Talk:Thirty-year rule

Countries that use the 30 year rule

Does it exist in New Zealand and Canada?

Unsure, I only had time to take the UK references and leave them in their own section. Others can be added later I'm sure Alastairward 12:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the United States, is there an equivalent or similar rule for a different period there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.195.56 (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing

Apologies, I just can't cite properly. Please can someone sort this for me? Alastairward 12:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is a quote and a fact in the article flagged as unsourced. You must have got them from somewhere when writing the article, so all you need to do is provide the source. If you aren't sure about Wikipedia citing guidelines, just give them on this talk page and someone else will incorporate them into the article. 84.13.132.115 13:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, completely forgot about this, I'll try and look up where I got the info from again Alastairward 21:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-year rule?

Apparently the UK is now making the transition to a twenty-year rule (see here). The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 appears to be the legislation involved, although the act's article doesn't mention this aspect. I don't really have enough knowledge of the UK situation to rewrite this article, but someone else might. (There's also the question of whether it needs to be renamed, or even merged with Declassification, to reflect the variety of time periods involved.) Grover Snodd (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just learned of this change and have added a brief section explaining the transitional arrangements. I agree that it may be sensible to rename the article, although the phrase "thirty-year rule" is still in common use and should still redirect here in my opinion. GDBarry (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've no problem with having a redirect, though I can't offhand think of anything suitable to call the renamed article (assuming it isn't merged with Declassification, which might be the best way to go. Grover Snodd (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

No reasoning whatsoever is offered for United Kingdom and Australia's 30 year policy. The reasoning is what exactly? Not one word about the policy being against the public interest. The Australian government says "it is a convention that cabinet decisions will be fully and publicly supported by all Ministers, despite any personal views held by individual Ministers." https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/0910/CabinetConfidentiality

It is quite simply dishonest for an elected representatives to say they support a policy when they in fact do not. And yet this dishonesty(pretending to be united) is the method by which political parties get elected instead of a "hung parliament" in our supposedly representative democracy. Towing the party line is inherently dishonest. Instead of MP's honestly presenting their own opinions and voting accordingly, they pretend to agree to "form government". The 30 year rule appears to serve only the interests of those craving power at the expense of their constituents.

No explanation of how this dishonesty serves the public interest is offered in this article.

101.184.77.20 (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]