Between Heather Brooke and the Telegraph, we’ve also seen MPs being the butt of the demands for disclosure – often in excruciating detail. In both cases, the left have found themselves on the back foot in these discussions, allowing our perceived shortcomings to reflect badly on the Labour government that introduced the Freedom of Information Act in the first place.

Now, it seems that – as the election draws nearer – we’re allowing David Cameron to use a half-formed notion of “transparency” as the foundations for his “Post-Bureaucratic Age”. This concept (or #PBAge as it has inevitably been tagged) borrows the fluffy clothing of behavioural economics and webby goodness. But it’s an aggressively Thatcherite programme in drag. Demands for more “transparency” are at its heart. In yesterday’s speech, Cameron makes a range of laudable proposals about increasing the capacity of well-heeled and resourced pressure groups ordinary people to participate in the legislative process. He also refers to the Tory’s plan to make the tendering of public services more transparent.

The left should be looking to take this one step further:

• What about opening up the delivery of those contracts? Let’s see the private contractors exposed to every bit as much scrutiny as the public sector are, and then we can make a call on the question of whether private provision is actually more efficient or effective.

• Let’s see people who are suspected of tax-dodging being subjected to the same level of scrutiny as the considerably-cheaper-on-the-public-purse benefit cheats.

• And what about more transparency in the way that the more socially useless parts of the finance sector increase short-termism by the way that they speculate? What about more transparency for fund-managers? In this post by Tom Powdrill about the Kraft/Cadbury takeover, we see opaque fund-managers speculating against jobs to create a less valuable company. And what about exposing the estimated $390 million in fees on that bad Cadbury deal?

• When do politicians meet commercial pressure groups, and where do they get the research that they introduce into debates? Surely shareholders should know every penny that is spent on lobbying – what is being advocated and who is doing the advocacy? When do wealthy organisations provide cheap interns and secretarial services for MPs and public committees and what do they get back?

• When do newspapers carry stories that are favourable to their proprietors commercial interests? Surely journalists should source assertions that they make so we can see who is influencing public debate? Good journalism should be subject to a great deal more fact-checking than it is currently, and Left Foot Forward’s very own Andrew Regan has a good tool that could be adapted to this purpose.

So far, all of the demands for transparency have been placed upon either democratic institutions or public service broadcasters. That tells you everything you need to know about who is making the running in this debate so far.

Now, maybe it’s time they had a taste of their own dogfood?

Last week it was reported that Ms Sturgeon provided a character reference for one of her Glasgow Govan constituents, Abdul Rauf, who had been convicted of fraudulently claiming £80,000 in benefits. This was on top of being imprisoned in 1996 for stealing almost £60,000 in pension and benefit payments when he ran a Post Office in Edinburgh.

The Deputy First Minister’s letter to the Sheriff who had convicted Rauf said:

“Mr Rauf has accepted his wrong doing and has experienced the consequences of it through the effect on his health, the distress caused to his family and the impact on his standing in his community.

“He and his wife are anxious that a custodial sentence may be imposed by the court and of the effect this will have on Mr Rauf’s health and the impact on family life.

“I would appeal to the court to take the points raised here into account and consider alternatives to a custodial sentence.”

Opposition reaction to the case was hostile. In calling for her resignation, Scottish Labour Leader Iain Gray accused Ms Sturgeon of an “appalling lack of judgement”. And David Cameron has made clear his view that she had “serious questions to answer”.

During heated exchanges in First Minister’s Questions (FMQs) last week, First Minister, Alex Salmond seemed to pray in aid Paragraph 8.1.1 of the MSPs code of conduct, which states:

“Every constituent is represented by one constituency MSP and seven regional MSPs.

“It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached although it is recognised that there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent’s case in certain circumstances, for example, where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action, or if that case seeks action which would represent a conflict of interest with existing casework or is contrary to the member’s political beliefs.

“If so, the member would ordinarily be expected to inform the constituent that the member is not taking up the case.”

During FMQs, Salmond said:

“The code of conduct says, in paragraph 8.1.1 — let us quote it exactly —that it is expected that each member will take on a case when approached by a constituent. It goes on to specify the circumstances in which a member would not take on a case.

“The circumstances are that a constituent’s request could conflict with other interests or perhaps with “existing casework” — a conflict of interest in constituencies.”

Salmond’s case, however, misses the point. As the relevant section of the MSP code of conduct makes clear, it cites examples of what might constitute grounds for not accepting case work from a constituent.

The first minister’s defence however spins the code, by suggesting that the examples cited in the code are an exhaustive list of reasons not to take on casework. In essence, Salmond’s defence of Ms Sturgeon that she was somehow duty bound to take on the case hides the fact that his Deputy’s involvement in the Mr Rauf’s case was based on a judgement she made, rather than some sort of binding duty to do so.

Furthermore, in Scotland’s Ministerial Code of Conduct, paragraph 7.7 clearly states:

“On occasions, Ministers are asked to provide personal or job references for constituents. Ministers can of course do this provided they make clear that they are doing so as a constituency MSP and not a Minister.

“Particular care must be taken, however, to avoid any conflicts of interests and in some cases it may not be appropriate for a Minister to provide a reference, even as an MSP.”

The entire SNP case has been based on the fact that Ms Sturgeon was acting in her capacity as a constituency MSP. As the Ministerial Code makes clear, to provide references of the kind Sturgeon wrote for Mr Rauf, it would be inappropriate to do so as a minister, which in this case, could raise serious questions over a government seeking to influence an independent judiciary.

However, speaking at his court case, Rauf’s lawyer, Donald Findley QC presented Ms Sturgeon’s letter to the Sheriff by saying

“I have a letter of support from the deputy first minister of Scotland.”

It is significant that the letter was presented as one from the deputy first minister, rather than from the constituency MSP. Again, this raises questions over whether Ms Sturgeon was somehow using her position in Government to influence the sentence of a convicted fraudster

 It would seem appropriate for Scotland’s most senior civil servant, its permanent secretary, Sir John Elvidge to investigate to ensure that Ms Sturgeon in no way used her position as a Government minister in dealing with this case.

What is more, SNP MP, John Mason appeared to distance himself from his party’s deputy leader, concluding, “We all make mistakes and we just can’t have a society where every time somebody makes a mistake, their head gets chopped off.”

Next week Ms Sturgeon will be forced to make a statement on the issue to MSPs at Holyrood which will be awaited with bated breath. If she is unable to provide a convincing response to the many serious questions that have been raised, her position will again be in considerable doubt.

What is more, with the general election now a matter of months away, the SNP will have to consider whether Ms Sturgeon remains an asset to her party as its deputy leader, not least after her involvement in the so called “lunchgate” saga.

A press release quoting Philip Hammond this evening titled ‘Labour’s legacy of debt,’ details that:

Official Insolvency Service figures show that under Labour the number of people who have gone bust is double the rest of recorded history…

Before the third quarter of 1997, there were 400,000 personal insolvencies in England and Wales.

But Conservative Party research shows that, under Labour, 800,000 people went bust – double the rest of recorded history. The IMF recently warned that the high level of personal debt in Britain could hold back an economic recovery.

But leading personal insolvency expert, Pat Boyden of PriceWaterhouse Coopers, told Left Foot Forward:

“There have been changes in legislation, changes in attitude, and changes in lending patterns so it’s a bit too naïve to say it’s all down to the government…

“Without look at all the factors, it’s an unfair comparison.”

The 1986 Insolvency Act, introduced by the Conservative party, created Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs) a formal alternative for individuals wishing to avoid bankruptcy. This has resulted in 300,000 to 400,000 additional insolvencies, according to Boyden.

A minor change in 2000 dispensed with court applications and made it easier for IVAs to be carried out while the 2002 Enterprise Act, which took legal effect in 2004, pushed up the number of insolvencies by reducing the length of time that someone could be discharged from bankruptcy from three years to one.

As Boyden asks:

“What do we want as a modern democracy? Do we want people to be hung up on debt for a number of years or do we want people to get on with their lives? … It’s better than it was in the 17^th century when they use to hang them for debt.”

Although there should be no excuses for the increases in personal indebtedness in recent years, the comparison by Hammond appears to be spurious at best.

Hat tip: Alex Hilton

However, concerns have now been raised by Scotland’s Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, that the Scottish Government is routinely and systematically rejecting Freedom of Information bids.

The concerns date back to a ruling at the Court of Session last year in the case of Glasgow City Council v The Scottish Information Commissioner.

In the case, the judges ruled against a firm of solicitors who wanted to obtain copies of statutory notices held by Glasgow City Council. STV says of the ruling:

“They rejected the request stating the solicitors had asked for copies of the specific documents, rather than simply the information contained within the documents.”

The case has led to fears that the Scottish Government are interpreting the ruling in such a way that they will regularly refuse Freedom of Information requests that ask for Information contained within documents on the basis that a request has been made for information and not a document.

Expressing his concerns, Mr Dunion said:

“The Scottish Government’s interpretation of a recent court decision threatens to undermine the right-to- know regime. Last year, in the circumstances of a particular case, the court determined that freedom of information gives a right to “information”, not to specific “documents”.

“Scottish Government officials are writing to requesters refusing to respond to requests where there is a reference to documents. MSPs, journalists and voluntary workers are being told to try to rephrase their request. Some have tried and have still been refused. In exasperation, they are seeking my view.

“I find this to be a disturbing and unexpected turn of events.”

The commissioner then told BBC Radio Scotland that the SNP Government’s actions were “wrong” and “quite inexplicable”. As a result, the commissioner has issued guidance to the public sector which makes clear that:

“Authorities should not automatically refuse requests for copies of documents, as long as it is reasonably clear from the request that it is the information recorded in the document that the applicant wants.”

Reacting to the publication of the Guidance, a spokesperson for the Scottish Government said:

“The Scottish Government is committed to Freedom of Information, and it’s underpinning principles of openness and transparent Government.”

The Tories attempted to retaliate this afternoon with Craig Elder, Online Communities Editor, tweeting at 12.46:

“How we’re using social media and Google ads to highlight Labour’s backfiring attack on spending cuts: http://twitpic.com/10uotg #LabourChaos”

But the chaos appears to be in the Conservative camp. When you click on the “Labour chaos on cuts” Google ad shown in the pic above you link to … a blank page.

The lack of substance in the Tory spending cut ad is clearly an allegory for their own spending cut plans.

UPDATE 16.14

Liberal Conspiracy have also noticed this cock up. Sunny Hundal asks, “Who’s going to pay for the hundreds, possibly thousands of pounds wasted?”

UPDATE 16.37

Big sigh of relief in CCHQ as the google ad has now been restored. As tweeted by ConwayW:

“@johnprescott @leftfootfwd The Tories flash google ad working now but enjoyable while it lasted”

The Guardian editorial this morning argued that, “Harriet Harman offered a bizarre excuse for the sidelining of Tony Wright’s worthwhile plans for improving Commons procedure.” But a source close to Harman insisted that consensus had to be reached and told Left Foot Forward, “this is a matter for the House. We have to give Parliament its say.” Harriet Harman said in the Commons yesterday that, “The Government’s preference for reaching decisions on these reforms is that we proceed on the basis of consensus.”

Sunder Katwala, General Secretary of the Fabian Society told Left Foot Forward:

“The election of Select Committee chairs by the House is both substantively and symbolically essential to the idea of a stronger Parliament better able to hold the Executive to account.

“The idea of lack of consensus (while no doubt it may have some partial foundation) risks being a bit convenient for the Whips office in particular”

Gavin Hayes, General Secretary of Compass said:

“The public don’t just demand the Prime Minister or Government put out nice rheotric on cleaning up Westminster, they want concrete action. The Government should be doing all that it can to get this passed before the end of this session. They should take a much tougher line and impose a 3-line whip – as must the Tories and Lib Dems.

“That said, the whole Westminster way of doing politics is bankrupt and the real reform we need is electoral reform. It is absolutely critical that Gordon Brown keeps his commitment on electoral reform.”

Nick Brown has been accused recently of derailing electoral reform.

In October, the Council published its plans to save £33 million over the next year, with measures that included increasing charges for home care; cutting or increasing the cost of transport for older people; closing day centres; and increasing the costs of meal on wheels.

Last week however, Left Foot Forward reported that the County Council had found between £1.4 and £2 million, having underestimated the revenue increases they would get from council tax receipts. The figure was almost exactly that reported just weeks earlier by Unison East Midlands, which set out how the council could find £24 million to plug the gap without affecting services for the more vulnerable members of the community.

Since then, the council seems to have found an additional £4.6 million just weeks before a crucial budget vote. The reversals proposed include:

• maintaining spending on community transport rather than cutting by £150,000 from a total budget of £250,000 as originally proposed;

• reducing the non-school activities budget by 25 per cent rather than the original 50 per cent planned for Dukeries Community College and the Sutton Centre College;

• not withdrawing £560,000 from the budget to deliver dry recyclable materials to the Council’s material’s recovery facility;

• cutting the Welfare Rights Service budget from £150,000 rather than £250,00;

• increasing the cost of meals on wheels from £2.35 to £3 rather than the £3.95 as originally planned; and

• finding extra money for the gritting budget rather than reducing it by £50,000.

Furthermore, the Mel Shepherd, Cabinet Member for Adults, Social Care and Health has said that it is unlikely the sale of the council’s 13 residential care homes will now take place over the next financial year. Following the announcements, the Tory leader, Cllr Cutts, said:

“We have listened to people. This is a genuine consultation. I have been interested to what people have had to say.

“We remain committed to ensuring that the county council is financially sustainable.”

Unison East Midlands have concluded:

“We are delighted that the council have started to listen to what we are saying. The reversal of £4.6m of the cuts is to be welcomed. But as we have demonstrated the council have the scope to reverse a further £19m of cuts to protect vital services for the most vulnerable. The people of Nottinghamshire are counting on them to do the right thing.”

“This has only been possible by vigorous campaigning making use of excellent local government finance advice from head office, coordination the media and external campaign by the regional office and relentless workplace activity by the branch.

“A formal response from UNISON to the consultation will be submitted by Friday 22 January and we hope that the council will listen to what we have to say as we believe they can prevent nearly all of the propose service cuts.”

It will be hoped that the announcements made by the councils are not a cynical attempt to butter up the electorate ahead of the general election, with the original cuts planned likely to be reinstated after the election. For the time being however, Kay Cutts is misinterpreting Thatcher: “you turn if you want to, the lady is for turning.”

Earlier this month, Left Foot Forward reported that Unison East Midlands had identified how the council could raise £24 million to plug the deficit, substantially reducing the impact of the service cuts being proposed.

Among the points made by the Union were that the council were predicting a zero increase in its council tax base. However, whilst housing growth had slowed but not stopped, Unison suggested that the tax base would grow by 0.5 per cent, equal to £1.5 million.

Now, a report in the Nottingham Evening Post has indicated that the council now agrees with this assessment. Speaking to the Post, the council’s Director for Finance and Trading said:

“When the budget proposals for 2010/11 were drafted there were a number of uncertainties around next year’s financial position, including council tax collection levels.

“At the time we had to assume that there will be no growth in tax base in Notts for 2010/11, based on indications of the low number of new homes built in the county in 2009.

“Each year district councils are required to let the county council know of their estimated tax base by the end of January, which gives us a more precise picture.

“Early indications suggest that there could be tax base increases of between 0.5% and 0.75 %, which amounts to an extra £1.4m to £2m for the county council. Once we have more precise figures we can decide how this will affect our final budget plans.”

The news raises questions over the council’s decision to base its entire budget on a worst case scenario. Concurring with this view, local MP for Broxtowe, Labour’s Nick Palmer, said:

“I think we should not only have a worst-case scenario in the budget papers. We should have a middle-case scenario. Otherwise you end up cutting things you don’t need to cut.”

Reacting to the development, Unison East Midlands have said:

“Now we’ve shown them that they will have up to £2m extra income it remains to be seen if they will use the money to protect vital services for the vulnerable. You can be sure we will be pressing them to do the right thing.”

The news came after MPs from across the county met with Conservative council leader, Kay Cutts, to discuss the budget.
After the meeting, Cllr Cutts was quoted as saying:

“I am very glad so many of Nottinghamshire’s MPs accepted my invitation to today’s meeting with me and my Cabinet members. As we work to meet the financial challenges that the council faces it is vital that we talk with politicians of all parties.“

However, Labour MP and Schools Minister, Vernon Coaker, made his concerns clear, concluding:

“What I am worried about is the services that Notts people rely on. The cuts in the budget are changes which affect the most vulnerable people in our areas.

“What was discussed was, ‘if you are going to increase charges, don’t do it to the most vulnerable people’.”

Similarly, Labour MP for Sherwood, Paddy Tipping, raised Conservative policy to freeze council tax:

“If they were not so dogmatic about not putting up council tax, it would give them an extra £9m to spend.”

Not all MPs at the meeting were so critical, however. Local Conservative MP and Shadow Business Secretary Ken Clarke defended his Conservative colleagues on the council:

“Obviously they have to make quite serious cuts because of the mess public finances have got into. They are having to put more money onto key areas of child protection and learning disabilities.”

The full council is due to vote on the budget on Feburary 25th.

The Evening Standard report today that the London mayor has written to the Treasury outlining his concerns. Johnson writes:

“I have already had numerous conversations with both UK and foreign banks who are quite seriously reconsidering their earlier decisions to locate, grow or remain in London…

“These short-sighted proposals could potentially and permanently damage the competitiveness of London as a financial centre by driving away the city’s unique cluster of highly skilled people, ideas and expertise.

But Simon Johnson, a British economist at Massachusets Institute of Technology – recently awarded the title of top public intellectual on the financial crisis by Prospect magazine – dismisses arguments like that used by Johnson on his Baseline Scenario blog:

“It’s unlikely that many good people will leave, but if they do move to smaller institutions that are not Too Big To Fail, that’s good for the rest of us.”

Simon Johnson is urging the US to adopt a “supertax on big bank bonuses” but is critical of the UK approach:

The supertax structure being implemented in the UK is definitely not the right model – these “taxes on bonuses” are being paid by the banks (i.e., their shareholders – meaning you, again) and not by the people receiving the bonuses.

Essentially, we need a steeply progressive windfall income tax – tied to the receipt of a particular form of income.  This is tricky to design right – but a lot of good lawyers can get cranking.

Boris Johnson has previously defied David Cameron on 50p tax.