Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The quality of the coverage of Brown's Tuesday announcement in the London papers was very poor. It got the headlines and leader comments. But I had a simple measure. The proposals covered four areas (mentioned in my post immediately after the speech). These were headlined in the four sections of the green paper: 1) limiting the powers of the executive; 2) making the executive more accountable; 3) "re-invigorating" democracy (e.g. with today's announcement that voters will decide part of local government expenditure); and 4) debating the constitution as a whole with the possibility of a written constitution.
This approach of immediate barrow item giveaways (e.g. royal prerogatives) plus vague but big-picture commitments might come to nothing. But this multi-layered strategy is the direction taken. It deserves to be reported - and it only takes a paragraph.
Not one London daily was able to do so. Some gave the proposals a double page spread and plenty of detail (the Guardian, the Daily Mail, the Times). Others not (the Indie one half tabloid page, the FT a quarter broadsheet page plus an item on the Attorney-general, the Telegraph just 12 inches plus sketch writer and Simon Heffer's column).
Though Brown didn't mention this in his speech, the Green Paper announced that current restrictions that allow the Union Jack to be hoisted over official buildings for only 18 days a year will be abolished. This was given to the Murdoch press as their special story - see pictures.
The FT's reporter, Jean Eaglesham, dripped disbelief in her report while the paper's leader argue d that "public trust [in politicians] depends above all on how they conduct themselves to earn that trust".
This is the John Humphrys, Alexander Pope, "For forms of Government, let fools contest; What'er is best administered is best" or "Don't blame the constitution just pull your socks up" line we will hear a lot more of from the media. It was weakly echoed in The Times editorial, "There is a sound case for modernising the constitution... [but] the government will survive or fall on its competence" .
The Guardian leader writer understood the larger picture and saw the opportunity as well as the limitations in Brown's approach. He, or she, had the wit to contrast it to his more explicit call for a "long overdue transfer of sovereignty... not just tidying up our constitution but transforming it", that he set out in his 1992 Charter88 sovereignty lecture. Jonathan Freedland called for us to support Brown's commitment to a process. But was nervous of being ‘anoraky' and patronised the hard work Pam Giddy of the Power Inquiry which undoubtedly had an influence on the Prime Minister's thinking (is Freedland afraid of Michael White?).
Should we be looking for better briefing from the government? (The old word for spin). I think there is a big problem with the media, who are part of the informal settlement and dislike reform. The reactions to the idea of Citizens Juries is telling. But there is also an uncertainty, a hesitation in Brown's approach, alongside a fear among some of his close advisors that he is starting something he can't control. This calls for better, closer reporting and analysis. All the more reason for OurKingdom?
