Are you the problem?
If you're interested in how UK ministers discussed devolution when it was being introduced, you might be finding out more about it. But if you want to know what cabinet colleagues said to Margaret Thatcher and John Major at their final cabinet meetings, you're going to be disappointed.
That's the likely consequence of two decisions published last week by the information commissioner's office. In one he ruled that it was in the public interest to reveal the minutes of a cabinet committee which discussed devolution policy in 1997, when the newly elected Labour government was considering how to implement its manifesto pledges on the subject.
In the other he decided that it was in the public interest to keep secret the records of the final cabinet meetings held while Lady Thatcher and Mr Major were prime minister.
This is in keeping with the overall approach of the ICO, which is that like any other freedom of information request, an application for cabinet papers is to be considered on the merits of each individual case - so that it will sometimes demand disclosure and sometimes back the case for secrecy.
Someone who has seen the final Thatcher and Major minutes has told me they are boring and predictable. That argument can cut both ways. It diminishes the value in releasing them, but it also may reduce the harm it could cause.
The government however seems determined to resist all FOI requests for cabinet papers as undermining of the principle of collective responsibility. It is planning to make them all absolutely exempt from freedom of information for 20 years.
In this context it's worth recalling some very striking remarks by the former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer last month, who as a cabinet minister until 2007 was in charge of FOI policy. I felt that these remarks did not receive the attention they deserved.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Speaking on the Today programme, he called for radical changes in the notion of collective responsibility. He argued not only for more openness for "underlying papers relating to policy" but also for "more open discussion about how we get to particular policy conclusions". He wants internal government discussion and disagreement to be more open until policy is finalised.
As he says, this would be a very major change in how we do politics. It's not clear how it would work in practice, but it seemed to me strange that these provocative and challenging thoughts from someone with his background did not prompt more debate. Maybe we were all trapped in focusing on the issue of MPs' expenses.
It also occurred to me that perhaps the group of people who are the biggest obstacle to such a change are actually the voters themselves. Since the electorate doesn't seem to like voting for clearly disunited parties, it doesn't give politicians much of an incentive to be open and honest about internal party disagreement.
Here's a question for you to mull over. If you are one of those people who want more openness and honesty in politics, are you happy to vote for an obviously disunited party, or are you part of the problem?
A ~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~57~RS~)