Have a good news day

22 Jun 07
ANN ROSSITER | Gordon Brown’s media people have been keen to tell us that the changeover at Number 10 will be accompanied by a new, straightforward attitude to communicating with the press.

Gordon Brown’s media people have been keen to tell us that the changeover at Number 10 will be accompanied by a new, straightforward attitude to communicating with the press.

But is ‘the death of spin’ just another example of the dark arts in operation? Brown is certainly sharply aware that his predecessor’s time in office came to be associated in the public mind with a manipulative relationship with the media, and that if he is going to win the next election, this is going to have to change.

Even if you think Brown is genuine, you might think he’s being naïve. Tony Blair’s suggestion that the media can act like a ‘feral beast’ sounds very much like the voice of bitter experience. Will our new prime minister find out that Blair was right when he said that the way the media behaves undermines the capacity of politicians to govern the country? If that is the case, he might find it difficult to follow through on his good intentions.

Certainly, no realist would expect Brown’s media handlers to behave like goody-two-shoes. They will be keen to ensure that their message is communicated.

It is how this is done that matters, and this is what Brown seems to be committed to changing. He is promising to depoliticise media relations, including using a civil servant as his main spokesman. Journalists are already talking positively about the new regime.

A return to probity in the conduct of government is clearly going to be a theme of Brown’s premiership. In part, this is making a virtue of necessity. It fits Brown’s personality and style — serious, cerebral and morally upright. It has the added benefit of highlighting apparent differences between Brown and Cameron — the aim is to paint Cameron as the heir to Blair as arch media-manipulator.

But Brown cannot change the nature of government alone. The media have grown used to a diet heavy in personality politics, covert internecine warfare between Westminster tribes and spin as the story — the fast food of political coverage.

If Brown is going to have a fighting chance at re-engineering the relationship between government and the fourth estate, journalists are going to have to be willing to discuss politics with a capital P — less immediately satisfying perhaps, but more healthy in the long run.

A new grown-up role for the media would not just be a good thing in itself, but would be an important precondition for a different style of government. It would allow Brown the space to deliver on his other promises, including less reliance on politically appointed special advisers and a more central role for the civil service.

But, as with the media, to make this work the civil service must live up to its responsibilities. All too often, ministers have found that their attempts to introduce legislative or other changes have met with barriers erected by truculent officials.

This has exacerbated a culture in which ministers have used political appointees to go around the civil service rather than working with it. So it, too, must mend its ways and behave with real responsibility.

First, it must eradicate a culture of leaks and ‘Yes, Minister’ obfuscation.

Second, it must start taking delivery seriously and worry much more about outcomes and far less about process. Brown’s commitment to dispense with sofa government in favour of a return to Cabinet decision-making has been particularly widely welcomed.

Unsurprisingly, some commentators have doubted the chancellor’s sincerity, citing attempts to control the agenda from his position at the Treasury.

But he is not the only person around the Cabinet table who will have to be committed if this is to work. Ministers have got into the habit of feeling free to brief the media with impunity. This will have to stop.

If Cabinet government means anything, it means being bound by collective decision-making. This means no briefing behind hands — and, just as importantly, ensuring that political advisers stay in line.

Lastly, Parliament has to step up to the mark. A more significant role for Parliament means that MPs and peers will have to take their responsibilities seriously — both in terms of voting and scrutiny of government decision-making.

With some honourable exceptions, MPs often seem focused on impressing the folks back home in the constituency, with special Brownie points for early day motions naming the local football team or the sheer weight of written questions.

Changing the way that government works is not just going to be the job of the new prime minister. The media, Whitehall, ministers and Parliament will also have to do their bit.

If his attempt to make the shift fails, it might not just be the new prime minister who gets the blame. And let’s face it, none of the parties to the debate have much capital to squander. It is in everyone’s interest to get it right.

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top