Reason Magazine

Site Search

Secrets and Lies and Labour

How much of a break from Tony Blair does prime minister-designate Gordon Brown represent? Here's a hint:
Gordon Brown has rejected calls to block a controversial move by [members of Parliament] to get out of freedom of information laws.

MPs pushed the plan closer to becoming law earlier in what critics called a "shameful day for Parliament".

The MPs say they want to protect private letters from constituents - but critics say the move would also allow them to keep their expenses secret.
Punchline:

Mr Brown, who takes over as Labour leader and prime minister next month, has pledged more "open" politics.

Oh, the Yes, Minister overtones! They burn!

Earlier this week Brendan O'Neill reported on how Britain learned to love Big Brother Blair.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Send this article to:

« Rationalization of the Body Snatchers | Main | "Pay-Go" Goes »

Comments to "Secrets and Lies and Labour":

Dan T. | May 18, 2007, 2:43pm | #

Come on, now. It's really not that outrageous to say that a government has legitimate reasons for keeping some things confidential or classified.

Russ R | May 18, 2007, 3:20pm | #

"Gordon Brown has rejected calls to block a controversial move by [members of Parliament] to get out of freedom of information laws."

Nice triple negative... Could the BBC write any less clearly?

Mr. Hacker | May 18, 2007, 4:10pm | #

No more expensive monitors from Pittsburgh, then?

Alberto Gonzalez | May 18, 2007, 4:20pm | #

Dan T. | May 18, 2007, 2:43pm | #
Come on, now. It's really not that outrageous to say that a government has legitimate reasons for keeping some things confidential or classified.
Thanks Dan,

Your check's in the mail.

squarooticus | May 18, 2007, 4:48pm | #

Mr. Gonzalez, I don't know why you're paying anyone to spread support for your ideas: there are plenty of useful idiots who will do it for free.

Alberto Gonzalez | May 18, 2007, 4:59pm | #

Sure, but we don't have to disclose it or anything, so why not pay them?

Alex Cox | May 19, 2007, 3:44pm | #

Oddly enough, exempt from this block is the UK's 'other' legislature, the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. There, the electorate have full access to their representatives' efforts in spending taxpayers' money - indeed, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives was forced to resign a couple of years back because his spending habits were a little too transparent.

Interestingly, Gordon Brown's Scottish Labour party just lost Scotland a couple of weeks ago to the SNP. First time in 52 years.

Sign of things to come?