There have been a few rumblings today about how decisions are made and power exercised in Government.

The Breaking news is that the Government has decided to set aside Collective Cabinet Responsibility over Boundary reforms, essentially putting the bungled reforms on life support for at least this Parliament, if not fatally wounding Tory aspirations of winning 20 seats by default.

There has been some hyperbole from the media, Not least from Gudio  who challenges that it is “hard to argue against the claim that our – albeit un-codified – constitutional commitment to collective responsibility is being severely eroded under the Coalition” Following up with “What would Erskine May say…”

Well I’ve just consulted Erskine May, the book, not the dead guy, and his life’s work doesn’t even mention Cabinet Collective Responsibility – why would it? It’s a work on Parliamentary Protocol, not Government business, but even his earlier assertion, that Collective Responsibility is being eroded – or is even a constitutional commitment – is bogus in the extreme.

For the first part, Collective Cabinet Responsibility is not a part of the Constitution. It’s not even in Statue; it’s a convention which has developed over time to ensure that Government decisions are unified in the face of Parliament and the Monarch to maximise the Governments chances to pass the laws it wants and little more.

And let’s leave aside the Constitutional Convention that no Government or Parliament can be bound by a predecessor law or convention. Even Thatcher, when asked about it said “I certainly think that the doctrine should apply, except in cases where I announce that it does not’

Cabinet Collective Reasonability is mentioned in the Ministerial Code in the abstract and a process to allow disagreements was set out in the Coalition Agreement. Moreover its importance is muted by Geoffrey Marshall, in his 1989 work Ministerial responsibility regarding how Governments try to get through their legislation and maintain the confidence of the House.

Marshall identifies 3 reasons for the convention, “the confidence principle, the unanimity principle and the the confidentiality principle” – within these however he notes that “the government speak and vote together in Parliament, save in situations where the Prime Minister and Cabinet themselves make an exception such as a free vote or an ‘agreement to differ’ and “unanimity, as a universally applicable situation, is a constitutional fiction, but one which must be maintained, and is said to allow frank ministerial discussion within Cabinet and Government”

Thus a suspension, setting aside or agreement to differ is well within the convention. It was set aside in a Government of all parties in 1932 over Tariff policy, over Wilsons’s referendum on membership of the EEC in 1975 and on the issue of direct elections to the European Assembly in 1977 and its happened every time there has been a free vote, on Abortion, on Hunting with Dogs under Blair and matters as important on matters of conscience as allowing TV Cameras to record Parliamentary Proceedings.

Both the Un-Codified Constitution and the convention of Collective Ministerial Responsibility is there not to set down rigid rules, but to allow for flexibility and expedient government. In most cases this convention allows for the Government to allow for a Government to exert its will in Parliament and maintain ministerial discipline but its there to allow for frank discussion.

Is it really that bad a thing that, where there is need and agreement, that the government acts as one and where there is disagreement, as happens in one party governments as much as in a government of Coalition, an open and honest setting aside occurs? Does it make for better government to ride roughshod over dissent? It doesn’t matter. The Coalitions move today is perfectly constitutional, and more so, the right thing to do to ensure that the big issues are addressed and dealt with.

Much more insidious is the news on the clandestine exercise of the Monarchs Veto as revealed by the Guardian today The Monarch Hasn’t vetoed a bill since 1708, Under Queen Anne and the Convention is that the Queen merely waves as laws go past her. The idea that Elizabeth and Charles have been vetoing legislation in secret against their financial interests should shake any democratic to the bone. Agreeing to disagree really should not.

Brothers and Sisters Following Andrew Selous’ decision to invoke Jesus’ teachings in the equal marriage consultation debate on Tuesday I decided to contemplate the Holy book for advice on what to do with regards to the rather contemptuous concept of ‘ Equal Marriage’ – here follows my missive.

Nothing short of Damnation is upon us. The Gays are glamming up for fashionable weddings and the Church of England must not be seen to wear such gaudy merriment, especially if the cloth be woven of mingled linen and wool [Leviticus 19:19]

As Brother Bone has mentioned time and again, Marriage is sacred and cannot be re-defined. No state could do so. Not the Romans. Not the Orthodox Church. Not the Catholic Church. Not Henry – Six Wives – Tudor. Not the Marriage Act 1753, or 1836, or 1949 or the 25 Matrimonial Causes Acts which have set out the rights to divorce and re-marry.

No, these institutions, innovations and legislations have never changed the meaning, scope, eligibility or right to marry and my support for them is in no way inconsistent.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Others cannot lie together as Husband and Wife, for that is detestable in the eyes of the lord. [Leviticus 18:22]  They shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven [1 Corinthians 6:9-10] or the Charlton Club.

It is a great shame that gay sex isn’t punishable by death as Holy Scripture demands [Leviticus 20:13] but indeed rewarded by our godless, save for Bishops, Parliament. Yet the Con-dem Coalition government seek to further heap upon accursed blasphemy by allowing these gays to marry.

It all went downhill with the Divorce laws. The bible is very clear, no woman or man may divorce once committed [1 Corinthians 7:10] and our Holy Church has maintained the demands of our most sacred book in ensuring that her Bishops are only ever married once [1 Timothy 3:2] – I don’t understand the Catholic insistence that Bishops be unstained by marriage but we, god fearing Englishmen, can thankfully read.

Of course, the Churches decision in February 2011 to allow Bishops to be ordained even if they are divorced is an error soon rectified or else our opposition to Gay Marriage and Female Bishops based on a lack of support in scripture would be totally undermined, heaven forbid.

I saw a very helpful guide from the good people at Anglican Mainstream. It is full of useful information, did you know that ‘unlike the vaginal lining, the rectal lining is unable to withstand penetrative activity without medical damage’?

Not only are Gay men and women unable to consummate a marriage but it‘ll also hurt in the process. I put this unanswerable fact to one of those ghastly Lib Dem press officers who said ‘Bugger me’ – I declined his invitation.

By far the clinching argument, apart from it being ‘legal fiction’ is the argument that the whole notion of ‘equality is a ‘questionable notion’ God never actually said all men are created equal, I believe that was some silly rebel idea by some upstart American terrorists. Equal rights? Tosh.

It is a simple fact that not all men are created equal. Otherwise God wouldn’t pick sides and made us his chosen people! Bring back Slavery! As the New Testament testifies Slaves should obey their masters as if he were Christ himself [Ephesians 6:5-8] that’s what I instruct my butler anyway.

Indeed, some people are inferior. Don’t marry a Canaanine woman, the bible commands (Genesis 28:1) I think they’re from the new world or something, I digress but there is so much in my copy of the bible about that wonderful continent.

Reading detail, however, causes me to warn you fine gentlemen not to have an affair. Apparently it’s against Jesus’ teachings, even if you do get divorced (Mark 10:11) and is punishable by stoning [Deuteronomy 22:21] Sounds painful, and I’m grateful the EUSSR banned that one in their damnable Human Rights Convention.

This is a Christian Country. Only a faithful few actually go to Church, but, on reflection, this is difficult. I don’t know how many of you have actually read the bible but at one point it says that rapists should pay their victims father in silver then marry them, which seems a retrograde step. [Deuteronomy 22:28–29] it also advises that to prevent a mob seeking justice I ought to give them two virgin daughters [Genesis 19:6-8] This doesn’t sit well with me.

I’m confused. Should I love my Neighbour? [Mark 12:31]  What if he is Gay and determined to be as miserably married as I?

I don’t know, this is all too convoluted and these stories from 2000 years ago, though entirely relevant to the modern day, aren’t helping. So, perhaps we should leave it all in God’s hands or allow people to make up their own mind? Marry them all! God will recognise his own.

Now I’m at a computer, here’s a longer post on my thoughts on the governments communications data intercept ‘proposals’

We don’t yet know the full proposals…

… but we do know the proposals are not as leaked, whilst the LD briefing which has been circulated does not outline what the full proposals are it does make clear that the proposals do not amount to new snooping powers but an extension to what communications will be applicable for observation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)

This is positive, an extension of access to content, for instance, as the initial reports suggested would be so utterly toxic it would break the Coalition. As it is an extension to what RIPA applies to is less dramatic, even if unsavoury.

This is yet another failure of communication from the government

This has obviously been leaked for one of two reasons, either it was leaked by someone to rile up Lib Dem and Libertarian activists (In which case, congratulations, it worked) or it was leaked on a Sunday to try and limit scrutiny/coverage (In which case you failed, epically)

Either way it is clear this was not expected by the government and the resulting vacuum of comment, followed by rushed briefings suggests the governments been blindsided.

This really isn’t a good thing, first there was confusion, then anger, now angry confusion. Leaking during recess also means that the commetariat are not in Westminster, briefing won’t be effective and the government will have trouble getting people on TV.

A lack of message control is becoming terminal for the coalition….

The coalition should be entrenching and extending Privacy safeguards….

… Not merely keeping them the same. RIPA might have been in place for 12 years but there are major problems with it. Oversight is not exactly substantial and instead of data being accessed in major criminal enquires we’ve had plenty of cases of councils using the law to monitor such heinous crimes as not sorting the recycling properly.

If there was one thing on which the coalition parties were of one voice before the 2010 elections, it was their distain at Labours, at best, casual regard, toward civil liberties and privacy. The coalition should be announcing new safeguards in addition to those already in place.

The law at present allows the home secretary to issue a warrant under the act, but beyond an Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Information Commissioners Office there is no judicial oversight. In the same way as TPIM’s need a court order in a addition to a warrant from the Home Secretary, so too should access to data interception, and especially content.

There is a case for intercepting some communications

Yes, intercepting data to compile evidence and disrupt networks is sometimes necessary and in the public interest, especially in cases of international serious organised crime, terrorism, people trafficking and child abuse and we do need to safeguard, disrupt and monitor such activity but this is at odds with keeping everyone’s communications stored, centralised database or not.

Phone tapping, website monitoring and data interception should be intelligence led, not generalised.

What needs to happen now

The government must provide clarity as soon as possible and instead of moving straight to legislation, should go to the public for a consultation and explain the case.

In any case, Labour went too far in backing state intrusion to the detriment of privacy and civil liberties, the government needs to make clear what it will do to extend safeguards.

Ensuring judicial oversight, limiting access to content and making it clear that only the most serious cases, named and outlined as endangering public safety, serious abuse or risk to individual life,  will be subject to interception, would both be very welcome.