>The Serjeant at Arms is responsible for awarding passes to lobby correspondents. This is carried out on his behalf by the Deputy Serjeant at Arms. The Metropolitan police have no role in awarding passes.

http://www.thepressgallery.co.uk/

The Beeb have about 25 Lobby Correspondents.

No New Media except Pol Home.
Politics.co.uk, Spectator etc. NOT on the list.

PQ about it:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-03-28b.130106.h

A new development would be Lobby passes for independent individuals – Dale/Guido.

Also it would be interesting to compare Blogs with Think Tanks – does Lib Con do anything that e.g., Adam Smith Institute or Reform does not?

I’d suggest it needs a root and branch working over.

Doesnt this really emphasise the problem though; blogs are not newspapers and although newspapers are editorially close to certain parties they are not as explicitly alinged as say somebody like Iain Dale; or indeed Guido is, this is why I have a problem with Paul’s idea as it is posited.

Paul says that the ‘Big Five’ have enough reach and scope to justify these passes but what is the hope for say Liberal Democrat Voice; a site for a third party ever getting one. It doesnt just stop there though; if the Big Five get one there will be no home for Labour Home and this is not to mention the Greens who might feel they should have one too…as maybe even fringe parties like UKIP and the BNP might say.

Political Betting, which is a neutral site, is to my mind the only one of the Big Five that could have one without causing accusations of ‘two-tier’ blogging and that there is a political bias in who gets one…

Yes, and this applies to Labour party people too on occasion. Its true we target some people specifically. But we do so for clearly stated reasons

I don’t have a problem with other new media having passes – though Liberty isn’t comparable to us really.

Without speculating much, I doubt if any political blog costs more than about £200 a year to host – maybe excluding PB or anyone being fleeced.

Mine is of the order of $100 for that and other sites, but needs an upgrade.

>You’re right about including other sites as well: I met two of the guys from politics.co.uk recently, quite impressive, that’s not a ‘blog’ as such, but it is a web only news site about politics, with paid staff: I assume they have a pass already, if not, they should have.

Politics.co.uk are interesting. Among other things, they make a chunk of money from charging amounts for microsites that would make all our eyes water (I saw a set of numbers in a charity annual report). It is basically an old business model that will decay as customers wake up unless supported by very significant value adding and other services.

In traffic terms they will get overtaken by some poliblogs and businesses built by people who do poliblogs – and by PolHome or Total Pol if they get their act together eventually and build out sideways.

Matt

Also, not being in favour of one specific party doesn’t mean we can’t all agree on what we oppose: I’ve *very* happy, personally, to give the like of Alan Duncan a fair hearing. But Nadine Dorries has shown herself beyond the pale and is the type of Tory that gives all Conservatives a bad name.

I’ll happily sling mud, and I’ll happily write constructively—my most recent post on here was about Blears, in which I both slung mud and praised some good thinking. All at the same person.

We don’t have a full time staff, we don’t make any money at all (and the site is costing someone money to host, and given the server load I reckon it’s not cheap). But we’re definitely an organisation, and the level of interest Sunny and team have built up over the last year definitely makes us significant I’d say. I don’t think having a staff is necessary to count myself.

You’re right about including other sites as well: I met two of the guys from politics.co.uk recently, quite impressive, that’s not a ‘blog’ as such, but it is a web only news site about politics, with paid staff: I assume they have a pass already, if not, they should have.

Very difficult area, and of course I’m not that keen on the lobby system anyway, but movement towards openness is more likely than a sudden change in the system, thus letting us (and others) in would be a good first step.

I think that is slightly (!) over pious – you do your share of mudslinging. and it is highly targetted mudslinging too. OTOH the likes of the Mail and the Mirror have passes, so that shouldn’t necessarily stop LC having one.

I’d welcome an article about how the system actually works: I haven’t seen that anywhere.

I’d also suggest that it needs objective criteria – perhaps in terms of blogs having full-time staff or similar, since no blogs are anywhere near being “significant organisations”.

Perhaps political blogs having lobby passes also needs to be part of a larger question.

Should Open Democracy have one?
Journalism.co.uk?
Think tanks?
The First Post?
Liberty?

We need to know whether it is reporting, campaigning or influencing that is the justification.

I agree and think this is a very good idea. If Parliament/the government is serious about new ways of engaging the electorate (in light of the new Speakers Conference on representation) and ensuring it is open and transparent then issuing bloggers lobby passes is one way step in that direction.

Well only at Tory ones, anyway…

You should have a pass – hope you get one.

Who actually decides?