Star Chamber meets
A Treasury source confirmed to Newsnight tonight that the Star Chamber, the Cabinet committee which adjudicates on public spending disputes, has now met at least once.
The Star Chamber was re-established by David Cameron this summer to decide on cases where government departments can't agree with the Treasury on what cuts they should make as part of next week's big Spending Review.
As departmental ministers have reached deals with the Treasury then their names have been added to membership of the Star Chamber.
A couple of ministers have told me that appealing to the Star Chamber is bound to be fatal to any departmental minister.
Just as with the notorious medieval Star Chamber, they would be assumed to be guilty, I was told, and their appeals would inevitably be rejected by Cabinet colleagues.
And the appeal process is pretty nerve-wracking as one has to appear before the committee without any departmental officials.
What's more ministers from departments who have already settled are hardly going to allow concessions to any colleague lest that lead to a decision to try and reopen their own settlements to find the extra funds.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 13th Oct 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:The Star Chamber is a ridiculous process. These kiddies who we have let pillage the British state have no more idea of how to run anything after they got elected than they did before. And none of them had any real experience in budgeting a small let alone a large organisation.
The one thing that one could pick up on from Sir Philip Green's brief study is that Government is never budgeted properly. He points out that they never start from the organisational objectives and produce a budget - they always take today inflate it a bit and call that their budget. The Government needs to undertake 'Zero Base Budgeting'. Start with nothing - define objectives and processes to achieve these objectives, staff these to achieve the functions decided upon, include the necessary expenses and that should be the budget - all this should be done without regard to the existing staff, expenses and structures. Without resorting to this process all, and any, Government expenditure is just a joke based upon a farce! And these kiddies and just amateurs that don't even understand what they are doing! Hence the Star Chamber is a pointless exercise as they are not starting from the right place!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 14th Oct 2010, barriesingleton wrote:THOSE WHO CAN DO - THOSE WHO CAN'T, SINK TO WESTMINSTER
Postman Pat told us what we already know: a quick mug-up will do, as the job is only to 'politic'. And tonight, Ming the Mendatious said in terms: The best parliamentary sponteneity is thoroughly rehearsed.
Out of the mouths of ninnies and ciphers. . .
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 14th Oct 2010, stanilic wrote:Will those who fail in their interrogation be dragged off to The Tower for a taste of the thumbscrews?
Is this the time to bring back the Bill of Attainder!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 15th Oct 2010, Smeagol wrote:Yes you seem to be trying to say that the coalition is analogous to some medieval autocracy where any dissenters are sent to the dungeons and the torture chambers! I notice you passed on the iron maiden!
Michael, it occurs to me that because you are known to be so chronically wed to the opposition that when you talk with people in the actual government they spin you conspiratorial yarns to wind you up for their amusement so that you'll come on here and make a fool of yourself by repeating them. Just a theory!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 15th Oct 2010, TheBlameGame wrote:4 TMR
If the previous entry (The Master) is anything to go by, I'd say that's a pretty good theory.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)