Sponsored by
Bernard Ingham: How MPs got in the picture... and lost sight of priorities
NEVER in the history of man have so many people had so much information thrown at them to so little purpose. Consequently, never in the history of communications has so much collectively gone in at one ear and out of the other.
And never in the long march of democracy have so many seen and heard their elected representatives perform in Parliament to so little appreciation.
I am going on like some poor man's Churchill because, to my astonishment, this weekend sees the 20th anniversary of politicians approving moves to televise the House of Commons.
Some reflections are in order,
as I had a hand in bringing about this development in communications, if that is what it has been, between Parliament and people.
No, I did not tell Margaret Thatcher that was what she should go for, though I thought she personally could only benefit from it given her comely command of the Dispatch Box. Quite simply, it was one of those things whose time had come and my job, on her behalf, was to limit the damage.
You may think it was a long time coming, but to admit TV after only 30 years or so as a mass medium was somewhat hasty by Parliament's standards. It took it just over 30 years to give members of the Press a (back row) seat in the House after MPs had tacitly lifted their ban on the reporting of its proceedings. And it took another 142 years – not until 1945, to be precise – before reporters were able to hear with reasonable ease what was going on down below them.
But I digress. Mrs Thatcher was not an enthusiast for televising the House. Indeed, she thought it would do Parliament's reputation no good at all and was singularly unmoved, though not unstimulated, by those who argued that it was far better for Parliament to be both seen and heard at work than just heard over the radio. It would seem less like a bear garden, they said. All too often, the decibel count was rather high.
Ah, yes, but what impression would acres of empty green benches give? Neglect of duty?
As was usual in these matters, I was not burdened with instructions by my boss. Substantively, she wanted to limit the propensity of TV to
encourage exhibitionists, accentuate drama and promote bovver boys to the exclusion of serious debate. She was also worried (rightly) about the angle of the camera lest they see only the top of her head when she was speaking.
John (now Lord) Wakeham, the lead Minister in the negotiations, took my point that the Government should seek to persuade MPs to start more rather than less restrictively since they could always ease up in the light of experience. And so for 20 years we have had camera concentration on the Minister or MP speaking and those immediately around him – the "doughnutters" as they were called when Blair's Babes gathered for a purpose – and wide shots of the House rather than homing in on the usual suspects.
All this may not have made for brilliant television, especially since panning for reaction and leaping lesbians abseiling from the gallery, was banned. But, at least, the populace have been able to see what it is like in action, both on the floor of the House and in committees outside it.
So, has it been worth it or is it yet another case of television debasing all it touches? Do people have a better understanding of what Parliament does and are they better informed about what is being done in their name?
I doubt it, though whether this can be laid at the door of television is another matter.
Society's general dumbing down has reduced general media coverage of Parliament.
Newspaper pages are no longer given over to its reportage. Television covers only the juicy bits, starting with the clash of the titans at PMQs.
All this was predictable since Parliamentary routine is no more exciting to Joe Bloggs than watching paint dry. And boring bums on sofas is TV's cardinal sin.
It was clear that power was draining out of Parliament and into the TV studio long before the House itself came visually on air. Over a year, the ordinary backbencher has few chances to shine in the Commons. But he can command an audience of around a million whenever he steps into a studio – and on his own regional TV, too.
I conclude that never has so much technology done so little for so many.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Leeds lose Ward to Palace: Is there anyone they can afford now?
- Sheffield Wednesday leaving it late to hijack Leeds United over Ward
- As Snodgrass dithers over Leeds, Warnock throws a lifeline
- Ball is in Leeds United’s court over contract - Snodgrass
- Police turning blind eye to Asian voter fraud, says MP
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Yorkshire
Friday 25 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 20 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 8 C to 20 C
Wind Speed: 16 mph
Wind direction: East
