NationStates Jolt Archive

Gee, it seems that no one can do anything confidential anymore. Not a state secret, but it isn't even a final report...

The Turner Report is about to appear. The Turner in question is the UK peer Lord Adair Turner, and the subject of the report the future of the UK pensions system. Although the final report is not due till the end of the month, the FT has been ’leaking’ some of the possible contents.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e53cb63e-56e8-11da-b98c-00000e25118c.html

Gee, it seems that no one can do anything confidential anymore. Not a state secret, but it isn't even a final report...

Umm, findings of reports like these are almost always known before they are "officially" handed over to government. They don't tend to be secret in parliamentary democracies.

Umm, findings of reports like these are almost always known before they are "officially" handed over to government. They don't tend to be secret in parliamentary democracies.

I posted this in relation to a comment made by another poster that the UK government intentionally leaks quite a bit.

If you're going to do the leaking, why do you bother doing it behind closed doors, or with an aura of quiet, private contemplation?

I posted this in relation to a comment made by another poster that the UK government intentionally leaks quite a bit.

If you're going to do the leaking, why do you bother doing it behind closed doors, or with an aura of quiet, private contemplation?
Generally they want to develop the thing behind closed doors, and get their shit together before they prepare the final report. The penultimate report is usually pretty similiar, so their shit is penulitmately gotten together...so little harm is done.

And they are less 'leaks' than they are 'previews'.

Looking at the "leaks", I gather the following:

The commission will apparently suggest that the age at which workers can claim their full state pension should, over time, rise from 65 to 67. The increase is intended to come in stages, starting after 2020 when the UK’s women’s state pension age is set to be aligned with men’s at 65. Thereafter, state pension age should rise in line with increasing longevity, the commission will say.

They suggest that at least nine million people in the UK are estimated to be saving too little for their old age. In fact, in its its interim report, the commission has already drawn the conclusion from this that unless tomorrow’s pensioners are, on average, to be poorer, either taxes will have to rise, people will have to save more, or working lives would have to be longer.

So, which one do you think they'll do? And which would be acceptable to people (I don't think that they'll take the "be poorer" as acceptable).

And they are less 'leaks' than they are 'previews'.

I have a feeling Deep Kimchi would find the Swedish government a sieve, our transparency laws considered. ;)

I have a feeling Deep Kimchi would find the Swedish government a sieve, our transparency laws considered. ;)

I don't have a problem with the information getting out, if that's what was intended by law and regulation.

What I don't like is a government committee supposedly working in private or under wraps not actually working under wraps.

Transparency is fine. If you have laws like that, then you can't announce that you're working in private, or announce a closed committee session - that's fine.

It just strikes me as odd to annnounce that something is private, or secret, or confidential - and then people hand out the drafts under the table.

It just strikes me as odd to annnounce that something is private, or secret, or confidential - and then people hand out the drafts under the table.
It's not usually the drafts that are secret or confidential...it's the process itself.

It just strikes me as odd to annnounce that something is private, or secret, or confidential - and then people hand out the drafts under the table.

The article doesn't say anything about the report being either of those.

It's not usually the drafts that are secret or confidential...it's the process itself.

If the process is confidential, then we shouldn't be privy to intermediate findings, etc. We should wait until they are done.

If we want to be privy to intermediate findings, then the whole process should be hung out in public for all to see.

If the process is confidential, then we shouldn't be privy to intermediate findings, etc. We should wait until they are done.

If we want to be privy to intermediate findings, then the whole process should be hung out in public for all to see.
I don't agree. Sometimes the process needs to be confidential, for whatever reason. But once that process is wrapped up, the draft is really the end result that just needs some cleaning up.

It of course depends on the situation, but overall I don't see a major problem with what you call 'leaks'. As long as they don't endanger anyone, or the country itself...it makes sense to get some information out as quickly as possible, making it clear that this is a DRAFT.

Lots of things get done this way in the government. Curricular design for example. Hush hush, but as soon as a draft is out, it's OUT, and being used until the final copy is done. New policies are often set this way, then revised once again once all the loose ends have been tied up.

I admit I'm talking out of my ass though on this particular situation, which I know little about, and don't care to take the time to find out more on:)

Sometimes the process needs to be confidential, for whatever reason.

With the exception of certain military secrets, I fail to see why.

With the exception of certain military secrets, I fail to see why.
Yeah, I was trying to come up with some examples, but I'm drawing a blank. Sometimes Royal Commissions are sealed...and the initial findings (drafts) are presented right away, before the final ruling...I'm not really sure why some are sealed though...I'll look some up.

Bah, never mind. I'm still drawing a blank. Fuck the UK anyway:)

Yeah, I was trying to come up with some examples, but I'm drawing a blank. Sometimes Royal Commissions are sealed...and the initial findings (drafts) are presented right away, before the final ruling...I'm not really sure why some are sealed though...I'll look some up.

They can be politically sensitive and a degree of interim confidentiality is needed to get people's opinions, not to mention reports where confidentiality versus the people part of the report, for instance patients or children or whatnot, needs to be kept so that their personal data is not exposed to the larger public before it has been cleaned away for a draft. There are many examples if you think about it.

They can be politically sensitive and a degree of intermin confidentiality is needed to get people's opinions, not to mention reports where confidentiality versus the people part of the report, for instance patients or children or whatnot, needs to be kept so that their personal data is not exposed to the larger public before it has been cleaned away for a draft. There are many examples if you think about it.

When one side says they want to be able to have some confidentiality in order to get opinions, the opposition invariably says that something bad is going on.

Take Cheney's development of an energy policy. People wanted to know who was in those meetings and what they said - and Cheney said, "No." All of a sudden, the tinfoil hats came out and demanded it be made public on the assertion that something bad was going on.

Reports were released, meetings concluded - and the courts backed Cheney.

Might as well hold most of the meeting in public if people are going to make accusations.

When one side says they want to be able to have some confidentiality in order to get opinions, the opposition invariably says that something bad is going on.

Take Cheney's development of an energy policy. People wanted to know who was in those meetings and what they said - and Cheney said, "No." All of a sudden, the tinfoil hats came out and demanded it be made public on the assertion that something bad was going on.

Reports were released, meetings concluded - and the courts backed Cheney.

Might as well hold most of the meeting in public if people are going to make accusations.

I was under the impression we were talking about countries with parliamentarianism. Things work differently in the US.

They can be politically sensitive and a degree of interim confidentiality is needed to get people's opinions, not to mention reports where confidentiality versus the people part of the report, for instance patients or children or whatnot, needs to be kept so that their personal data is not exposed to the larger public before it has been cleaned away for a draft. There are many examples if you think about it.
Thank you. I knew there had to be SOMETHING.

I was under the impression we were talking about countries with parliamentarianism. Things work differently in the US.
Same sort of meeting. While we might not have the Swedish transparency laws, we do have some meetings that are confidential (for the reasons you mention) that are not officially secret, nor are they military in nature.

Formulating the executive branch's energy policy, for example. Holding meetings and having discussions - drafting papers. Getting the opinions of experts.

Same sort of meeting. While we might not have the Swedish transparency laws, we do have some meetings that are confidential (for the reasons you mention) that are not officially secret, nor are they military in nature.

Formulating the executive branch's energy policy, for example. Holding meetings and having discussions - drafting papers. Getting the opinions of experts.

Yes, but with parliamentarianism, those committees have representatives from most, if not all, parties represented in parliament, so the whole "the government is trying to hide something from us" usually doesn't happen.