You never know. Publishing information that is funded by the taxpayer probably isn’t the end of the world. If it is, then you’re probably doing something wrong.

In my slightly geeky way, I was looking through the Communities and Local Government website, trying to find the speech made by Grant Shapps describing Local Housing Trusts. I also found a speech he made at the Housing Design Awards ceremony a couple of weeks ago, which I thought I’d read as I assumed there would be some interesting stuff about the LHTs.

I have no idea if there was anything useful in the speech, because halfway through, there’s a square bracket and “political content removed” – so I can’t read the whole thing.

Why not? Aren’t we capable of distinguishing between blatant electioneering and fact? Or are we likely to be bamboozled by the politics?

If – as they should – departments are going to publish speeches and articles, they need to accept that a) we should have the full text and b) politicians are political as well as being managers.

Local councils are leading the way in publishing data – Eric Pickles has encouraged that  all council spending over £500 be made public, and hurrah for him for his announcement that his government department will be doing the same (I’ve never understood the £25,000 lower limit for central government).  Some councils will publish everything, there are some councils which publish proper detail about what the councillors are up to, and there is one (at least, possibly more) which publishes things like energy consumption as well. This is all great stuff.

I was at a Policy Exchange event on Tuesday (more on that later) where Greg Clark outlined some thoughts on his role as Minister for Decentralisation. His three requirements were a right to information, a right to challenge and a wholesale change in the attitude of central government.

Ministers and secretaries of state should start by making sure that all of their on the record utterances are accessible to all. Politics isn’t dangerous. Civil servants shouldn’t be so timid – ministers should be able to explain what they are doing and why. Governments ARE political – that is why we vote – and it is unquestionably a good thing that we know what they are up to.

Yesterday after PMQs, I had a text from a VERY non-political friend who said she thought that David Cameron’s description of Raoul Moat as a ‘callous murderer’ was outrageous and went far too far for a Prime Minister.

Today, the Facebook page which caused so much of more of the outrage has been taken down – not by Facebook but by the creator of it.

I was in Starbucks today and saw a woman – I would have said pretty well-off, she was buying sandwiches and coffee and lollies for her children – put a lolly in her handbag, pass one to each of her children and say to the barista that ‘Oh I have two lollies as well.’ Well no she didn’t, she had taken three. The person in front of me in the queue pointed out that she had also taken one and put it away, and the woman laughed off how ditzy she had been.

How many of us would have thought, it’s only 40p, Starbucks make plenty of money, they factor that in? But that’s not the point. The point is that it is not acceptable to steal, and part of how shoplifters can be stopped is if those who see them step in.

It is important that people speak up when they feel something is wrong. It is also important that people feel able to speak up when they feel something is wrong.

I think my friend was wrong when she said the Prime Minister shouldn’t have got  involved in the saga of this Facebook page. I think it’s absolutely right that our politicians lead from the front, do the right thing, and encourage the rest of us as well.

There are plenty of things politicians get wrong but on this, David Cameron is  right: societal pressure – from all sorts of different directions – is what will change society. Simply passing more laws isn’t the answer, and always expecting someone else to do it isn’t either. We all have to be prepared to think about what kind of society we want to live in, and be prepared on top of that to be part of making it happen.

I have a confession to make. I don’t really have any great interest in what voting system we use to elect our MPs. Shocking, isn’t it. I generally manage to have an opinion on most things, but this…

I know that I ought to have great concern for the various systems – for AV, AV plus, d’Hondt, STV, Condorcet, first past the post or random pulling out of a hat like for jury service… but I don’t.  Conservatively though, I’d suggest that  just having the winner as the person who comes first might be most reflective of how most things in life operate? However, I’m open to persuasion one way or another (so – supporters of all types of voting, feel free to send us an article arguing your case!)

What I do have a great interest in and a deep concern for, is, are we actually trying to fix the real problem with changes to the actual voting system, or should we be looking in greater detail at the even less interesting but perhaps more important systems we use to select and whip our MPs?

For example, I absolutely support recall elections. I’m disappointed that the coalition has decided that a recall can only be proposed from the centre – where’s the devolution in that?

I also support open primaries – proper ones – but I’d argue that they should be self-financing and in every constituency, every electoral cycle – so every MP, no matter how safe the seat, has to come back and justify to their voters what they’re up to in the House of Commons.

Similarly (and yes, I know this is a difficult one…) I think there needs to be greater freedom for MPs to say what they actually believe, and fewer whipped votes. There’s a balance to be struck in achieving the agenda of the government of the day, but I can’t see how allowing MPs the freedom to be accountable to their constituents for the manifesto on which they were individually elected can be a bad thing.

Equalising the number of voters per constituency seems an absolute no-brainer, should happen every election, shouldn’t take ten years to implement and should just be got on with. Independent assessment, stop faffing around with street by street appeals – if you’re not happy with being in an area with an MP from X party then get out and persuade your co-constituents to vote for someone else.

Closed lists and related mechanisms are undemocratic – if you’re going to maintain a representative democracy, I want every person elected by whatever means to have a direct link to the people they represent and be fully accountable to them. Simply moving up the list because it’s Buggins’ Turn is not accountable.

More widely, though, I also think that there needs to be a fundamental appraisal of what role we want our MPs to play. Do we want to have 600 (or whatever) glorified councillors, contacting trading standards on our behalf, or do we want people whose intervention really means something, and who hold the government to account?

Basically, we need to remember the experience of reforming the House of Lords. While entirely undemocratic, it did actually function pretty well – there was a huge amount of expertise in the most unlikely areas, and because people weren’t dependant on the party machine, the peers did a relatively good job of ensuring sensible legislation. The mish mash we have at the moment is a nonsense and needs further reform.  We need to remember that softly softly compromise and fudge isn’t always the answer – sometimes we need big bang reforms.

Having spoken to a few MPs since Nick Clegg made his announcement last week (oh and incidentally, I saw him just beforehand, walking along the Embankment practising, which I suppose I really ought to have sent to eyespymp), I suspect that there will be some hefty efforts to change the bill during its passage. Somehow, he seems to have offended everyone in some way – some because they want ‘real’ proportionality, some because they find the very concept of anything but first past the post offensive, and some because… well, because it came from the coalition.

So I’d ask those MPs who are going to take a close interest in this, to ask themselves the real question – what are we trying to fix here? And is this the right way to do it?

I can’t believe I’m about to do this. I SWORE I wouldn’t write any more about bins… but it turns out I still need to.

One of the main headlines on Today this morning was that bin taxes were going to be abolished by the new government. Then on WATO, Eric Pickles described beautifully how Conservatives want to help people not hinder them.

That is all very well. But do you know what?

IT IS UP TO COUNCILS TO GET RID OF OUR RUBBISH.

IT IS THEREFORE ALSO UP TO COUNCILS HOW OFTEN, BY WHOM, HOW, AND IN WHAT WAY THE BINS ARE EMPTIED.

To be less shouty about it, I don’t think the best way to encourage people to produce less waste and to recycle more is to charge them more. But I do think it’s a local decision. And, building on that, if a council decides that’s what it wants to do then it is accountable at the ballot box if local residents decide that they want something different.

The only way that the localist agenda is going to work is if central government really means it, and doesn’t get sidetracked by Daily Mail-esque campaigns for or against certain things.

The way it will work is if central government means what it says and lets local people decide.

So we’ve already – only two weeks in – had our first ministerial resignation. David Laws’ swift resignation was in stark and welcome contrast to the last 13 years of ‘I followed the rules, I have nothing to apologise for and I hold you in contempt anyway’.

A few thoughts before I come to my main point: the Telegraph’s prurient and holier than thou statement that it did not wish to out Mr Laws, merely to highlight his expenses, is ridiculous. What was the problem with renting a bedroom in a flat from someone unless there was also some kind of personal relationship?

Secondly, I do not and never have cared who MPs sleep with. It does not matter. I want them to have fulfilling lives – partly because they will work better if they are happy. It is absolutely none of our business if they are straight, gay or nothing. But it is hugely sad that even today, someone feels they cannot tell the truth about who they are – and the way the media behaves over  stories like this makes it even less likely that other MPs, public figures and – yes – just normal citizens will feel able to live the kind of life they want to.

Thirdly, David Laws was proving to be an excellent Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

However.

I think he has done the right thing in resigning. I think he had to. There do, on the face of it, seem to be some questions to be answered over his claims (whether or not he was claiming less than he was ‘entitled’ to is immaterial).

But in all desperate situations, there are opportunities. I wonder if this might be the time to test the recall option? While the option to resign and cause a by-election does currently exist, we should also ensure that the recall bill which will go through the Commons includes a mechanism for either an MP or (with safeguards) a party leader to force a by-election.

So go on, David Laws. Call a by-election.

If is re-elected by his constituents (to whom he is ultimately accountable) then by all means we should get him back into the government just as fast as we can.