Why Starmer’s decision to cancel media briefings is bad for democracy
IIt’s fair to say Keir Starmer hasn’t had the best time in the media since becoming prime minister on July 4, 2024.
His first 19 months as prime minister were so bad that he is now Downing Street’s fourth director of communications.
The decision to scrap winter fuel payments for pensioners, briefings against ministers from Downing Street, failed attempts to cut the welfare bill, incessant pre-budget leaks and much more have built the image of a man who is simply not cut out for the job.
But it seems Sir Keir has decided not to take a long, hard look at himself and his media operation. Rather than a failure in government to develop a coherent narrative, produce good news or even do the job properly, the Prime Minister has apparently decided that the problem lies in being exposed to too much media scrutiny.
Just as parliament was preparing for the Christmas recess, the late communications director Tim Allan dropped a bombshell.
He told the lobby (a common name for journalists in parliament) that the government had canceled most of its daily media reviews.
What are they doing?
Allan, a support act under Tony Blair, was appointed in September to rescue the struggling communications strategy in the Starmer government.
His letter to the lobby laid out the prime minister’s grand vision to improve his media profile.
The most important item was the cancellation of the event called “afternoon lobby”. This is a briefing where parliamentary journalists can ask the Downing Street spokesman for information on the day’s developments and stories affecting the government.
Additionally, Allan said the “morning lobby” – the more important morning version of this briefing – would no longer take place every day and would sometimes be replaced by an increasing number of press conferences with ministers.
Why is this a problem?
This is not just a technical issue within parliament; This is a serious incident that dilutes the democratic accountability of the government.
Essentially what the government has done is greatly reduced the level of scrutiny it receives.
Lobby briefings do not have a fixed time limit, they are always recorded, as those of us who have attended particularly long briefings will attest.
In addition, every journalist present, regardless of the media outlet, can ask questions on almost any subject.
Therefore, reducing the number of briefings by more than half would seriously reduce the media’s ability to hold the government to account.
For years Downing Street and governments generally have hated this process, but they have always put up with it.
Why do governments prefer press conferences?
Some might say that increased press conferences are a good alternative. They are not. Press conferences mean only a select few journalists can take questions.
In addition, we have seen the introduction of a new policy of divide and rule around the Budget, with the government only inviting a small select group of media outlets to a press conference with the Chancellor and attempting to exclude others.
Is this an attack on freedom of expression?
It’s worth noting that although previous governments have tried to limit scrutiny from lobby journalists, none have ever gone this far.
Even Alastair Campbell, Blair’s communications director, or Lee Cain under Boris Johnson, never tried to cancel lobby briefings, although they had a tense relationship with journalists.
Critics of the current Labor government have often sought to portray it as authoritarian and anti-free speech. While much of this criticism is exaggerated, canceling the parliamentary media review will feed into the unfortunate but entrenched image Starmer’s government currently has.
Taken together with the twin announcements last month that this government plans to revoke the 800-year-old right to jury trials for a host of crimes and that it will cancel local elections next year, which it is scheduled to lose, the claim that this is an authoritarian government becomes much harder to argue against.
Forget the controversy over people being arrested for tweets and the tense issue of the Online Safety Act; both of these soured Britain’s relationship with the United States.
Starmer has repeatedly pushed back on claims that free speech is being attacked in the UK, saying it is alive and well, especially in the presence of Donald Trump. But if he truly believed it, he would reverse this clumsy attempt to limit press scrutiny and instead welcome it as an important part of British democracy.
