Four Years of MPs’ Expenses: Millions of £s.
Over One Million Documents Digitized: 365 Days of Scanning.
Insight Into Public Officials’ Expenses: …Priceless?

Late last week, U.K. Parliament publicly released the official digital records of its 646 MPs’ allowance claims dating from 2004 – 2008.  As you can imagine, the release of such data has been a hot topic of discussion, with many championing the move towards what PM Gordon Brown calls maximum transparency, while others claim it is a step too far, citing security and privacy concerns.

The move seems a natural progression following news daily The Telegraph‘s recent release of an unedited version of the same claims (the official version obscures many details for security reasons). While this increased openness seems an important step towards transparency in Government, I can’t help but question Parliament’s misstep, coming up short in overlooking the public’s inevitable desire to question any number of submitted claims.  The data were released without any official parallel platform over which to voice any questions/concerns about specific claims.  Anyone who has seen the official data is quick to realize that what they are often looking at is a series of numbers with their itemized explanations blackened out (in the interest of security), rather than a fully open display of expenditures.

To help fill the void of an official feedback channel, a number of news outlets have been only too happy to step in, providing real-time updates of emerging citizen concerns and even a “great MP expense hunt” hosted by The Guardian.

I am particularly fond of The Guardian’s platform, which provides a simple interface that makes it easy to review the scanned documents, with questions like these:

At time of post publication, The Guardian‘s crowdsourcing experiment had presented 457,153 pages of documents, of which 293,191 were unreviewed.

As a result of the U.K. MPs’ allowance inquiry, there have been many political resignations, and The Telegraph has posted a slideshow of what it’s calling The Political Casualties – “those who have stepped down or been forced out by the scandal”.

Encouraged by its UK counterpart, local Toronto paper, The Toronto Star, attempted to follow the queue of The Guardian and asked Canadian MPs to submit their own expenses for review, with the report coming out this past weekend.   Not many MPs took up the request, with only four of the 37 contacted initially agreeing to share their claims.

With some very distinct opinions emerging in the comments on both the U.K. and Toronto media outlets’ features on this push for greater MP transparency, I am curious to hear the opinions of our Wikinomics readers.

With respect to U.K. Parliament’s release of its 2004 – 2008 data:

Do you think it is a commendable step to be applauded?
i.e. At least they went that far – some transparency is better than obscurity…

Do you think that data released without a feedback mechanism is a poor attempt at transparency?
i.e. Nice try, but better luck next time…

With respect to the release of MPs’ claim data as an ongoing practice:

Do you side with the increased transparency champions?
i.e. If public money is being spent, I need to be able to see where it is going.

Do you believe that in the countries in question’s political systems, i.e. Canada and the U.K., there are enough checks and balances that the expenses/allowances filed are just fine?
i.e. I’m sure everything’s on the up and up – they’re elected officials for a reason.

Do you believe that it’s nobody’s business what MPs spend?
i.e. This is private information we are talking about here; why should anyone be able to see what MP “X” does in their day-to-day?

Do you believe that releasing such data will only feed “a scandal-obsessed media”, as one former cabinet member states in The Star? (The Star’s political series tagline, by the way, is Sham-Ocracy)
i.e. It’s a no-win situation – people will always find something to complain about.

Do you not care one way or another?
i.e. Don’t bore me with such details; I’ve already got a job and it’s not as an auditor, thanks.