Reader TTS

Being a newbie in Parliament is an intimidating thing. Where are you allowed to go and when? Is this lift for everyone? What on Earth is that bell that keeps going off? I remember on one of

my first days there, while interning for an MP, I went the wrong way around the queue to pay for lunch in the Portcullis House cafeteria. Feeling eyes boring into the back of my head, I

turned to find a slightly bemused Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, behind me, wondering who on earth had barged ahead of him. I recount this story not merely to alleviate a shame that has

hung over me for more than a decade, but to illustrate what a bizarre world Westminster is. Like any workplace, it has its rules — but it is also full of clubs and cliques. One such club is

the Lobby – the group of accredited journalists who attend daily briefings from No. 10 and are able to access the Members’ Lobby of the House of Commons, along with MPs. I have written

before that it is a rather odd, arcane institution. There are “lobby rules” that prevent the names of those who brief journalists from coming out, set lunch partners from competing

publications who dine with ministers, and so forth. Since the Tory’s landslide election victory, Downing Street has begun a battle with the media. The Prime Minister’s senior adviser Dominic

Cummings seems to be driven by a desire to take on the old system. This stand-off culminated recently in lobby journalists boycotting a briefing with the Prime Minister’s trade adviser

because some publications had not been granted access. My understanding is that the way the incident was subsequently depicted in the press – an abrupt limitation of access, a

strongly-worded exchange between journalists and the PM’s communications staff, followed by the walkout — is broadly accurate. The thing is, Dominic Cummings has a point. Sort of. As I wrote

when this standoff started: “The Lobby system is outdated. In our modern media age, largely restricting the information flow from government to a select group of journalists feels arcane.

It is.” This is not a new issue either. Back in 2004, Guardian Media Group Chairman Bob Phillis submitted a government commissioned Independent Review of Government Communications. It said:

“We found that the lobby system is no longer working effectively for either the government or the media. We recommend that all major government media briefings should be on the record, live

on television and radio and with full transcripts available promptly online.” While some lines from the briefings have started coming out via Twitter, including Guido Fawkes streaming live

in contravention of Lobby rules, daily briefings are still not televised. Ultimately, maintaining a limited club has always suited the journalists that are part of it. (For the record, I’m

not, although please don’t mistake my scepticism for bitterness – it’s fun being an outsider!) I once attended a press event on the campaign trail when one lobby journalist turned to his

colleagues and asked: “What’s the story?” One could not shake the feeling that on such occasions the in-crowd colludes to set the narrative, rather than individuals thinking independently to

compete or provide varied information to readers and viewers. The truth is that in many ways the Lobby system is increasingly incompatible with a modern media environment. Strong resistance

to too much change from Lobby members may mean that ultimately change is thrust upon them. However, while Cummings & Co may have legitimate points about the outdated nature of the Lobby

system, they have not engaged in this battle for honourable reasons. Downing Street does not want to improve the information flow to the public — it wants to limit it. Look, for example, at

the “People’s PMQs” that it runs on Facebook. The questions are inane, even more obsequious than those from ambitious Tory backbenchers during the real Prime Minister’s Questions in the

Commons. One published People’s PMQs clip in January saw a member of the public seeking an answer on the crucial issue of which shampoo Boris Johnson uses. This is not scrutiny — it is a

cop-out that proves why you need trained, well-researched journalists pressing the government on serious issues. Such slippery behaviour should really come as no surprise. Boris Johnson

based his entire campaign in the run-up to the December election on avoiding scrutiny from the press. He restricted access to events, shirked debates and dodged difficult interviews. He and

his team are now pursuing the same strategy in government. But if Westminster journalists want to stop this bid to control the media, they are going to have to grasp the nettle of major

reform as a matter of urgency. That includes opening up the Lobby system.