Jack Straw’s right, Cabinet Government matters

I think this is a great post to at least acknowledge the other side of the argument; that cabinet deliberations should remain out of the immediate reach of FOI.

- Greg

Jack Straw's right, Cabinet Government matters

by MatGB
February 25, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Image via Wikipedia

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 Justin, Jennieand 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 thereal 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.

· About the author: Mat Bowles is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He's a house-husband and freelance marketing consultant based in Yorkshire. A member of the Liberal Democrats, he is 34 and lives with fellow conspirator Jennie Rigg. His general interest blog is currently hosted on Livejournal and his old political blog is archived at Voting TaKtiX.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Straw: Iraq war motives must remain a secret (guardian.co.uk)
• Straw's Orwellian moment (guardian.co.uk)

Straw appears at a press conference with United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. - Image via Wikipedia

Britain Refuses To Publish Cabinet Record Of Iraq War Decision

February 25, 2009
(RFE/RL) -- The British government says it has vetoed publication of minutes from ministerial discussions about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw used the justification of "exceptional circumstances" to prevent publication of the cabinet records under the Freedom of Information Act.

In doing so, Straw overthrew a ruling by the British Information Tribunal, which had ordered the government to make available the records in the public interest.

Some lawmakers greeted his announcement with cries of "shame!"

Straw told the House of Commons that his decision to use the veto was motivated by his desire to avoid weakening the cabinet style of government, which he described as an integral part of British democracy.

"In short, the damage that disclosure of the minutes in this instance would do would far outweigh any corresponding public interest in their disclosure," Straw said.

He said that a key feature of the cabinet style of government is that it provides a space for thought and debate in private, and that advantage of candor would be lost if ministers knew their deliberations could be made public at any time.

Normally in Britain, cabinet papers are kept closed for 30 years.

FULL ARTICLE

Related articles by Zemanta

• Straw vetoes publication of cabinet Iraq war minutes (guardian.co.uk)
• Straw: Iraq war motives must remain a secret (guardian.co.uk)
• UK ordered to reveal secret Iraq papers (cnn.com)
• Cabinet minutes (bbc.co.uk)
• World Briefing | Europe: Britain: Order Issued on Cabinet's Iraq Deliberations (nytimes.com)
• Speaker Michael Martin in secrecy row (telegraph.co.uk)
• Cabinet ordered to reveal minutes on Iraq invasion (guardian.co.uk)

Details of MPs' expenses could still be exempted from FoI Act

Both Labour and the Conservatives decline to rule out a future move to keep some aspects of MPs' claims secret

• David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 22 January 2009 16.39 GMT
• Article history

Labour and the Tories left the door open today for a future move to exempt the full details of MPs expenses from the Freedom of InformationAct.

Gordon Brown waImage via Wikipedias yesterday forced to withdraw plans to keep details of individual spending secret after the Conservatives made a late decision not to back the plans. In a debate today, Harriet Harman, the leader of the house, repeatedly declined to rule out new restrictions in the future, while Alan Duncan, the shadow leader of the house, indicated that if new measures to strengthen audits of MPs' claims worked, he might be in favour of dropping the call for the release of every receipt over £25.

Harman's silence on the issue came as she confirmed that 1.2m receipts detailing MPs' expenses going back to 2004 would be published once they had been processed by House of Commons authorities, at a cost of £2m.

She told MPs: "The house authorities will comply with all the requests that they have and I think there are some 180 in the pipeline."

But individual receipts would not form part of a new regime for MPs' expenses, which Harman said would prevent abuse and assure constituents that "public money is being properly spent".

Image by Steve Punter via FlickrHer proposals, agreed by the Commons yesterday, extend the automatic reporting of MPs' expenses from 14 to 26 categories, including revealing for the first time the annual cost of rent and mortgage interest payments on MPs' second homes.

There will also be an updated version of the Green Book, which sets out rules for claiming expenses, a requirement for MPs to be subject to a "robust independent audit", and a new committee on members' allowances, which will meet in public and have an opposition majority.

She said full disclosure might continue to happen, particularly if journalists and the public continued to put in FoI requests, which would mean that all 646 MPs would have to disclose information at that level.

"We are not bound to do just the minimum of what we think the law requires.

...

FULL ARTICLE