Too much information

adrian drummond

I disagree. I think the thrust of your argument is valid. However, on the few occassions that the country goes to war, it's imperative that ministers understand the ramifications of their decision and know the legal and moral basis on which it is based. Knowing that there may possibly be later scrutiny of their decision making process will ensure that they do not play fast and loose with 'dodgy dossiers' etc.

mark

I think this is a naive view. Do you really think that those secret off the record conversations are not taking place today? The minutes of the decisions taken are important and when it comes to taking the country to war should be a matter of public record.

Austin Barry

Well, you're assuming that minutes accurately reflect what's said at a meeting. They don't. The more interesting parts of any meeting are usually prefaced by the chairman stating in arch and pseudo-humourous tones " This is not for the minutes..". Draft minutes are then reviewed and massaged by the principal participants. What you end up with is anodyne.

Mike

And I suppose we are supposed to believe that there was cabinet government when Blair and Mandelson and Campbell were writing the policies on cigarette packets. The idea that there is robust cabinet government in Britain even now is a belly laugh. Look at how they are all challenging the behaviour of the Speaker, for example. Your pious optimism would be fine in a real, healthy democracy. It's black humour in 'Cool Britannia'(remember that?)

adrian drummond

Well said, Mike!!!

Micky Roman

Don't worry too much about somewhere to discuss issues of secrecy, they have the Bilderberg meeting once a year, and the Chatham House Rule any time they need it. They are not accountable. They even have a charity that they can rely on, ie Common Purpose. Democracy in the 'New World Order' is alive and kicking. Oh, by the way, I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

Mike Stallard

We have indeed come a long way from Sir Robert Walpole.
In fact we do have a cabinet government: it is called the European Commission!

Steve

Reminds me of when the Freedom of information act came in. I was a Whitehall serf back then. When it dawned on us that any sort of written records (including E-mail) may have to be made public, we just started using the phone again, with nothing written down unless it really really had to be, all nice and untraceable.

Chris

I'd just like to say that the post is entirely correct, and all the commenters above are paranoid, ignorant, naive, stupid or all four.

Ian C

If as I understand it, only the conclusions of discussed items are minuted then this is not a big deal. In which case why ask for the minutes as we know the conclusion that was reached. Therefore, we must assume some other purpose is behind this and we should therefore be very wary of the wider implication. But the suggestion that minutes (not decisions) are released when discussing war decisions has some merit.

Madasafish

Personally I think it's daft (and I support FOI). Why? Becasue as said above, Anything really important is never minuted and more importantly Ministers need to have no constraints on what they say in Meetings. Full stop. Personally I dount there was any real discussion. Tony made up his mind, the redhead Scot resigned and the rest agreed. Clare Short witters on .. but she has zero credibility in anything so she can safely be ignored. Anyone who believes Cabinets discuss and approve anything of importance is nuts: see Mrs Thatcher. (and the PollTax etc)