Comments on: Parliamentary reform: new reporting rules required

By: Bearded Socialist

Bearded Socialist — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:57:22 +0000

Mr Watson,
Me met over a beer last night and I wanted to thank you for getting a round in and generally being a top bloke.
Thanks

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:45:50 +0000

Thank you all for your comments – all very interesting.

Why have I written this now, DreamingSpire? Two reasons. Firstly, I’ve got 30 hours a week of my life back and can think a little more. Secondly, I wasn’t responsible for the workings of Parliament when a Government minister – Harriet Harman and Chris Bryant were. Now on the backbenches, I can say what I like.

Ian K – I know about the smugness of politicians. Sometimes though, MPs have a policy obsessions that may not be newsworthy in the classic sense yet are still important contributions to a debate about the direction of our country.

Tony Wright has been promoting parliamentary reform for years, for example. Often his reports and ideas have fallen on deaf ears. This week he’s centre stage. With hindsight, he deserved a fairer hearing.

Here’s my central pitch: The Internet allows us to create a ‘long-tail democracy’ in parliamentary reporting. Not every debate is relevant to all UK citizens. Yet every debate will be relevant to someone or some group of UK citizens. This is really expanding on your valid arguments about the regional lobby.

There is too much emphasis on breaking new stories in the lobby. I know you will roll your eyes at this. The new Speaker has a duty to ensure that Parliament is relevant though. A proper study of how debates are covered would inform us all as to whether the taxpayer is getting value for money for the amount spent on providing reporting services to media organisations.

My hunch is that in the digital age there can be a better way for Parliament to get its messages out. Parliament becomes accountable and relevant to people’s lives when the goings on in every nook and cranny is explained.

And decent all round reporting will help keep the Executive to account.

I’d could say more but have to get to London to vote for the new – reforming – Speaker.

By: Ian Kirby

Ian Kirby — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:34:33 +0000

Really interesting argument Tom, but speaking as one of those 238 Lobby journalists I think you miss a few very important points:
* the regional lobby provide a very good service in covering stories which are of vital interest, even if it is to minority communities. Many of them now have blogs, so their content is now available to far more people than it used to be. I cut my teeth on Hansard and adjournment debates and still refer to them daily.
* the daily lobby and, especially, the broadcasters, definitely are obsessed with following 1 or 2 stories but this is a commercial market. The BBC moved Yesterday in Parliament to Long Wave and papers such as The Times and the Daily Telegraph dropped its parliamentary page.
* the Sunday Lobby, of which I am a proud member, prides itself in covering stories which are off the mainstream agenda. Alastair Campbell always denegrated us as obsessed with “froth” but he was wrong. Today there were 22 politics stories in the News of the World. 12 of those came from the proceedings of the House. They may not always be headlined “in the Commons” but that is where they came from. We hunt though select committee reports, Hansard written answers and statements.
* there is an insufferable smugness among politicians to assume that what goes on in the Commons is of vital national importance. If it is so vital, why were there only seven MPs present during a recent debate on security during the Afghan elections which produced a story which I filed on my blog yesterday (http://blogs.notw.co.uk/politics/2009/06/brits-to-stay-behind-the-wire-in-afghanistan.html)?????

By: dreamingspire

dreamingspire — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:32:37 +0000

Go to it, Tom! But why could you not push that when you were a Minister? It seems as if the only Minister pushing his dept is Lord Adonis.
As for Hansard, I do refer to it from time to time, but more for the reasoned debate in the Lords than for anything in the other chamber. And also the transcripts of witness sessions for Select Cttees come in very useful.

By: Matt Wardman

Matt Wardman — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:44:16 +0000

Is there a reason why this wasn’t done in 2002 when the official daily briefings were introduced? What did Alistair Campbell think at that point?

Is it one of those things that is a very useful tool for controlling presentation and managing Parliament – that can only be changed by sceptical people ambushing a new Government before it really notices (thinking of St John Stevas and Select Committees in 1979-1980)?

Good to open up the lobby – especially for reporting of detail.

By: Jonathan Walker

Jonathan Walker — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:53:13 +0000

As I said on Facebook, I agree with your sentiments but I don’t see the link with reforming the Lobby or changing reporting rules.

Anything that happens in Parliament can already be seen by anyone live, on the parliamentlive.tv website, or read in Hansard on the Hansard website within a few hours.

The unattributable briefings that take place – “Labour soucres”, “Whitehall sources”, “friends of the Home Secretary”, “the BBC has learned” – are not lobby briefings. They’re just people, such as politicians and special advisers, talking to journalists they choose to talk to.

There’s no rule changes that can stop that happening, or force politicians and SAs to issue what they say openly in RSS feeds or anything like that.

By: cyberdoyle

cyberdoyle — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:07:40 +0000

Great idea Tom, more use should be made of sites like WriteToReply and give more people the chance to contribute. Twitter has exposed Iran, it could do the same for other issues, and promote good practice. Knowledge is power. Power to the People.

By: Alan Burkitt-Gray

Alan Burkitt-Gray — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:03:26 +0000

“Where, for example, can you read of recent debates on extreme solar events or addiction to prescription medicines?”

Well, Hansard is available online, so you can read them there. But why would anyone. Parliament is so cut off from power that a debate in the House of Commons on solar power is as relevant as a debate in the Dog and Duck on solar power.

By: Civil

Civil — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 10:30:02 +0000

The great problem with information in the Commons is also access to video of it. http://www.parliamentlive.tv is fine if you want to watch live, or indeed watch a whole day’s debate – but if you just want to see a snippet, say a statement or an adjournment debate, you have to sit through the whole thing.

The best thing parliament (or PARBUL) could do, is to

1) Split parliamentlive videos so that you can view them by item of business on the order paper (within reason),
2) Allow the ‘youtubing’ of videos. At the moment videos cost a fortune to buy to put on youtube, but so long as they are not edited, they really should be in the public domain

By: Silent Hunter

Silent Hunter — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:44:46 +0000

Mr Watson also featured in the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal disclosures.
Mr Watson, the minister for digital engagement, spent the maximum of £4,800 in a single year on food, and had his expenses cut after buying a set of dining room chairs that exceeded the limit set by the fees office.
He was forced to defend the appearance of a receipt for a “pizza wheel” on a Marks & Spencer receipt he submitted, saying ti was given as a free gift after he went on a £150 spending spree at the store.
He also used his parliamentary allowances, along with fellow Labour minister Iain Wright, to lavish more than £100,000 on a shared central London crash pad since the last general election.

Says it all really!