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~12~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I certainly think there should be more openness and honesty in politics. I cannot see any justification for not routinely publishing minutes of cabinet meetings, with the obvious exception of any matters of a sensitive security-related nature.
I disagree with the premise of your question about disunited parties. Yes, I would probably prefer to vote for a united party, other things being equal, although it's not the most important determinant of whom to vote for. But so what? Publishing meetings would show a party to be disunited only if they actually were disunited. That's fair enough, surely? If they were all in agreement, the minutes would show that too.
Is the real premise behind your question that all parties are disunited, and we only think we are voting for united parties if they are good at hiding their disunity?
Personally, I feel strongly about open government, and would be more likely to vote for a party that made government open and honest, irrespective of what this might reveal about their unity or lack of it.
Complain about this comment
YES and NO is the answer to that.
I cannot speak for the public but my observation is that issues like expenses cut across party lines into honest or dishonest MPs and we then look at the Parties.
It seems that unity to conceal corruption is now wholly unacceptable.
Funny you should mention devolution as it has not brought more open government, in fact the reverse seems to be the case.
We have just had an almighty row in the Welsh Parliament over the issue of the Deputy First Minister refusing to release a secret report to the Finance Committee.
Those Assembly Members who demanded he make the report public have been branded disloyal, and while they may have had their own agenda they went against their own party and coalition, for which on balance is something they should be applauded for.
Yes I would vote for Assembly Members who try to bring more open government but no to their own party for trying to stop them.
Its not a question of unity but of honesty.
What is needed is root and branch reform not just of government but of all public spending bodies some of which are funded by Quangos. Higher education funding councils hand over millions to universities the autonomy of which is causing serious problems with collaboration so we the tax payer can get value for money.
Autonomy is also a barrier to public accountability for how they spend our money and also the claims they make for their expenses. This situation has been created by successive governments. Its like giving MPs carte blanche with an expense account, when you finally make public how they have used it, then there is going to be a scandal.
Meanwhile here is an example of what happens when it all goes wrong
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/8140494.stm
I have applied to the ICO for a copy of the report into their finances so we can find out what went wrong, who was held to account, and what has been done about it. Why with record numbers going into higher education is this university failing?
The report was commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales who has refused to hand it over for fear of job losses.
They are right of course, but what they did not mention was the loss of their own jobs for allowing this situation to happen in the first place!
If David Cameron is serious about bringing an end to serfdom and Quangos then here is a good place to start.
Having said that to make my original point, I am not a conservative but I would support any party on these issues irrespective of the fact that they have had to put their own house in order as you have to start somewhere.
Having made a good start please carry on and apply the same to all those services and institutions paid for by our taxes.
The public has shown unity on these issues the politicians should do the same.
Complain about this comment
If there is one golden rule in British politics, it's that divided parties suffer. We can see from the importance placed on unity at conferences at the major parties see total unity as an absolute necessity. I think if proper discussion, as reported in minutes, were published the headlines would be along the lines of 'Crisis and division is X party'. This is not to lay blame totally at the door of the media, but i think it's a real factor.
It's very interesting to hear about a radical change to collective responsibility, and in many ways more openness would be a great thing, but publishing more minutes is far from certain to bring it about
Complain about this comment
The last question was interesting. And I thought about it and can truely say I switch my vote between two Partys when one displeases me. NOw if they were both disunited - well I do not know, Martin.
I had a full Email box today. I know I am a miserable old poster but in the matter under discussion - contact hasn't stopped between family members in the four main countries concerned. And I suspect Martin that fact hasn't gone unnoticed by whomsoever.
And photographs of a late mother unknown to me before 2005 (at least visually) - and half siblings and other relatives are proudly perused and printed.
So while Secrets might not be quite as officially Open as I would want them to be in one matter - whilst families talk and Email - life does go on.
Complain about this comment
It is not the disucssions themselves that are important but rather the underpinnings of those discussions. As Cicero said "Cui Bono"...to benefit whom...Politicians have leanred how to speak in nebulous terms in fear that honest discussion may leak to the public. The budget is the only real policy statement and who gets the money and the priorities for spending the money are the proof of the pudding.
Complain about this comment
Even with an FOI Act can we rely on the government to tell us the truth in the replies they give?
In Wales the LibDems did an FOI request into first class flights on planes to civil servants as part of a business mission. The reply from the First Minister was.
"It had been "repugnant" to allege that civil servants had flown first class. "Civil servants do not use first class travel" said the First Minister. "I don't think I've ever used first class travel. But certainly civil servants can't. I don't think I ever have to be honest. And if I can't I'm sure they can't".
It was, in fact, "an outright lie.""
He now says
"Yesterday at the weekly press lobby briefing, I stated, on the clear and explicit advice from the relevant senior officials that no officials from IBW (International Business Wales) had flown first class.
Today I have learned that this is not the case. I apologise for having misled you and the wider public.
I need hardly say how disturbed I am by this latest information now to hand."
He has now called for an investigation
"This review will be led from outside the Assembly Government. This will be in addition to, and quite separate from, the work which is being put in place to review our civil service expenses system"
People are calling for the review to include all public services and institutions that receive our money. The problem is that most have been so deregulated to put any scandal at arms length from government that he is going to have to change the law to do it.
Unfortunately given the mess that is Welsh devolution he does not have the power to do it, and it seems that no FOI request is going to tell us why not!
Complain about this comment
No, the BBC and other media outlets are the real problem. I remember when the BBC was trawling for conservative politicians to oppose Mr Major over the Maastricht treaty and other issues relating to the eu. Politicians that before and after have been shunned by the BBC were suddenly on every news programme and were invited to appear on Question Time. This was the BBC at its worse, magnifying and caricaturing disunity to its utmost. It continues to do this to this day with the current government also the subject of similarly unfair coverage.
This activity has had the effect of distorting the way political parties behave, with the sanctity of party unity potentially getting in the way of honest debate and high quality argument. I believe the FOI act will make this even worse where it appears that a decent conversation in Cabinet will be stifled.
We simply do not know if voters like or dislike parties that allow rainbow opinions to flourish. Until we clean up the BBC it is pointless trying to blame news consumers if what they consume is bad.
Once we have straight reporting and fair coverage, then perhaps we can be in a position to make a judgement.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS