matgb | Parliamentary Government matters. Jack Straw's right.

Jack Straw has decided not to appeal a decision and instead the Cabinet has voted, using the power allowed it by law the law, to prevent the release of documents, for the first time since the FOI Act was passed. Y'know what? I disagree with Jennie and most Lib Dems on this. He's right to do so. We can, and should, be attacking this, but not because Cabinet minutes aren't going to be released. Cabinet minutes should not be released, it's one of the basic principles of our Parliamentary democracy. Here's how it's supposed to work:

The House of Commons is elected as a representative cross section of British interests and opinions
A Cabinet is formed representing the views of enough members of the House to command a majority

Appointments are made based on support within the house and talent

The Cabinet discusses all major aspects of policy and agrees major decisions

The Cabinet is bound by Collective Responsibility and do not disagree in public
Ministers that cannot agree to a decision at all should resign
If the Cabinet no longer commands the support of the House, then the government should fall

In order for this system of government to work correctly, ministers have to be able to have free, open and frank discussions within Cabinet. If after discussion is over they come to a decision that a minister personally dislikes, the minister chooses whether this is a resigning issue or not. Robin Cook chose to resign before the Iraq War started. Clare Short was given assurances by the PM and had those assurances broken, so resigned after the war. That's the way it's supposed to work. That the Government didn't fall is not the fault of the Cabinet/Parliamentary system of government.

The problem lies not with the way this individual decision was made. The problem lies with the corrupted system that our Parliamentary democracy has become. This is the way it actually works:

The House of Commons is elected using a gerrymandered system created in 1947 that encourages:

an unrepresentative House with a two-party duopoly
A predominance of white middle class men in suits
Safe seats allocated by party fiat in which the rebellious are penalised
Party loyalty over individual thinking

A Cabinet is formed by the party leader, made up mostly of his/her friends or political allies

Appointments are made based on presentational ability and sucking up

The Prime Minister makes most major decisions and reveals them to Cabinet

Groupthink is both likely and encouraged
Discussion and debate is discouraged
Ministers who disagree with the PM are aware that challenging is a threat to their career
Super majorities from one party mean the Majority is rarely threatened

If a precedent is set for Cabinet minutes to be revealed during a period in office, then full and frank discussion within Cabinet is threatened. That it currently doesn't happen enough is part of the problem. If we are to retain the good aspects of the British system of Goverment, we need to get rid of the corruption and the parts that aren't working. Not attack the chances of the bits that sometimes do from happening.

British politics has allowed, over the last 60 years, to become increasingly corrupt and partisan. This is a fault of the electoral system, and specifically the introduction of uniform single member constituencies and the abolition of alternative voting methods made by the Representation of the Peoples Act 1948. We need to remake and revitalise the Parliamentary system of government. For that to happen, we also need to examine how and why the Cabinet system works.

If it's decided that the Cabinet should have disagreements in public, that Collective Responsibility can be abolished, etc, then so be it. I can see arguments favouring that, especially in the new information age.

But to call for the abolishing of a fundamental feature of the British system, that has been working effectively for over 300 years, over a single, specific issue in which an abominable decision was made, is to throw out the baby with the rather murky bathwater.

Parliament voted for the Iraq war. The nation almost certainly opposed it. That is the real problem. In defending the principles of our democracy, for once in his life, Jack Straw is right.

And if you think I liked typing that last sentence you really don't know me.

Threaded | Flat

The rule of law matters. He could have gone through the appeals procedure which was set up for this. He's wrong.

That's a really good analysis of a really shitty situation.

I agree with this. The cabinet minutes wouldn't have revealed anything interesting, for the reasons you describe. The evidence is that Blair didn't even need to buy any of them off, except for Short. The reason the government doesn't want them leaked is not because they contain anything explosive, but because they will reveal how supine and mediocre the Labour front bench was and is.

The Campbell Diaries, even in their censored form, are a useful guide to the period. He rarely mentions cabinet members outside of the Blair coterie, except in order to express irritation with them.

You make some very good points in a succinct and logical way.

Aye.

I'd love to read what they discussed, but I can't really criticise him, having done essentially the same thing myself, albeit on a rather less national issue – I took Guild Council to closed council when we had 30 students in about the closure of the Italian and Music departments.

They'd got their points over, some had begun to heckle somewhat, and some of the council members were looking somewhat intimidated. Thus I decided that closed council was neccessary, so that we could all be utterly blunt about the matter, and so that people could vote how they thought they should, not as a result of feeling they'd have trouble if they didn't vote a particular way.

I agree, and it's a very well-written post.

But the extraordinary importance of this specific case overrides the need for confidentiality this once, for me. And for the Tribunal apparently, who said they had considered those issues.

It wouldn't be opening up a precedent to do this often, it is a one-off judgement. It's not calling for the abolition of this feature: it wants pertinent information in what could become a war crimes investigation. Parliament serves the people. If they'd done their duty, they'd have nothing to fear etc etc.

Parliament voted for the Iraq war. The nation almost certainly opposed it. That is the real problem.

And that is why this perversion of democracy should be made transparent, to maintain the principles of 'democracy' he's claiming to defend. The system failed (because it is corrupt and not fit for purpose). This will help restore faith in it, and also improve it.

I'm not convinced that the public should be kept ignorant and ministers remain unnaccountable just because one part of the current process isn't utterly broken. They serve us. This unusual move has been deemed to be in the public interest, and to outweigh the traditional confidentiality.

You are right Matt. Possibly the only commentary on this issue I have read that I agree with, having some limited understanding of what happens in "policy in development" meetings.

In broad terms this sucks on a number of levels, but in parliamentary procedure terms, and in the terms of the letter of the law regarding FOI, Jack Straw is *shudder* right.

There's nothing at all wrong with anything you say, but I'm not convinced it makes any difference. Basically your argument is, if I may paraphrase, that cabinet discussions are a part of how the current system works, even if it doesn't work very well, and we mustn't endanger it still further.

But the Inf Tribunal is also supposed to be a part of how the current system works, legally if not constitutionally. They made it very clear that this was an exceptional case. They have the power to order the release of minutes in exceptional circumstances and they did it. It doesn't set a precedent for minutes to be handed over willy-nilly, as several people (mostly defending the Tories) are suggesting.

And from the perspective of const reform, release of the minutes will probably be a good thing - if the cabinet is revealed to be a rubber-stamping body then the case for reform gets stronger.

Actually, to clarify, of course you're right on the "letter of the law" aspect - Straw used an override which he was allowed to use (or rather, which we can't prove he wasn't allowed to use). But why does that matter? Since when did we let Labour shit on us and defend their doing so because it was "legal"?

Sozza, that was I.

To cut a circuitous argument short:
If you think cabinet minutes shouldn't be released, why not put it into law? Otherwise we end up with the current situation where they're not officially exempt, but will be vetoed every time. If you're in favour of this reform, why not implement it after the other reforms that affect cabinet?
If you think the system doesn't work, why not expose that for everyone to see, before building it back up? If your secret service is going around secretly killing people rather than protecting them, you don't tell people off for revealing these killings on the basis that we should have a secret service to protect people and its activities should be secret.

But perhaps all this is a political distraction. If people see these minutes are they going to think FoI is a cure to bad cabinet government rather than just evidence for reform? Is putting energies into arguing about FoI really a distraction from more serious reform? Or would releasing these minutes be crucial evidence in motivating people to reform the system?

If you think these minutes could be an important motivator for the right kind of reform, you should support their release, if not, you should oppose it. What we really need is for someone to leak them...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

And furthermore...

no subject

no subject