Julian Cole

Kris Kristofferson sang that freedom was "another word for nothing left to lose".

Tony Blair, who likes to pick up a guitar, has rewritten this verse so that freedom is now described as "another word for too much to lose".

Before being elected, Tony Blair was much impressed with the liberal notion of freedom of information. He described New Labour's planned reforms, intended to bring greater openness into Government, as "absolutely vital".

Three years ago in Opposition, the freedom-loving, open-all-hours Tony said Labour's Freedom of Information Bill would "signal a new relationship between government and people".

Now that he's running the country, Tony Blair smiles less fondly at such airy-headed principles. This week the long-awaited draft bill was published - to cries that New Labour had retreated from its manifesto pledge to end secrecy.

The bill does promise a degree of openness, but there has been much backsliding along the corridors of power. A now distant proposal promised the public access to a wide range of information unless such disclosure would cause "substantial harm".

This has been dropped in favour of "prejudice", which seems a small difference but will basically allow more information to remain hidden.

On top of this, the police and law enforcement bodies will be allowed to withhold any information obtained during an investigation, even if there is no risk to an investigation or prosecution.

Government policy will also be given what amounts to blanket protection, with no so-called "test of harm" to allow information to be made public if this would be in the balance of public interests. Instead, the Government will decide what is in our interests to know.

It will be possible to approach public bodies in search of hidden information, which might be made available for a fee. But after parting with your ten quid, you might find that the authority in question can insist on knowing why you want this information.

Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, points out applicants may even be told they are not allowed to make public any information they are given.

So they'll tell you but you can't tell anyone else... Many more such smart technicalities and weasel get-outs appear to be contained in the bill which, in truth, is too complicated for a column of small brain to fully comprehend.

But I'll tell you this for nothing: New Labour promised greater openness and now appears less enthusiastic about another of its core beliefs.

This is not a political turnaround so much as a sign that New Labour is so settled into government and so accustomed to state power, its innocent enthusiasm for openness has been dismissed as a youthful indiscretion, another garishly unsuitable outfit from the old ideology wardrobe.

An election leaflet drops through the door, brimful of words such as freedom, security, identity and democracy. There is also plentiful repetition of the phrase "that makes sense, doesn't it?".

Five little words that sound like a catch-phrase from one of those deeply irritating Harry Enfield characters. And to adopt the favoured mantra of an actual Enfield creation, "you don't want to do that". Vote for this vile lot, that is.

For the leaflet comes from the British National Party, which when it isn't banging on about saving sterling likes nothing better than to stir up racial hatred.

So ignore the photograph of the cuddly family, included in an attempt to make the BNP appear human, and throw the leaflet in the bin. I just did.

A voice on the radio mentions "citizens and consumers", which catches my ear.

Perhaps it's time for the coining of a new word to unite these two nouns. Might I suggest... "citizumers"?

27/05/99

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.