Effect of NHS reforms on FOI rights

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has written to the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, expressing concern that the public's rights to information about the NHS are likely to be "increasingly constricted" by the reforms in the Health and Social Care Bill.

Under the reforms, NHS services will be provided either by NHS bodies or by independent providers under contract. The NHS bodies which commission services will themselves be subject to the FOI Act though the independent providers will not. However, the providers will be contractually required to provide information to the commissioning bodies to help them answer FOI requests.

The standard NHS contract already contains a clause requiring providers to do this. But according to the Campaign, the clause appears to apply only to the specific information which the contract itself requires a provider to hold or report on. While numerous items of information are specified – for example, about the quality of the service, treatment times, complaints, MRSA infections and other matters - it does not cover the full range of information that would be available under FOI from an NHS body itself.

In the letter, the Campaign calls on the government to extend the disclosure provision so that FOI rights in relation to independent providers’ NHS work is as wide as that of NHS bodies themselves. The Campaign director Maurice Frankel says:

“Suppose there is concern about the use of potentially contaminated medical supplies by hospitals. For an NHS hospital, the FOI Act could be used to obtain details of stocks of the product, the number of doses administered, the numbers of affected patients, the quality control measures in place, correspondence with suppliers, minutes of meetings at which the problem was discussed and information showing what measures were considered, what action was taken, how promptly and with what results.

This level of information would clearly not be available in relation to independent providers treating NHS patients. This would represent a major loss of existing information rights."

Read the letter here.

Perhaps Liberals Should Sit Down, Shut Up And Listen For A Change

"The majority of citizens in nearly all the world’s most developed countries simply aren’t prepared to tolerate the degree of borrowing required to sustain generous welfare programmes any longer."---- Telegraph, Aug. 2, 2011

Going through the headlines over at Memeorandum today, watching Liberals whine, howl, beat their chest and demonize the Tea Party and members of the right over the debt deal that has been reached, agreed to and is passing through both chambers of Congress, I am seeing a theme of complete denial from the left side of the political spectrum.

One of the most arrogant pieces yet is over at Mother Jones by Kevin Drum.

But no matter how many times we try to kid ourselves with one poll result or another, liberals just don't have that advantage. The public is mostly in favor of raising taxes on the rich — though I suspect its support is pretty soft — but on the bigger issues they mostly aren't on our side. They think deficits are bad, they don't trust Keynesian economics, they don't want a higher IRS bill (who does, after all?), and they believe the federal government is spending too much on stuff they don't really understand. Conservatives have just flat out won this debate in recent decades, and until that changes we're not going to be able to make much progress.

This is why I blame the broad liberal community for our failures, not just President Obama. My biggest beef with Obama is the same one I had three years ago, namely that he's never really even tried to move public opinion in a specifically progressive direction. But that hardly even matters unless all the rest of us have laid the groundwork. And we haven't. Wonks, hacks, activists, all of us. We just haven't persuaded the public to support our vision of government. Until we do, the tea party tendency will always be more powerful than we are.

I call this arrogant because Drum admits that on the largest of issues the public is not "on our side", [Liberals] yet he believes it is because Liberals simply haven't convinced the rest of the country that the Liberal mindset and agenda is right and the majority of the public is wrong or simply doesn't understand what the "smarter"(in Drum's mind that would be Liberals) folks understand.

I disagree, the Liberal "Wonks, hacks, activists", as Drum calls them, have spent the last months doing nothing but trying to convince the general public that Liberals are right and the public is wrong. They have produced chart after chart, dedicated millions of words and posts and articles, explaining their thinking.

Guess what? The public opinion still has not changed.

The liberal arguments have been heard and rejected by the majority.

So, instead of simply admitting that the majority is more conservative than they are, believes the government should spend within it's means as the rest of us have to, think that our debt is out of control and needs to be brought down and government needs to be smaller, what do Liberals do when they cannot force their agenda down our throats?
They call them "hostage takers", "terrorists", they claim the Tea Party has declared "war" on America, they liken Republicans to "baby-kidnapping", and "monsters" and call the debt deal a "Satan sandwich

Libs do that instead of giving the majority of Americans the simple respect of having their own opinions that don't match their own and they blame Tea Party members of Congress, those the majority of the public voted for in the 2010 midterms, for the specific policies that Liberals are against, rather than considering their own agenda and beliefs are wrong.

One has to wonder if these Liberals, like Drum, have ever looked in the mirror and asked themselves, "could I be wrong, could the majority be right?"

I did that when I was a Clinton Democrat and lo and behold I found my answer was yes, I could be wrong and yes the majority could be right.

Perhaps if Liberals would sit down, shut up and listen for a change, they might actually learn they are not the smartest kids in the room and the majority of Americans are much smarter than our politicians or our pundits give them credit for.


[Update] Jonah Goldberg has a message for the Liberal media stooges and their hypocrisy.

Well, go to Hell. All of you.

Please read the whole thing.

.

FOI amendments pressed during Localism Bill

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has been working on amendments to the Localism Bill tabled by Lord Wills, the former Labour FOI minister. The amendments sought to:

1) Require local authority executives and their committees to meet in public, unless regulations specify otherwise. The Localism Bill amends the arrangements for local authority governance, allowing councils to return to the committee system should they choose to do so. For authorities which operate executive arrangements, the Bill allows for new regulations to be made governing the circumstances in which meetings and documents must be open to the public (Clause 11 of the Localism Bill gives effect to Schedule 2 which inserts a new Part 1A into the Local Government Act 2000, and the proposed section 9GA(4) of that new part provides for these regulations to be made). But if the regulations are not made before the new arrangements come into force, the Bill would leave it to executives themselves to decide which of their meetings will be open to the public and which will be held in private (Sections 9G(1) and (2) of the new part 1A). They would be free to hold all their meetings in private, should they choose to do so. The amendment sought to reverse this position, so that in the absence of regulations, all meetings of the executive or its committees would have to be in public.

2) Ensure that future contracts entered into by local authorities would include a ‘freedom of information’ provision. This would stipulate that all information about the performance of the contract which is held by the contractor would be deemed to be held 'on behalf of' the authority for the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations. The ‘Community Right to Challenge’ in Chapter 3 of the Localism Bill envisages that a growing proportion of local authorities’ functions will be carried out for it by other bodies. The intention of the amendment is that the public’s rights to information should be the same, whether a particular task is carried out in-house or contracted out.

3) Bring companies that are 50% or more owned by local authorities within the scope of the FOI Act. At present the FOI Act applies to companies that are wholly owned by a single public authority. The Protection of Freedoms Bill would extend that definition to cover a company which is wholly owned by more than one public authority. However, a company which jointly owned by a public authority and some other body, perhaps a private company, is not subject to the FOI Act at all, even where the public authority is the dominant shareholder. The amendment would bring such companies within the Act’s scope.

4) Require local authorities to publish annual statistics on their compliance with the FOI Act.

5) Bring the Housing Ombudsman within the scope of the FOI Act. At present, complaints about social housing matters are dealt with by two different ombudsmen. Complaints about housing associations go to the Housing Ombudsman; complaints about local authority housing go to the Local Government Ombudsman. The Localism Bill proposes that in future a unified complaints system should apply, with both types of complaint going to the Housing Ombudsman.

This transfer of functions, may be accompanied by a strengthening of the Housing Ombudsman’s enforcement powers. The Bill allows the Secretary of State by Order to give the Housing Ombudsman the power to make determinations which have the force of a court order (New paragraph 7C, which would be added to Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1996 by clause 158 of the Localism Bill). Surprisingly, the Housing Ombudsman is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The Localism Bill contains no provision to bring the Ombudsman under the Act, despite the fact that the Housing Ombudsman is to take over important responsibilities from the Local Government Ombudsman, who is subject to the FOI Act. The amendment would redress this anomaly.

The amendments were debated during the second day of the Bill’s committee stage on Thursday 23 June 2011. Responding to the debate, the minister Baroness Hanham gave a reassurance that the Government would make it clear there is a presumption of openess regarding meetings of local authority executives. But she did not support any of the other amendments.

I cannot say anything more than that we are very much in favour of open access to meetings of local authorities, but we recognise that there are occasions when confidential information has to be discussed – for example, information on contracts and members of staff. Meetings have to be closed sometimes, but we will make it clear that there has to be a presumption in favour of openness… 

We do not believe that it is necessary to extend the Freedom of Information Act to those bodies at present with information about contracts with public authorities, which can be requested from them. A local authority can be quizzed about any contract that it has and we are proactively publishing contractual information online.

Amendment 133C would introduce a statutory requirement for the publication of an annual report by every local authority, including the smallest parish councils receiving very low volumes of freedom of information requests. We do not think that this is a burden that should be borne...

Finally, on extending the Freedom of Information Act to cover the Housing Ombudsman, it is worth noting that we are planning to extend the Act to a considerable number of new bodies through legislation and we intend to keep those under review. While I do not say “in”, I do not say “out” at the present time.

In reply, Lord Wills pressed the minister to consider the amendments again in more detail.

I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which she engaged with these amendments. However, her response was not quite as welcoming instinctively as I would have hoped, so I ask her to scrutinise the amendments in more detail and perhaps to consult the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I do not say that because I discount any possible burdens put on local authorities or contractors or businesses. As someone who ran a small business in the past, I am deeply conscious of the need to avoid putting burdens on small businesses. These amendments were framed not to place a disproportionate burden on anyone. Perhaps on closer scrutiny that will become apparent.

I am willing to accept any suggestions for amendments and I am sure that the Government would be able to improve the drafting. The key point that I ask the Minister to take away is that, if the Government do not engage with the issues behind these amendments…that will mean, potentially, over time, a significant diminution of transparency in the operation of local authorities and those whom they contract to provide services for them. That is very serious for those who believe in freedom of information. It is in breach of a fundamental tenet of the coalition agreement, which is why I hope that this Government will take it seriously.

Read the full debate on the amendments here (begins Col 1433).

See also:
Localism Bill Explanatory Notes [HL Bill 71] ) (pdf)
Second Marshalled List of Amendments as at 21 June. Lord Wills' amendments were 52A, 133A, 133B, 133C and 181A.

Public Accounts Committee says Network Rail should be subject to FOI Act

A report by the Public Accounts Committee 'Office of Rail Regulation: Regulationg Network Rail's efficiency' published today, calls for the Department for Transport and Office of Rail Regulation to ensure that Network Rail is made subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The report states:

The internal operations of Network Rail are not transparent. We are concerned about Network Rail’s use of ‘compromise agreements’ with departing employees, and that a review by the Regulator has been required to investigate the delayed disclosure by Network Rail of an issue regarding level crossing safety. We are concerned that Network Rail was not able to tell us the total value of compromise agreements it had entered into. The Department and the Regulator should ensure that Network Rail is subject to the same transparency requirements as public bodies, with full application of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

It also says:

Pursuing the issue of transparency, we noted press reports of an internal Railtrack memorandum from 2001 regarding safety at the Elsenham level crossing, an issue which had not been made public until 2006. The matter is currently the subject of review by the Regulator, who will judge whether it was material to the public interest and was withheld deliberately. Network Rail is not currently subject to Freedom of Information legislation, but told us that it would not object to being included within the scope of the Act in future.

Does this mean Network Rail has had a change of heart? David Higgins, who took over as Chief Executive of Network Rail in February 2010, told the Committee he would have no objection to members of the public being able to make FOI requests adding that he had "been used to FOI in the last two jobs I have had".

Before the election both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats promised Network Rail would be covered by FOI.  In April 2010, the Conservatives published 'Big ideas to give Britain real change in politics', which stated:

A Conservative government will increase the range of publically funded bodies that are subject to scrutiny using Section 5 orders under the Freedom of Information Act. These bodies will include:

• Network Rail

• Northern Rock;

• The Carbon Trust;

• The Energy Saving Trust;

• NHS Confederation (in relation to activities in receipt of public funds);

• Local Government Association; and

• Traffic Penalty Tribunals

Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act enables Secretaries of State to designate organisations that appear to exercise functions of a public nature to scrutiny under the legislation. We will extend the Freedom of Information Act to these organisations within weeks of the General Election.

But an announcement in January 2011 that the Government would extend the FOI Act to additional bodies did not include Network Rail, a decision which the Campaign for Freedom of Information expressed disappointment about.

See also:
We need a regulator with teeth to force efficiencies at Network Rail, says MPs - The Times, 12 July 2011 (subscription)
Network Rail chief in push for openness - FT, 27 Feb 2011

Debt Limit Talks: Bush Era Rates Off Table And House Democrats Feel Ignored

After the bipartisan talks imploded last week when Democrats insisted that part of the deal include $400 billion in tax increases. This forced Barack Obama to finally come to the table in negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, which stands at $14.3 trillion now, to allow the U.S. to borrow more money.

There have been a flurry of meetings that now include Obama, Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a separate meeting with House Speaker John Boehner and another meeting with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.), assistant to the leader.

The Hill reports that the administration has stopped insisting on ending the Bush-era tax cuts.

I am starting to get a vague sense of deja vu though as I see headlines like "House Democrats feel jilted by the president in budget, debt talks."

Just as House Democrats did in December after Republicans took a large net gain of House seats,the biggest turnover of seats in decades, to take control of the House of Representatives, House Democrats are now upset, feeling that they are being taken for granted and ignored and complaining publicly.

“How is it that the House Democrats played such an important role [in the majority], and all of a sudden [the White House says], ‘Forget it, we’ll work with the Senate and the Republican leadership?’ ” asked Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), vice chairman of the Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee.

House Democrats’ frustration with Obama is boiling in the intense heat of negotiations to reach a budget deal and raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

Capitol Hill Democrats have been steaming for months, since being sidelined during talks to extend the George W. Bush-era tax rates and fund the government this year. Many say the White House takes their support for granted but ignores them when it comes to making policy.

“Before this year we were playing a strong role,” said Cuellar, but “now a lot of us feel like we’re almost being ignored.”

Before this year they played a strong role because they had an overwhelming majority, and they had a Democratically controlled Senate and White House and were able to shove anything that they wanted through because the GOP could not stop them from railroading laws and bills.

November 2010 midterms ended that one party reign.

They are frustrated, speaking out to reporters, angry and aren't at the point where they can admit the reason they are being "ignored" treated as if they are "irrelevant" is because House Democrats are irrelevant at the moment.

Of course Obama is taking them for granted, who else are they going to support in 2012? The Republican candidate against Obama?

I don't think so.

Obama knows the answer to that question and so do the House Democrats that are throwing their temper tantrums.

The Obama administration needs the debt ceiling voted on, passed and raised by August 2, 2011.

Republicans have made it clear that for any debt ceiling raise to pass the House of Representatives, an equal amount of spending cuts be part of the deal. Want $2 trillion (example) then cut that same $2 trillion. Republicans want a balanced budget amendment to show they are serious about stopping the practice of spending more money than we have.

Republicans seem to have learned their lesson when they were thrown out of leadership positions the last time by their base for spending like drunken sailors with taxpayer money. They understand they campaigned in 2010 on the premise of cutting spending and lowering our deficit and if they do not fight to keep those promises, they can be replaced again in the next election.







Wasteful Government Spending

Gallup found that 73 percent of national adults understand what liberal Democrats and Barack Obama (yes, redundant) do not seem to be able to... that wasteful government spending is more to blame for the rising federal budget deficit than not raising enough money in taxes.


Corporate Taxes vs Budget Cuts

In May, a New York Times/CBS News poll (neither organization can be accused of a "conservative slant") shows that most Americans prefer budget cuts over raising corporate taxes.

In general, however, few Americans back increasing taxes on American businesses: only 37 percent said corporate taxes should be increased to help reduce the federal budget deficit. The rest agree with an alternative argument that increased taxes would discourage American companies from creating jobs and hurt them in the global marketplace. Thirty-two percent would rather see corporate taxes remain as they are now and 26 percent said taxes on corporate profits should be decreased.

Government Shutdown vs Spending Cuts

In April Rasmussen found that 57 percent of polled voters suggest that a government shutdown would be preferred to not doing the deep spending cuts necessary to get the federal budget on its way toward balance. Only 31 percent believe that avoiding a shutdown is more important.


The bottom line here is that this battle, like the previous budget battles since November is being aired publicly with the same public referred to in the polls above, watching as Republicans fight for spending cuts, a balanced budget amendment and Democrats fighting to raise taxes.

I can almost see all those public statements used in GOP campaign videos with Democrats and Obama stating over and over again "raise taxes" with the GOP candidate saying "cut spending."

Democrats need to stop playing to their 13 percent fiscally liberal base and start playing to Americans as a whole or even to the 38 percent that view themselves as moderate on fiscal issues, or 2012 is going make their massive losses in 2010 look like a walk in the park.

.

Generic Presidential Ballot Has Republicans Ahead Of Obama

Rasmussen hands Barack Obama more bad news in a week which economic news has already been devastating for him.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that in a hypothetical 2012 presidential matchup, a generic Republican candidate earns support from 45% of Likely U.S. Voters, while the president attracts 43% of the vote. Three percent (3%) favor some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

On average, 57.3 percent of the American public believes the country is on the wrong track. Home prices continue to drop by over 4 percent in the first quarter of 2011, unemployment is at 9 percent and Friday's report is not projected to be good. Added to that, the so-called recovery is faltering.

It never was a recovery. The massive stimulus package that Obama and the Democratically controlled House and Senate passed, simply put a band-aid on a gushing wound, postponed the inevitable and ended up costing more and worsening the job situation.

Quick analogy- Take a lot of money and pump it into a failing business without changing the way the company does business will do no more than help that business keep the doors open until they run out of the money that was pumped into it.

If you do not address the root cause of a failure, no amount of money is going to stop it from failing over and over again.

When businesses and/or corporations grow and expand they hire more people. Basic Job Growth 101.

The stark contrast coming into the 2012 election is clear.

Liberal Democrats , including Obama believe pumping more money into the economy aka "invest" will help it recover. Republicans believe spending less by cutting government spending and working on helping businesses grow will help the economy and encourage massive job growth.

You don't bite the hand that feeds you and Obama and liberals, like rabid dogs, continue to attack the very people that can help the economy recover, by threatening them with higher taxes or creating regulation after regulation to prevent them from growing.

Conservatives and liberals are walking, no running, in opposite directions, widening the gap between the two and by November 2012 the choice before the American people is going to be very very clear.

.

Red States Add More Jobs Than Blue States- Part 2: By The Numbers

Part two to my previous piece showing The Business Journals' data obtained by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics which found that Texas over the last decade has seen private sector job growth of 732,800 while California shows a private sector job decrease of 623,700.

The whole thing got me to thinking about the totals of all the blue states,red states and purple (swing) states, and I added up the numbers.

The final totals show 22 states considered "red", adding the private-sector jobs increased, subtracting the private-sector jobs decreased, left the red states with a plus 451,600 private-sector job increase over the last decade.

The 21 states considered "blue", and DC (making 22)adding the private-sector jobs increased, subtracting the private-sector jobs decreased, left the blue states with a minus 2,041,300 decrease in private-sector jobs.

Only 7 states are listed as purple, considered swing states which on any given year could swing blue or could swing red and those states total up to a 589,900 private-sector job decrease.

BY THE NUMBERS

Red States
Utah +90,000
Idaho +28,600
Wyoming +28,200
Nebraska +27,000
Alaska +34,400
Oklahoma +13,000
Kansas -42,500
North Dakota +49,600
Alabama -72,900
Texas +732,800
Mississippi -42,700
South Dakota +17,600
South Carolina -21,500
Montana +35,300
Kentucky -36,600
Indiana -165,500
Georgia -174,600
North Carolina -95,800
Tennessee -99,000
Arizona +90,200
Louisiana -5,700
Virginia +61,700

Total: +451,600 private-sector job increase from April 2001 to April 2011


Blue States
Massachusetts -140,700
Rhode Island -14,700
New York -17,000
Hawaii +26,500
Vermont -5,700
Maryland +9,900
Illinois -363,100
Connecticut -54,400
California -623,700
Delaware -13,300
Maine -16,300
New Jersey -175,600
Washington +63,000
Michigan -619,200
Minnesota -56,800
Oregon -5,500
Pennsylvania -20,400
New Mexico +34,300
Wisconsin -80,500
Iowa +1,300
New Hampshire -12,200
DC +42,800

Total w/DC added: -2,041,300 private-sector job decrease from April 2001 to April 2011

Purple (Swing) States
Arkansas -4,000
Nevada +39,600
West Virginia +7,200
Colorado -64,800
Florida -16,500
Missouri -98,500
Ohio -460,900

Total: -597,900 private-sector job decrease from April 2001 to April 2011

Page 1

(Correction made to this post)

Red States Add More Jobs Than Blue States: Texas Adds Highest Number Of Jobs Over Decade, California Suffers Biggest Decline of Jobs

Part two- By The Numbers found here.

The Business Journals' On Numbers provides a chart showing private-sector employment trends between 2001 and 2011, as well as the one-year changes from 2010 to 2011, state by state.

From April 2001 to April 2011 Texas has increased it's private-sector jobs by 732,800 and in the last year alone, from 2010 to 2011, the increase is listed at 251,700 private-sector jobs increased.

California, while enjoying a one year gain from 2010 to 2011, has suffered the biggest decline over the decade, losing 623,700 private-sector jobs.

The runners-up to Texas in private-sector growth were Arizona and Utah, which added 90,200 and 90,000 jobs respectively, during the decade from 2001 to 2011.

The data was obtained by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the chart used by The Business Journal.

The latest data shown by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics also shows that Texas holds 8.0% unemployment, which is 1% lower than the national average and California holds 11.9% unemployment which is 2.9% above the national average.

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey makes this argument:

What do Texas, Utah, and Arizona all have in common? They are all right-to-work states. Among the top five states, only Washington does not have right-to-work laws allowing employees free choice whether to join unions. Seven of the top ten job-growth states are right-to-work. The only right-to-work state in the bottom 10 is Georgia. Earlier this month, Jim DeMint issued a report showing the correlation between right-to-work legal environments and growth:

Could be. I am sure some would argue against it but the data doesn't lie, it is just interpreted differently by those with different political agendas.

What cannot be argued is Texas is a long time Conservative state and California is well known to be a Liberal one. Politicians elected in each state are directly responsible for state politics, budgets, spending programs, spending cuts and job creation ideas.

In fact the top ten states in the On numbers list, in order, are:

Texas- RED
Arizona- RED
Utah- RED
Washington- BLUE
Virginia- RED
North Dakota-RED
District of Columbia -BLUE
Nevada- PURPLE
Montana- RED
Alaska- RED

(Technically, Washington D.C is a special district, not a state- added here only because On Numbers included it)

Conservative State-Red
Liberal State-Blue
Swing State-Purple

Apply state-by-state politics to the national argument that has been raging over the the federal deficit, government spending, spending cuts and job creation, where both sides of the political spectrum have their own opinion, for lack of a better word, on what needs to be done to address each issue, especially job creation.

It comes down to what set of ideas work and while everyone has their own opinion, if we go by the actual numbers, only one set of ideas seems to consistently provide the desired results in regards to private sector job creation.

"Texas added more jobs in the past 10 years than the total jobs of the 19 states, including the District of Columbia, that were positive for job growth."--- The Business Journals

It is up to voters to decide in 2012, more jobs or more "stimulating" experiments.

Page 2

.

Note To The Far Right : CUT. IT. OUT... Pretty Please

Seriously folks, get your act together.

Here is the deal as I see it (me being a conservative voter)- In 2008, Barack Obama, a man with no experience to warrant a position like the President of the United States of America, was elected as the President of the United States of America.

Why?

Voters turned against Republicans, pure and simple. They were the tipping point.

In 2010, after a far left extreme liberal agenda was jammed down America's throat, debt rising at unimaginable speed, government spending reaching monumental levels, bailouts mania, stimulus that stimulated nothing but higher unemployment and Obamacare, voters turned, yet again, and handed a victory to the GOP on the largest scale in over 70 years.

They did with the promise from the GOP that they would get serious on spending cuts, work on job creation and get the ball rolling to lower our debt.

From the 2008 election to the 2010 midterms, many of us, myself included, watched and wrote about the far left liberal so-called progressive extremists tearing the Democratic party apart, piece by piece, insisting that for the "good" of all, the far left liberal agenda should be shoved down American's throats and Americans would understand afterward what a wonderful thing Democrats had done.

How'd that work out? Huh? Huh?

Hint: 2010 Midterm elections.

So here we are, April 2011. A budget deal was negotiated, one that should have been passed last year while Democrats held the House, the Senate and White House, but the hard choices that needed to be made were too much of a "political hot potato," so they kicked the can down the road and the deal had to be made between a Republican controlled House of Representatives, a Democratically controlled Senate and a Democratically controlled White House.

The deal was made. Government didn't shut down, the GOP set the tone of discussion to surround spending, deficits and job creation by the end, and even had Obama and Harry Reid touting spending cuts as historic and the largest ever seen.

The GOP did so in a manner which kept voters (you know the people that will determine what direction and what message to send in 2012)engaged, informed and took into account that voters would rather see the major battle fought over trillions and not just billions. Those same voters, the majority, (which again for those that are slow, determine the outcome of elections) did not want to see a government shutdown over billions when the real fight is to come to cut spending by trillions.

Now I see hardcore conservatives, who admittedly are taking a principled stand, criticizing the size and scope of the deal that was made. I see them willing to tear into anyone that dares look at the good the GOP has done with the first initial battle.

Whether they admit it or not, there was plenty of good done. Starting with setting the public debate stage with the proper theme of debt, spending and jobs.

Lets take a quick look at what the GOP has accomplished, being in control of only the House of Representatives: (Via The Politico)

***The $40 billion in cuts was not only historically high, it was more than Boehner himself wanted to push for a few short months ago.

***Earmarks, which many thought would never go away, are now taboo - even to earmark addicts like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who reluctantly gave them up after the 2010 election.

***Deficits are all the rage on Capitol Hill, and will be until Congress wends its way through the debt limit fight and the next budget. The word “deficit” appeared in 470 documents in the Congressional Record between the beginning of January and the end of March, more than in any session’s opening since 1995, according to a review by POLITICO. And Americans listened: Asked by Gallup to identify the most important problem facing the nation, 13 percent said “federal debt” in March of this year, up from 8 percent a year ago.

***The broader budget debate is now fought on the tea party’s terms: It’s not whether to reduce government, it’s by how much. This helps explain why serious centrist commentators and even some liberals PRAISED a $6 trillion budget cut plan proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). Remember how a similar plan was received two years ago?

***Thanks to a pickup of 675 legislative seats in 2010 - many because of these budget principles

***The most sweeping work is getting done in states. Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana are now working, real-time labs for discovering how much the party can cut government - without cutting off the support of independents. A GOP senator told us the party studies what happens in these state showdowns to test the limits of what will work here. One early finding: Many think Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) went too far, too fast by gutting union power without first educating the public.

***The real fight over spending erupted in late spring of 2009, and consider the results: The GOP won the governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey in 2009; the Scott Brown Senate race in Massachusetts in early 2010; then won back the House, picked up Senate seats and captured the most state legislative seats in a single year since Watergate — all in November of last year.

Most Republicans and moderate conservatives are looking at the big picture, seeing the messaging war won, the stage for the future battle set to fight the bigger fight over trillions and time being bought to inform the public each step of the way so that the majority of the public is behind them.

All that in a few short months.

I took a political leanings test once, assumed I would come out as a moderate conservative, and was extremely surprised to see the test tell me I was in the top 10 percent of "ulta-conservative".... wow, really? I thought I was mellow.

The reason I tell you about that test is because I happen to agree with the hardcore far right extreme conservatives on quite a few of their political beliefs.

I believe the budget deal should have been fought over trillions (as the 2012 budget battle will be with Paul Ryan's GOP's Path to Prosperity). I believe a government that spends more than it takes in will go bankrupt, it is unsustainable. I believe saving billions in the face of a $14 trillion debt is ridiculous.

So far I agree with almost everything the far right wants and believes we need as a country.

So, why am I telling the far right to CUT. IT. OUT?

I disagree with how they want those goals achieved and how they are prepared to tear the Republican party into pieces as the far left progressives did with the Democratic party.

Back to the top everyone:

From the 2008 election to the 2010 midterms, many of us, myself included, watched and wrote about the far left liberal so-called progressive extremists tearing the Democratic party apart, piece by piece, insisting that for the "good" of all, the far left liberal agenda should be shoved down American's throats and Americans would understand afterward what a wonderful thing Democrats had done.

I am watching the far right head down the same path as the far left extreme portion of the Democratic party did from 2008 to 2010. I am watching the far right encourage Republican politicians to make the same mistakes the far left liberals forced their politicians to make from 2008 to 2010.

The principles, to which I agree with them on most issues, of the far right and their own thoughts on how our Representatives should achieve those principles, seem to be more important to them than the majority of the public and the voters in the upcoming elections.

Voters, the majority of them, must be behind everything that is done. They must have time to research the available information. They must be given time and the respect shown to them to decide issues for themselves without being told "you have to pass it to learn what is in it" (Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare quote)

Inevitably we see the argument how politicians shouldn't make their decisions based on "polls" and for the most part that is true but politicians are elected to represent their constituents and if the majority of voters turn against a party as they did Republicans in 2008 and Democrats in 2010, those voters can and will replace those politicians they feel did not represent them.

Most Tea Party supporters seem to have found a good balance here. They are arguing that more needs to be done at the same time acknowledging the limitations the politicians have to work with.

Ever heard the expression "pick your battles"?

The war is the 2012 budget, the one just passed was simply a skirmish to set the stage.

Politicians- Please do not make the same mistake Obama/Reid/Pelosi made. Do not allow the extreme portion of the GOP party to cause you to lose the majority of voters.

Far right- Please do not make the same mistakes the far left liberal so-called progressives made. Don't rip the Republican party to shreds when we will need them to unite and fight the biggest war to come.

We are all on the same side here. Can we start acting like it?

I am begging you... CUT. IT. OUT. Pretty please.

.

Budget Battle On The Hill And In The Blogosphere

We spend too much. We spend more as a country than we take in.

That is the underlying concept the GOP has been preaching since before the November midterm elections and their promises to cut government spending was, in large part, one of the major reasons voters handed them the biggest victory seen in decades with one of the largest turnover of House seats, giving control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans and stripping that gavel from Nancy Pelosi to make John Boehner the Speaker of the House.

Let me repeat myself.. we spend too much.

Ezra Klein runs the latest reports in the ongoing budget battle down in one paragraph:

Back in February, Paul Ryan unveiled what was supposed to be the opening bid from the House Republicans: $32 billion in cuts for the rest of 2011. But the Tea Party demanded more and House leadership quickly caved, doubling their proposed cuts to more than $60 billion -- or almost $100 billion less than barack Obama’s 2011 budget request (quick note: different news stories present these numbers differently, as it depends on whether you use Obama’s budget request or 2010’s funding as a baseline. I’m using the difference from 2010 funding, which makes for lower sums). Now Democrats are offering as a compromise measure $30 billion in total cuts, or exactly what Ryan’s original proposal had called for. Pretty neat, huh?

Progressive liberals in the blogosphere are having another woe is me moment over the latest $20 million in cuts the Democrats are offering up. Calling their party leaders losers, calling the offer pathetic because they don't want spending cuts and generally peeved that Democrats are supposedly caving in.

People like Ezra are handing out the talking points as evidenced by his title "A huge win for the Tea Party, a win for Republicans and a big loss for Democrats."

Really?

Is that truly where they want to go with this?

The U.S. is over $14 trillion in debt, we spend more than we take in, and Republicans were handed the largest victory in 70 years in the last elections on the campaign promise that they would cut spending massively.

$30 billion is a start, I will admit that because I see each "drop in the bucket" as going toward the eventual outcome of filling the bucket, emptying it, then putting it back down to collect more.

Liberals like Ezra would love for conservatives to see the "Democrats have lost" meme and kick back, smile happily and stop pushing for more spending cuts, but that is not going to happen.

It is not a we win, you lose game. It also shouldn't be a conservative vs liberal battle either, but it is because the priorities of the left do not match the priorities of the right or Independents.

Gallup recently found that 71 percent of Americans say they worry about the economy "a great deal," 22 percent say they worry about the economy a "fair amount" with only 7 percent listed as "only a little/not at all."

64 percent of Americans say they worry about federal spending and the budget deficit a "great deal" with 23 percent saying they worry about it a "fair amount" and 12 percent listed as "only a little/not at all."

Those are the top two out of 14 issues Gallup polled on.

The breakdown of those Gallup findings are telling though and explains why supporters claim Democratic leaders are folding or losing in their eyes.

Click image to enlarge

Federal spending doesn't even register in the top four for Democrats while it is in the top two for Republicans and Independents.

The fiscal showdown continues as Congress returns to their jobs this week and in this specific case Republicans have the majority support of the American people who understand what liberal pundits do not seem able to grasp.

40 days ago the GOP controlled House passed a bill to fund government and cut spending and 40 days later the Senate, which is still Democratically controlled, has not because they are fighting to prevent the spending cuts the House passed.

We spend too much.

If Democrats force a government shutdown because they refuse to understand that basic concept, Americans are more than aware of which party is fighting to cut spending and which party is fighting tooth and nail to prevent those cuts.

.

This, Right Here, Is What Is Wrong With Progressive Liberals

In 2007, the yearly Kos Convention, now named Netroots Nation, hosted Democratic presidential contenders, Democratic politicians and liberals from across the country and they hold this convention every year.

Do Conservatives protest this convention, do hundreds flock outside holding signs and declaring that liberals do not have the right to meet and discuss their agenda?

Not that I have seen, please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary if you have photos of any massive protest against this or any other liberal meeting.

In the meantime, the news is full today screaming headlines "Hundreds march outside Koch brothers' retreat."

Koch Industries is the nations second-largest privately held company. They fund efforts to push for limited-government, libertarian agenda as well as help organize Tea Party groups.. among other things.

Charles and David Koch held their eighth retreat for prominent conservative elected officials, major political donors and strategists, and according to Koch spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer, the meeting "brings together some of America's greatest philanthropists and job creators … who share a common belief that the current level of government spending in our nation is simply unsustainable."

The meeting is focusing on ways to reduce the rising federal deficit, she said, as well as "strategies to promote policies that will help grow our economy, foster free enterprise and create American jobs."

Liberals have MoveOn.org and many attend the annual Net Nations conventions which has work groups set up to discuss the progressive agenda and how to further it, just to name two such events and organizations, which bring Democratic politicians, strategists, presidential contenders together to discuss many of the same issues. Groups that donate heavily to the progressive agenda, but in the eyes of a liberal, to their thinking, they have the right to bring together like minded individuals, corporations and such but Conservatives do not.

About Koch Industries:

Koch Industries was co-founded by Fred C. Koch in 1940 when they developed an innovative crude oil refining process. Now Koch Industries is a conglomerate based in Wichita, Kansas, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments. Koch is involved in manufacturing, refining and distribution of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching, finance, commodities trading, as well as other ventures and investments.

To liberals the Kochs represent "corporate greed" as the protest signs signal.

Last I heard, starting a business, building it up and creating a profit by offering services for money, is the basis behind capitalism. Handing that business down to your children to have them expand and grow it, is a legacy.

It also creates jobs for thousands if not millions over time.

In the twisted minds of liberals, Koch's main offense is that they are conservative/libertarian in political nature and they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

How dare them support the Tea Party!! How wrong of them to have a political affiliation as well as having money. How "insidious" for them to use their money to help achieve their goals and what they believe to be right for the country and themselves.

I mean come on, liberal protests are never funded and organized by groups, unions or organizations, right? Protesters are never bussed in by liberals to liberal rallies or such, right?

If Conservatives held massive protests against Liberal conferences and meetings where Liberals got together to discuss what their ideas and politics, they would accuse, hell they would scream bloody murder, about how Conservatives were trying to stifle their free speech, their right to a political belief.

Yet that is exactly what liberal protesters did at the Koch retreat. All because these folks are rich and influential. Isn't that prejudicial? Isn't that discrimination?

Oh no, sorry, in the eyes of the progressive liberals you cannot be discriminatory and prejudicial against the rich, they aren't people, they are rich.

The fact that they cannot even see their own hypocrisy and double standards, right there, is what is wrong with the far left liberals of today.

.

Campaign's response to Government's plans to extend the FOI Act

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has welcomed the coalition government’s announcement (see earlier post here) that it proposed:

• to extend the FOI Act to a range of regulatory, representative and other bodies 
• to implement the last government’s measures to release old government records after 20 years instead of 30 years
• apply the Act to companies that are jointly owned by more than one public authority.

The Campaign said these were valuable improvements to the FOI regime.

However it pointed out that before the election both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had promised that Network Rail would be covered and that the Conservatives’ had also promised to cover Northern Rock. Neither body is being covered. Many other individual bodies, including electoral registration officers and returning officers should also be added, the Campaign said.

It also called for companies providing contracted out functions to be brought under the Act, particularly those relating to health, social services, education and criminal justice and for the Act to be extended to housing associations. The Campaign pointed out that the Scottish Government was proposing to extend the Scottish FOI Act to contractors who build or maintain schools, hospitals and roads (where the contract value is above certain thresholds), to private bodies running prisons or providing prison escort services to contractors running local authority sports or leisure centres and to the Glasgow Housing Association.

The Campaign said it was also unhappy at the decision to implement a more restrictive exemption for senior members of the Royal Family. At present, communications with the Royal Family are exempt, but potentially disclosable on public interest grounds. In future the public interest test will be removed for communications with the monarch and the next two in line to the throne. The Campaign said that where Prince Charles was seeking to actively intervene in policy decisions, his input would be withheld in all circumstances, even if it had played the decisive role.

Finally, the Campaign suggested the proposal to allow the Information Commissioner to serve for only a single 5 year term was a potentially double-edged sword. Limiting appointment to a single term only meant that the Commissioner could not be tempted to comply with the government’s wishes in order to be reappointed. But appointing a new Commissioner every 5 years could be potentially disruptive, as a new Commissioner needed at least a year to master the brief, and the Campaign suggested the Commissioner’s term of appointment should be extended to 6 or 7 years.

Full press release here.

Government plans to extend the FOI Act

The Ministry of Justice has announced plans to extend the scope of the FOI Act. The plans include:

increasing the number of organisations to which FOI requests can be made, bringing in bodies such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Services Ombudsman, and higher education admissions body UCAS; and also all companies wholly owned by any number of public authorities

consulting on bringing a range of further bodies which are believed to perform functions of a public nature under the FOI umbrella, including Examination Boards, Harbour Authorities, the Local Government Association and the NHS Confederation

making most public records available at The National Archives and other places of deposit ten years sooner, when they are 20 years old; the package will also reduce the time some types of information - including court records, ministerial correspondence and policy formulation - can be withheld, to 20 years instead of 30

undertaking post legislative scrutiny, to see how well the Act is working in practice and whether there are further changes to be made.

The full press release is here and response issued by the Information Commissioner's Office here. Further comment to follow later today.

Gallup Finds Liberals Still Smallest Ideological Group In America

Conservatives continue to outnumber Liberals in ideological demographics with almost double the numbers of Gallup poll respondents self identifying as Conservative than does Liberal.

40 percent identify as Conservative, 21 percent identify as Liberal and 35 percent identify as Moderate.



Gallup breaks it down further, showing that those that consider themselves very Conservative are 10 percent and those that consider themselves very Liberal are 6 percent.

.

Republican Comeback Plan On Schedule And Has Just Begun

A couple pieces today caught my eye and they all, when taken together, show an in-depth detailed plan by Republicans after the 2008 presidential election, to work their way back toward taking control of Congress again and from the results of Tuesday's midterm election where the GOP took more than enough seats to wrest control of the House of Representatives from the Democrats, that plan is right on track.

Starting with The New York Times three-page article titled "Democrats Outrun by a 2-Year G.O.P. Comeback Plan."

The PowerPoint slides presented to House Republicans in January 2009 seemed incongruously optimistic at a time when the very word “hope” belonged to the newly ascendant Democrats and their incoming president, Barack Obama.

“If the goal of the majority is to govern, what is the purpose of the minority?” one slide asked.

“The purpose of the minority,” came the answer, “is to become the majority.”

The presentation was the product of a strategy session held 11 days before Mr. Obama’s inauguration, when top Republican leaders in the House of Representatives began devising an early blueprint for what they would accomplish in Tuesday’s election: their comeback.

How they did it is the story of one of the most remarkable Congressional campaigns in more than a half-century, characterized by careful plotting by Republicans, miscalculations by Democrats and a new political dynamic with forces out of both parties’ control. The unpredictable Tea Party movement, the torrent of corporate money from outside interests and an electorate with deep discontent helped shift the balance of power in Washington.

Read the entire piece as it accurately details the events over the last two years.

Another thing Republicans had in their favor was the long held belief that Democrats, when handed a one party rule, controlling both the House and Senate and the White House, would overplay their hand, would spend like drunken sailors and would raise taxes as well as pass laws that inherently interfered into American's lives.

Over 40 percent of Americans self identify as conservative in nature while only 20 percent of them self identify as liberal, so by highlighting every instance where Washington raised the national deficit, every time they raised a tax or spoke about it, every time they proposed and/or pass legislation the majority of Americans opposed, Republicans allowed Democrats to continue hammering their own nails into their own coffins. All in the name of appeasing their liberal base and a liberal agenda.

While Democrats were busy digging their own holes, Republicans were free to campaign and make sure every opportunity for a takeover seat was covered and fought for, forcing Democrats to multitask and spread themselves thin by fighting to pass unpopular legislation and defend seats that they never believed would even be in play in January 2009.

Before Tuesday's election I said that Democrats had shot themselves repeatedly and then questioned why they were bleeding so profusely, and that is exactly what they did with very little help from Republicans, leaving Republicans free to work their own agenda in their plan for a comeback.

The 2 year plan worked, Republicans took control, fired Nancy Pelosi from the Speaker of the House position, weakened Harry Reid's rule of the Senate by giving him a majority that cannot overcome a filibuster and promised Americans to fight for legislation Americans wanted. This put a stop to the steamrolling of Obama's agenda through both houses of Congress for the next two years.

Republicans promised to listen to the people, folks that came out to vote for Republicans in waves because the majority believed and stated repeatedly that Congress was not listening to them and was ignoring their will when they were supposed to be representing them and were instead more interested in doing what was best for Congressional politicians.

That promise must be kept.

Voters overwhelmingly believe – by an 81% to 10% margin – that most members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping people. That, too, is a sentiment that has changed little in recent months.

Republicans have another plan as well and that is two years from now, the next presidential election and how to remove Barack Obama as president.

If his speech the day after the elections is any indicator, Obama seems prepared to make that easier for Republicans by refusing to acknowledge the dissatisfaction in the way he and Democrats have handled the last two years.

Full Obama press conference at YouTube.

Obama insisted that the unpopular things he did were done in "emergency" situations and gave the false impression to Americans that he was creating a bigger government, but Obamacare aka health care belies that argument, that wasn't rushed, nor done as an emergency measure. That was passed with Obama and Democrats knowing full well, by every poll conducted at the time, that Americans as a majority, were opposed.

They did it anyway.

As Americans watched out debts rise, spending increased by the trillions and a trillion dollar health care bill pass on a straight Democratic party line vote, they got angrier and angrier and by refusing to acknowledge the large part he played in that, Obama himself is now playing right into the hands of Republicans and their next two year plan to replace him in the White House.

Consider this: In Obama's eyes, he is now campaigning already for his reelection bid for presidency in 2012.

He will be sucking up to his base, liberals but also trying to appease the much smaller base of far left progressive liberals.

Gallup found that 42 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative or very conservative, 35 consider themselves moderates and only 20 percent consider themselves liberal or very liberal.

By attempting to appease the 20 percent of his base over the next two years, Obama will alienate the 35 percent that consider themselves moderate and he won't get any of the 42 percent that consider themselves conservative.

No one can win a reelection bid with only 20 percent of Americans and Barack Obama needs to learn that lesson if he hopes to have a chance in 2012.

.

Coalition programme for government on FOI and government transparency

'The Coalition: our programme for government' document published this morning (20 May 2010) promises to introduce a Freedom Bill and repeats the commitment to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act made in the earlier Coalition Agreement and by the both parties.

A Freedom Bill was promised in the Lib Dem manifesto. A draft Freedom Bill published by the Lib Dems last year contained a number of proposals to strengthen the FOI Act such as removing the ministerial veto. See http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/the-freedom-bill/17-strengthening-freedom-of-information/

The Coalition document also contains the 'right to data' and the proactive publication proposals from the Conservative manifesto. The relevant extracts of the document are:

3. CIVIL LIBERTIES
We will be strong in defence of freedom. The Government believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties. We need to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain’s tradition of freedom and fairness.

• We will implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion.
• We will introduce a Freedom Bill.
• We will scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register and the ContactPoint database, and halt the next generation of biometric passports.
• We will outlaw the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
• We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
• We will adopt the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
• We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
• We will restore rights to non-violent protest.
• We will review libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
• We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
• We will further regulate CCTV.
• We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason.
• We will introduce a new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.
• We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.

...

16. GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY
The Government believes that we need to throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account. We also recognise that this will help to deliver better value for money in public spending, and help us achieve our aim of cutting the record deficit. Setting government data free will bring significant economic benefits by enabling businesses and non-profit organisations to build innovative applications and websites.

• We will require public bodies to publish online the job titles of every member of staff and the salaries and expenses of senior officials paid more than the lowest salary permissible in Pay Band 1 of the Senior Civil Service pay scale, and organograms that include all positions in those bodies.
• We will require anyone paid more than the Prime Minister in the centrally funded public sector to have their salary signed off by the Treasury.
• We will regulate lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists and ensuring greater transparency.
• We will also pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics.
• We will strengthen the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments.
• We will introduce new protections for whistleblowers in the public sector.
• We will take steps to open up government procurement and reduce costs; and we will publish government ICT contracts online.
• We will create a level playing field for opensource software and will enable large ICT projects to be split into smaller components.
• We will require full, online disclosure of all central government spending and contracts over £25,000.
• We will create a new ‘right to data’ so that government-held datasets can be requested and used by the public, and then published on a regular basis.
• We will require all councils to publish meeting minutes and local service and performance data.
• We will require all councils to publish items of spending above £500, and to publish contracts and tender documents in full.
• We will ensure that all data published by public bodies is published in an open and standardised format, so that it can be used easily and with minimal cost by third parties.

Conservatives promise to extend FOI Act

The Conservatives have promised to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act within weeks of the general election.

Expanding the Freedom of Information Act
We will expand the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to include taxpayer-funded bodies such as Northern Rock and Network Rail, together with bodies such as the Local Government Association. This will give the public access to a huge amount of government information currently available only to Ministers.

Background
Under Labour, the Freedom of Information Act excludes a wide range of taxpayer funded bodies which exercise power over areas ranging from railways to the Olympics budget to energy efficiency projects and road traffic penalties.

Conservative policy
A Conservative government will increase the range of publically funded bodies that are subject to scrutiny using Section 5 orders under the Freedom of Information Act. These bodies will include:

• Network Rail
• Northern Rock; 
• The Carbon Trust; 
• The Energy Saving Trust; 
• NHS Confederation (in relation to activities in receipt of public funds); 
• Local Government Association; and 
• Traffic Penalty Tribunals

Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act enables Secretaries of State to designate organisations that appear to exercise functions of a public nature to scrutiny under the legislation. We will extend the Freedom of Information Act to these organisations within weeks of the General Election.   

The plans were published in a document detailing nine Big ideas to give Britain real change in politics, which also included further details about the right to government data included in the Conservative manifesto (see earlier post here)

The Right to Data Act will give members of the public a legally enforceable 'Right to Data',  so that the public has the right to appeal if public bodies refuse requests for data collected by government.

This radical policy will put the public in the driving seat when it comes to requesting and receiving government datasets containing anonymised but socially or commercially useful information. Once published, there will be a continuing obligation to publish that data on a regular basis for as long as it is collected.

This legislation will be introduced as soon as possible, but even before the draft bill has  become law, a Conservative government will improve transparency by launching spending transparency and making a wide range of government datasets available to the public. 

Cameron plans to open up information and set public data free

Conservative leader David Cameron announced the following plans to open up information in a speech at Imperial College on 25 June 2009:

INFORMATION FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

We have already announced some of the ways in which we will put information - and thereby power - in people's hands.

We will publish every item of government spending over £25,000.

It will all be there for an army of armchair auditors to go through, line by line, pound by pound, to hold wasteful government to account.

We will require the publication of crime data online in an open way so that communities can build their own crime maps, see what crimes are being committed, where and at what time and hold their local police to account if they're not doing something about it. And we will require all local councils to publish information like meeting minutes and local service data in a standardised format.

This will give people the power to hold local government to account, and to develop new public services like a local version of TheyWorkForYou, or Bebo applications that tell teenagers when the local sports centre is open as well as the power to see which councils are providing the best value for money, so residents can demand the same from their own. But today we're announcing further steps towards true freedom of information.

SETTING DATA FREE

In Britain today, there are over 100,000 public bodies producing a huge amount of information.

This ranges from school league tables to train timetables; from health outcomes to public sector job vacancies. Most of this information is kept locked up by the state. And what is published is mostly released in formats that mean the information can't be searched or used with other applications, like online maps. his stands in the way of accountability.

Let me give you just two examples.

Today, many central government and quango job adverts are placed in a select few newspapers.

Some national, some regional. Some daily, some weekly.

But all of them in a variety of different publications - meaning it's almost impossible to find out how many vacancies there are across the public sector, what kind of salaries are being offered, how these vary from public sector body to public sector body and whether functions are being duplicated.

Remember this is your money being put forward to give someone a job - and you have little way of finding out why, what for and for how much.

Now imagine if they were all published online and in a standardised way. Not only could you find out about vacancies for yourself, you could cross-reference what jobs are on offer and make sure your money is being put to proper use. Or what about patient outcomes in the NHS?

Some of the most important information you'll ever need to know, how long your Dad will survive if he gets cancer, your chances of a good life if you have a stroke, all this is out of your hands.

Now, again, imagine if this information was in your hands. You'd be able to compare your local hospital with others, and do something about it if it wasn't good enough.

Choose another hospital. Voice your complaint to a patient group. Make change happen.
All this data which would help people in this country hold the powerful to account - it's all locked away in some vault. And it's only getting worse.

Next week Ed Balls will publish proposals for a new report card, replacing league tables. That will reduce the amount of information being published, and reduce parent power to hold their school to account.

We're going to set this data free. In the first year of the next Conservative Government, we will find the most useful information in twenty different areas ranging from information about the NHS to information about schools and road traffic and publish it so people can use it.

This information will be published proactively and regularly - and in a standardised format so that it can be 'mashed up' and interacted with.

What's more, because there is no complete list that can tell us exactly what data the government collects, we will create a new 'right to data' so that further datasets can be requested by the public.

By harnessing the wisdom of the crowd, we can find out what information individuals think will be important in holding the state to account.

And to avoid bureaucrats blocking these requests, we will introduce a rule that any request will be successful unless it can be proved that it would lead to overwhelming costs or demonstrable personal privacy or national security concerns.

If we are serious about helping people exert more power over the state, we need to give them the information to do it. And as part of that process, we will review the role of the Information Commissioner to make sure that it is designed to maximise political accountability in our country.

Read the full speech here.

David Cameron on transparency and opening up politics

David Cameron speech on Fixing Broken Politics
Tuesday, May 26 2009

TRANSPARENCY

Everything I've spoken about - redistributing power to people, re-instating accountability in our politics...all of it will, I hope, help get more people involved in politics and public policy and help end that despairing sense of powerlessness that pervades our society.

But there's one more item on the agenda: transparency.

Ask most people where politics happens and they'd paint a picture of tight-knit tribes making important decisions in wood-panelled rooms, speaking a strange language.

If we want people to have faith and get involved, we need to defeat this impression by opening politics up - making everything transparent, accessible - and human.

And the starting point for reform should be a near-total transparency of the political and governing elite, so people can see what is being done in their name.

EXPENSES AND SPENDING

First because transparency tears down the hiding places for sleaze, over-spending and corruption.

Soon enough all MPs' expenses are going to be published online for everyone to see...I and the rest of the Shadow Cabinet are already doing it.

And if we win the next election, we're going to do the same thing for all other public servants earning over £150,000.

Just imagine the effect that an army of armchair auditors is going to have on those expense claims.

Indeed, the promise of public scrutiny is going to have a powerful effect on over-spending of any variety.

A Conservative Government will put all national spending over £25,000 online for everyone to see, so citizens can hold the Government to account for how their tax money is being spent.

And we will extend this principle of transparency to every nook and cranny of politics and public life because it is one of the quickest and easiest ways to transfer power to the powerless and prevent waste, exploitation and abuse.

That's why, for example, all our Conservative candidates for the European Parliament have signed a pledge setting out new standards of transparency and ethical behaviour.

Every Conservative MEP elected next week will publish online a breakdown of all office costs, all travel, names of each member of staff they employ, and details of all meetings with businesses, lobbyists and other interest groups.

OPENING UP POLITICS

But transparency isn't just about cleaning up politics, it's also about opening up politics.

Right now a tiny percentage of the population craft legislation that will apply to one hundred percent of the population.

This locks out countless people across the country whose expertise could help.

So why not invite them in on the process?

We'll create a right of initiative nationally, where if you collect enough signatures you can get your proposals debated in the House of Commons and become law.

And we'll open up the legislative process in other ways too.

The way bills are published online today is stifling innovation and blocking democratic engagement.

So a Conservative government will publish all Parliamentary information online in an open-source format.

This will help people easily access Bills and other legislation in order to create useful applications - like text alerts when something you're interested in is debated.

And it will mean many more expert eyes helping to explain laws as they're formed, flagging up flaws and suggestions for improvement.

Anything that acts as a barrier between politics and the public has got to be torn down - including the ridiculous ban on parliamentary proceedings being uploaded to YouTube.

We need a change of government to drive through this transparency agenda because let's face it, we're not going to get it from Gordon Brown and the Labour government...who tried to block the publication of MPs' expenses by exempting Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act.

But this spirit of glasnost needs to extend beyond Parliament and throughout our political parties too.

One of the reforms I'm most proud of is the widespread introduction of open primaries for the selection of Conservative parliamentary candidates in recent years.

I want to see that continue, with much greater use of open primaries for the selection of parliamentary candidates - and not just in the Conservative Party, but every party.

In time, this will have a transformative effect on our politics, taking power from the party elites and the old boy networks and giving it to the people.

Read the full text