I suspect all of you have seen the Guardian's latest article, which is very short but most importantly contains the full text of the Labour-DRF-TPM coalition agreement.

I registered my own displeasure with the leak in that thread, and I'd like to expand on it here.

This coalition agreement was leaked very shortly after the three parties to the agreement published it to their memberships. This of course is a delicate time for all potential coalitions; in, I think, all cases the entire membership may vote on such an agreement, which means the potential that the document will leak is increased a huge amount at this point.

And inevitably this one did leak. Both The Spectator and The Times ran stories on the agreement two or three days ago, and both pieces picked out the most interesting aspects and wrote analysis. Partisan analysis in one case, sure, but still analysis.

From my conversations with press colleagues and politicians between then and now, I gathered the agreement, like all agreements, had leaked about three nanoseconds after it was posted to the parties' memberships. A lot of people had a copy, including several press orgs, but nobody published the whole thing. Why?

I believe there is an unwritten rule that really ought to be observed for documents of this type.

Firstly, to encourage good journalism. I'd argue that any leak should be accompanied with analysis so as not to debase the fourth estate's role in political debate in this country.

Secondly, to recognise that these agreements take work and effort and are part of the a constitutional and democratic process. In themselves the agreements may be good or bad, but they take time and effort and nobody is well-served by leaking an agreement lacking in context or commentary.

Thirdly, this hurts the press itself. When The Times received the agreement, /u/UnexpectedHippo extracted key points and even asked a senior Labour MP for their thoughts. Labour gave us a quote. I don't know their thoughts on the leak, but they worked with us, because, I think, we all recognise the tightrope on which we walk. If such an important document (that will be published in some form at a later date anyway!) is leaked, then at least the parties can have confidence we'll treat the leak with respect and due seriousness.

Perhaps this will come across as too deferential, with too much pandering to the state and its institutions. This I think is simply not the case; I liken the unlettered leaking of this sort of thing as akin to leaking the precise result of an election halfway through the counting. It actively stymies the process while adding nothing of value.

Meta point: I've tried to make this article as canon as possible because that's the way I like it, but on a meta point holy shit this was a dick move, and leaking this document out of some weird revenge because it's happened to you before is both petty and lazy and I expect better from a former speaker.