h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Jack Straw today used his ministerial veto to oppose a Freedom of Information request to release the minutes of the cabinet meeting which discussed the legality of going to war in Iraq.

Well, he would wouldn't he?

Would we allow criminals to decide whether or not they should face justice? Only when they're politicians obviously.

What use is a Freedom of Information Act when politicians exempt themselves from it at will?

Surely public servants discussing issues of public interest in a public building on the public's time is a prime example of something the FOI Act was designed to cover?

Transparent government it certainly is. We can all see they're full of sh..

Very disturbing.

I mean I realise that there needs to be exemptions in cases of national security etc...., but this seems principally a decisions designed to prevent the government from suffering a political embarrassment.

Hnmmmm.....

Still if mandy gets his way I am cutting up my membership card soon anyhow.

FB

It's a disgrace.

Its an absolute disgrace, and makes a mockary of the whole freedom of informaiton act.... I mean, maybe* at the time, there could have been sensitive* issues discussed E.G., sources of information that back then mighten not have bene a good idea to release, but not now, all this time later... especially as it seems pretty common place that things such as the sources of informaiton were all unreliable anyhows

Oh for goodness sakes, excessive secrecy has always been used by all political parties and the establishment in the UK for as long as I can remember. Its a tradition used by the British establishment since the year dot. I still think we do pretty well though compared to a lot of countries. But hey if people on this thread want to all get their knickers in a big twist about it, go right ahead.

THe whole principle of "Freedom of Information" within a Liberal Democracy is not that the public automatically have a right to all information. Rather that there is a presumption of access and the government has to justify when this does not apply.

The government tried to justify this and the information commissioner over ruled them. This is a political determionation designed to avoid embarrasment and nothing to do with national security.

FB

Avoid embarrassment or the Hague?

"Still if mandy gets his way I am cutting up my membership card soon anyhow."

Not to be rude, but how is it after more than 10 years of Labour being further to the right both socially and economically than the pre-Thatcher Tory party is it that you have not already done so?

Honestly i dont know. Fear of the alterative?

Talking to a colleague earlier today we both remarked that when attempting to defend labour to members we are still talking about stuff that happened more than ten years ago.

The social chapter and minimum wage frankly cant cut it any more.

We will get balloted on de recognition soon. I know how i am going to vote.

FB

Well, Straw was the person in charge of the department that brought in the Freedom Of information act at the time when it was brought in.

He was Foreign Secretary when the Iraq 'War' started.

And he is the minister in the department who can veto any information being released now.

So, basically, he has been in the right places at the right times to cover his @rse.

Apologies about not being specific about the actual departments...back to w**k.

Hey - if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear - Isn't that right Jack ?

Funny McKay...someone using your name on another website was complaining about there being too much intrusion and now here you are trotting out the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" cliche...






Of course the whole thing is a stitch up....Is anyone here really shocked that governments lie and use blatant hypocrisy to apply a thin veneer of respectability to what they do?

Im broadly in favour of the FOI act and while it has its short comings it and the Data protection act are an improvement on what was happening before. Could the government do with being more honest and transparent? Yes without doubt they could but that's like asking turkeys to vote for christmas!

I think McKay was indulging in sarcasm, blicky.

TRiG.

Sarcasm ? Moi ?

Jack Straw must be the most undesirable person in the House of Commons. Quite an achievement given the competition.

"Not to be rude, but how is it after more than 10 years of Labour being further to the right both socially and economically than the pre-Thatcher Tory party is it that you have not already done so?"

Further to the right socially? I didn't see Edward Heath pushing for the legalisation of gay marriage, banning Fox Hunting, (admittedly ill-thought-out) Religious Hate laws to protect minorities or a Freedom of Information Act.

As for economics, Labour were just following the concensus in 1997 as the pre-Thatcher tories did. Blair's "third way" was about harnessing market economics for the public good whereas, for Thatcherites, it was always about self-interest. The problem with Blair and "New Labour" was that, in attempting to forge links with the business elite, they clearly became dazzled by the wealth and glamour and became overly deferential. That's changed to some extent thanks (if you can say that) to the collapse of the banks but for a long time it had the effect of making business arrogant and presumptuous. Apart from intentions there was another major difference between the Thatcherite Tories and Blairite Labour - Labour were like the kid invited to dine with the grown-ups and feeling important and special, the Tories had always been at the table already.

Also, it's a bit of a myth that the postwar Conservatives were happy with the welfare/mixed-economy concensus, plenty of conservatives wanted a return to the "profit motive" but it was considered too risky to shake-up the concensus. That only really became possible when the economic collapse and trade union militancy of the 1970s stirred enough public unrest, even then it was never a given.

Also, don't forget that Labour introduced the minimum wage and increased public spending on things like the NHS in their second term. A "rightwing" government wouldn't have done these things.

This "Right" and "Left" confuses me a bit. For instance, imagine a politician standing on the following platform -

- Equal Rights
- Abolition of unearned income
- Nationalisation of key industries
- Division of profits of heavy industries
- Increasing welfare to OAPs
- Land Reform, abolition of Land Taxes and prevention of Land Speculation.
- Full State-funded education, abolition of private schools
- Ending all forms of child labour
- Freedom of religion

Left or Right Wing?

Depends on the how, of course - the objective is never enough.

sprout

SWL: "Left or Right Wing?"

More to the point, they're inconsistent: abolition of unearned income is inconsistent with increasing welfare to OAPs and division of profits of heavy industries, and depending on interpretation may be inconsistent with full state-funded education.

How these inconsistencies were resolved might tell us something about whether or not the person was more to the left or right.

But I agree that logically speaking, left or right wing are ill defined. Still, they're useful in many cases.

I thinnk the thing is "Left and Right" is just too simplistic a way of looking at things.... There are a whole range of sliding scales and people would fit differently on different ones.

Free Marketeer - Planned Economy
Social Liberal - Social Conservative
Libertarian - Statist

etc, etc...

And also there is no rule that people have to be consistent. Some people might be socially liberal on some issues, and socially consevative on others. Us folk are complicated!

FB

Further to the right socially? I didn't see Edward Heath pushing for the legalisation of gay marriage, banning Fox Hunting, (admittedly ill-thought-out) Religious Hate laws to protect minorities or a Freedom of Information Act.

Two of these things is not like the others. Two of these thing don't belong. Can you guess you guess which are not like the others?