Secrets that stop the scars from healing
The problem with secrets is that when they eventually get revealed, old wounds are re-opened. So it is with the 30-year rule, that keeps the cabinet papers under lock and key until the people responsible for major decisions are no longer anywhere near government or even deceased.
Papers from 1984 have resulted in a new furore over potential UK involvement in Operation Blue Star, to storm the Golden Temple in Amritsar in 1984.
Hundreds of people lost their lives.
The documents appear to show that the Indian Government sought advice from the UK Government, under the Tories and Margaret Thatcher at the time.
Wolverhampton MPs Paul Uppal and Pat McFadden want all the information to come out, as do Warley's John Spellar and West Bromwich's Tom Watson.
All have large numbers of Sikh constituents, some of whom will experience the grief and pain of 1984 brought back decades later.
"This is an open wound, which will not heal until the full truth is told," Mr McFadden said.
He appears to have begun to get what he wanted from the Prime Minister who has promised that an inquiry into what happened at Amritsar will 'be held properly and its findings made public'.
Today we have the Freedom of Information Act to find out a lot, although not all, of the details of what governments do in our name.
If the information is available, and allowed to be disclosed, public bodies have to provide it within 20 working days.
In an era of 24-hour news that can feel like a lifetime.
But the 30-year rule puts that into stark perspective.
In the same year that people will expect to commemorate a major anniversary of such an enormous event in their history, out come flooding the new questions.
State secrets are supposedly there to keep everyone safe.
Yet waiting so long to reveal them can cause more harm than good, particularly if it transpires the UK Government played any part.
How today's ministers respond to this will be vital when it comes to healing wounds.
And David Cameron will be hoping the Tories of today are not punished at the ballot box for any actions by the Government of old.
Bob-a-job is no way to fund the council
Do you fancy paying any more tax?
What's that? Do I fancy a smack in the mouth? No, I take your point.
And so do some of the councils around these parts. But in Oxfordshire, there is a council asking people if they'd be prepared to donate money to pay for services that would otherwise be affected by cuts.
It's a clever way of getting around the council tax referendum threshold imposed by the government.
In a nutshell, no council can put up council tax by more than two per cent without asking the public to vote. Ministers know full well councils aren't going to fork out thousands for a ballot they'll inevitably lose, so council tax rises are effectively capped at two per cent, hidden behind a smokescreen of democratic will.
Some would like to see that threshold dropped to 1.5 per cent, making an increase virtually worthless because the government will give councils a grant worth a one per cent rise to keep the rates the same.
Instead though, councils are having to resort to other ways of making money. Staffordshire County Council is offering its reserves out as loans to public bodies, charging interest to put towards services. Sandwell and Dudley are both looking at offering more services for a full fee.
I wonder how long it will be before the Government intervenes there and says councils are encroaching on private businesses.
