My view is that it is important both to help end abuse – which I it think it will *help*, but also as an icon of an open culture. As I understand it, in the US the idea that details of politicians’ expenditure is not available to the public would be simply bizarre.

For MySociety, surely the main insight is that by making basic data available and accessible it is then for the public to do what *they* want to do with the data?

>OK – it (parliament) does the drafting

I disagree. I think the drafting is done by the Executive and Parliament is becoming more rubber-stamp like all the time as the power balance shifts. Witness that it was acceptable for the Prime Minister to give his “full support” to the Speaker: surely such an endorsement should be well-nigh career ending for the Speaker of a body designed to hold the Executive to account?

>We can do mashups of MP’s disclosures because they are obliged to disclose things.

.. if they end up disclosing them.

>Lobbying companies are under no such obligation.

..yet.

>Perhaps the next time web activists are looking for someone to target – someone that we can demand full disclosure from, they may choose a tougher – and more deserving target? But here is the big question: How much of a following wind would such a campaign get from slightly demagogic mid-market tabloids?

I think that full disclosure by MPs is just one step, that has been forced on to the agenda due to the repeated and determined effort to prevent disclosure.

I’m sorry that I don’t have time to do a full response.