Confidence game

Russell Wayne-Gretzky makes an observation about His Premierosity’s recent ex-cathedra pronouncement on intertubes gambling:

If the Internet wagering does go ahead, Williams has basically said it’s not his fault — it’s the fault of the other cabinet members, who, as a result of rules of cabinet confidentiality and cabinet solidarity, wouldn’t even be able to say what the discussion at the table was, or how they personally voted on the issue.

Once a cabinet decision is made, all cabinet members are supposed to support the decision, despite any personal misgivings. And they have to button their lips to boot. Or is that to butt?

True enough, despite coming from His Premierosity, who in opposition railed against cabinet secrecy and vowed to abolish it.

But while it is true that it would breach cabinet confidentiality to talk publicly about what has happened in the cabinet room in the past, retroactively, on a go-backward basis, it is evidently not a breach of that confidentiality to talk publicly about what will happen in the cabinet room, prospectively, on a go-forward basis.

The authority for this, of course, is His Premierosity’s burbling on the Oracle of Randy [totally stealing that – ed.] in which he, urm, talked publicly about what will happen in the cabinet room, prospectively, on a go-forward basis.

Based on this precedent, it is now fair ball for some enterprising media outlet to canvass cabinet members and ask them how they will “vote”, in advance of this or any other cabinet decision.

Their hard-working communications gophers will surely be glad to set up interviews on the subject.