Main Edition
US
FR
September 14, 2024 - 1:00pm
This week it was revealed that MPs could face a crackdown on paid media appearances. The announcement came from the newly-formed Modernisation Committee, a Labour Party manifesto pledge intended to restore trust and drive up standards in the Commons. The committee’s memorandum agreed to look at tightening rules on second jobs, but also included specific focus on TV gigs: it will examine “whether paid outside engagements such as MP media appearances, journalism and speeches provide a benefit to the public or present a conflict of interest”.
The focus on media is noticeable. Prior to the election, the Financial Times reported that Labour intended to ban second jobs, but would allow paid broadcast work on a “case by case basis”. Now in power, the party appears to have changed its mind.
It’s not surprising, then, that the press regards this as an open war on Nigel Farage and Lee Anderson, both of whom are paid generously for shows on GB News. Before this announcement, the committee was already facing grumbles that it was a proxy for Keir Starmer’s government given that it is headed by Cabinet minister Lucy Powell. In true Starmer style, the committee intended to be part of a quiet revolution in bringing about boring but competent politics is now likely to find itself at the centre of a very public row.
While Labour may well win this battle, it’s questionable whether it’s worth even starting the war. As an MP, Farage already has a medium he seems set to master. On Tuesday he decried two-tier policing to a welcomed chorus of Labour Party jeers, a clip which then spread rapidly on social media. Farage’s appearance on GB News is therefore a largely inconsequential event, part of a dying media format watched by Red-Wall pensioners and hand-wringing Left-wing journalists.
Yet Labour may still make a martyr not just of Farage’s show, but of the medium itself. Today’s presenters, whether on Newsnight or GB News, have very little say over the day’s narrative. Sky, BBC and ITV still have a monopoly on television news viewing, but they exist in the tailwind of social media. There was a historic moment this week, when for the first time more adults got their news from social media than from TV. MPs who want to gain the old authority of broadcasting might be better off starting their own TikTok channel.
The decision will therefore be entirely counterintuitive, attracting unwanted political attention to an already unpopular government. It will be interpreted as petty political manoeuvring, fitting neatly inside the emerging narrative of a regime that is obsessed with rules and regulations as a means to fix national problems.
But it also reflects a naive, 20th-century mindset regarding the old media. Ahead of the election, calls for Ofcom to rein in GB News and other platforms allowing politicians to “moonlight” as presenters seemed part of a symbolic but desperate tribute act to the power of old broadcast media. That world is dead, and the members of the committee may be some of the last people who still believe in its influence. Those who work within the broadcasting establishment certainly don’t.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIs it just me or does the “Modernisation Committee” sound rather sinister ?
or should it be “The Committee of Public Safety (CPS) ” and who is going to be labours Robspierre
it is already Starmer, head of the Committee for Public Safety.
Then Robespierre came to sticky end.
There is still hope.
But who is Europe Napoleon?
I agree Claire D. It is quite alarming to have a fascist committee so named. However should it moderate Farage’s influence on the hoi polloi it will be worth it.
You can’t beat the Streisand effect.
You hardly know where to begin with this stupidity.
The idea that you “restore trust” by creating censorship.
The idea that people have any trust at all in those pushing these policies.
The idea that people won’t react to find ways round this. If people want to watch or financially support Farage, they’ll just find another way.
But I guess that’s what you do when you can’t win arguments on their merits.
And the article is mistaken in assuming that Labour will not now “apply this on a case by case basis”. That’s core Labour DNA – one rule for declaring Tory donor declarations, another for Starmer and his wife. They will never change.
While not being comfortable with censorship I disagree with you, Peter B. The main reason being the bone headed stupidity of the electorate and the manipulative effect of the media on their shrinking frontal lobes. Because Farage is an amiable drunk with outrageous ideas he is afforded an outsize influence via his TV gigs. Let him pay for media exposure rather than get paid, like every other MP.
And of course Josef knows that he is not one of bone head hoi polloi….
Thank you UH R. But no clarification needed.
“Clean up the airwaves” …great euphemism. If the “airwaves are dead”, then the stated concern is bogus. After it was done forever, then a “progressive” party takes power, then of course target their “concern” to silence effective and vocal opposition…Just like having a “famous Civil rights leader” imposing censorship, thought crime, pre-crime, etc. There seems to be a pattern in there….
“famous Civil rights leaders” always do this
“a Labour Party manifesto pledge intended to restore trust and drive up standards in the Commons”
The author doesn’t appear to know that a stated intention might just be a pretext.
Is this the start of “Political Lawfare” in the UK or have I missed something?
I haven’t recieved news or opinions over ‘the airwaves’ for many years, and I’m old.
The only news broadcasts that I receive are on Radio 3. When they come on I normally disappear into the kitchen and make a cuppa, thus avoiding the fiction then transmitted.
Farage figured out long ago that social media is the future. A TV ban won’t phase him too much. Even your granny is on Facebook.
An interesting Article that forgets to mention anywhere the owner of Unherd also owns GB News and Farage one of GB news most popular. Now maybe he allows journalistic freedom but writers will be well aware of what might damage the Big Boss’s interests. This was all a clever deflection gig -‘oh it’s not worth the bother banning him’ etc. Thou doth protest too much.
Farage should be doing the work of an MP serving his Clacton constituents. As it is he’s the highest earning MP. Doesn’t that just underline how much Grifting is really behind some of these Right wing amplifiers of rage.
Somebody who is the leader of a political party should only do constituency duties?
Where is that rule written down?
Look at his attendance record in Parliament too.
Thank you for telling Clacton’s MP what he should be doing. And there was me, with my very old-fashioned understanding of democracy, thinking that was the prerogative of the Clacton electorate.
I wonder if he’s asked them, or set out in his manifesto, that rather than putting in a regular shift in Parliament or in MP surgeries he’d have a 6 figure contract to host a TV show instead? Think we know the answer don’t we.
Who owns UnHerd? I ask sincerely. I’d be interested to know.
Just google it like everyone else has.
Thanks. You’re such a…
Of course, it is all about the concern. Not. Historical context gives a weee bit more to this faux concern. Like Disraeli writing political novels, a certain Winston writing a few things, speaking professionally, etc, and the tradition of MPs holding jobs…
And speaking of grifting, how about the astroturf movements backed by NGOs funded by government grants.
The obvious point of the Karens pushing a sudden concern about “constituent work” is silencing the public square regarding awful policies hated by constituents. And, apparently, envy.
Oddly it didn’t seem to be a problem when Lammy had a lucrative media gig.
Or Ms Abbott.