lobby individual representatives if you don't agree with them. Tell them why, remaining courteous. But if it's an offence to disagree with things that matter to you, do bear in mind that, one day, it might be you facing the mob. And please don't come to me for sympathy - it will be in short supply...