I don’t see a problem with all meetings between elected politicians and journalist being on the public record (at least after the journalists have published). Isn’t the fact that politicians can anonymously brief journalists one of the problems here – that a you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours attitude grows out of this, because no-one else can trace the links.

A code limited only to ministers would be pointless – their SpAds could go and talk to journalists on their behalf – so what is the objection to this. MPs can and should say what they want to journalists – but they should not have the right to do so without their electorate knowing what they are saying.

However, recording all meetings between journalists and MPs would severely impede the work of a free press, said a senior source from Ed Miliband’s office.

Hmm. Would that senior source be an ex-political journalist by any chance Sunny?

Back to square one then ! What is wrong with Transparency and Openess because that way no person can be accused of wrong doing and we will not be back in this situation yet again.

Dont tell me that these people are just political point scoring and they do not really give a toss about the victims of phone hacking.

This has to be more than just getting one over that evil, deceiful, ruthless, hypocritical, liar David Cameron.

Press briefings are an important route by which backbenchers can have some influence and hold Government to account. The question is what effect these proposals would have. If they allowed Government power to become more entrenched I think we should be concerned.

Press briefings are an important route by which backbenchers can have some influence and hold Government to account. The question is what effect these proposals would have. If they allowed Government power to become more entrenched I think we should be concerned.

Fair point. But backbenchers should not be afraid to publically state their problems and views – that’s why they have the job, to be public. If their career aspirations outdo their ability to disagree with their party in public, do we really want them in parliament?

@5

If these proposals allowed ministers to brief secretly through a third party but required backbenchers to be named there would surely be an imbalance, don’t you think?

@6,

Not necessarily – because if journalists did not name their source MP, we would know it was a planted comment – and that would not look good when the expectation is for comments to come from an identifiable source.

Anonymous briefings work because they are the normal way to get information from MPs. If they were not, would they not merely be useful for hinting at stories to follow (a practical use – but one open to backbenchers as well) or attacking opponents without attribution (which would be a bit pointless unless there was actually a story to follow). In effect, any substantive debate on policy would have to be open, as anonymous contributions (says the person with a nom-de-pluie (and very poor French)) tend to be easier to ignore.

I just don’t see how this would be practical. Say you’re an MP and you go to speak to your CLP (or Tory association, or whatever), and one of the members happens to do the occasional freelance piece. Or you go to a party and a journalist is there. And what constitutes a journalist? Someone who has an NUJ card? The whole thing is a minefield. At least with proprietors and senior media executives it’s actually possible to operate.

Ed M seems to be totally right on this one. Firstly, a conversation between an MP and a journo could easily be entirely personal – you think MPs don’t have friends who qualify as journalists?

Secondly, the idea of recording casual conversations seems like a step towards something awful to me. If I were to be told that my conversations were to be recorded and made part of the public record, I’d want a very good justification for that. Saying “well, he’s a politician, and you’re associated with the press” wouldn’t cut it.

Thirdly, if we start taping everything our politicians say, the end result is that they get massively cautious, to the point where the PM can’t have a frank conversation with anyone in his cabinet. We end up in a place where the people in power won’t even talk to each other for fear of becoming front-page news. I don’t think that’s worth the payoff.