So the Answer is "No"

The official report of yesterday morning's Lobby briefing is the usual waste of time and evasive non-answers from the PMS. However this bit of obsfucation amused Guido:

Asked if the Prime Minister was happy, the PMS said that the Prime Minister, as he had said himself before, believed that he had the best job in the world and he was focusing on meeting the priorities of the British people; that’s what we were doing today and what we would be doing for the days and weeks ahead.

"No" in other words...

U-Turn : Dithered to the Death

At PMQs Dave called Gordon "a loser not a leader". The hastily cobbled together deal placated Frank Field this morning and he withdrew his amendment. Apparently the sticking plaster for the lower paid will be backdated and will include "changes to the winter fuel payment system, tax credits and the minimum wage in order to compensate those losing out from the ending of the 10p rate."

Nice and simple. Not.

Cast your mind back to last week's U.S. trip. On the flight to Washington Gordon personally briefed the Lobby on the usual off-the-record basis that "No one will lose out."

He dismissed Lobby hacks claims that dozens of Labour MPs were set to rebel over the issue, saying: "It is just one or two MPs asking questions." The Mail on Sunday was not on the trip, so was not bound by Lobby terms, it accurately reported Gordon claiming

"You're wrong. No one will lose out. Come on . . . you guys have exaggerated it all."

When BBC political editor Nick Robinson insisted there was a sizeable Labour revolt, Mr Brown fired back*: "No it isn't. There are just one or two MPs asking questions."

When a journalist from a Labour-supporting paper insisted that the rebellion was far bigger, Mr Brown scowled: "Really? Really? That's what you say."

He was equally abrupt with ITN political editor Tom Bradby, who had asked him at the White House about the resignation threat by ministerial aide Angela Smith.

Mr Brown was forced to break off from his White House talks to beg Ms Smith not to resign. "You said a Minister was going to resign, but she didn't," Mr Brown told Mr Bradby.

Asked "What did Angela Smith say to you?" Mr Brown replied: "She just phoned me to say she wasn't resigning."

BBC Newsnight political editor Michael Crick asked sarcastically: "She phoned you up at the White House to tell you she wasn't resigning? Do all your Ministers do that?"

Another journalist put Mr Brown on the spot: "Do you acknowledge that there will be some losers from this tax change?"

The Prime Minister replied: "No. It's not as simple as that."

Such was the extraordinary nature of the exchanges with the assembled Lobby that the papers, even though bound by Lobby terms, were full of phrases hinting along the lines of "PM Privately Furious" the next day. Downing Street spin officials were horrified by the disastrous briefing. The PM appeared to be either in complete denial or out of touch with reality. He was also close to losing self-control and on the edge of throwing yet another tantrum. Gordon was convinced by officials he should give another personal briefing during the trip in an attempt to repair the damage done.

Clearly if you start talking transparent bollocks to the Lobby when you are off-the-record, you will inevitably get a bad press. The whole point of the Lobby and off-the-record briefings is that they are supposed to allow candid honesty in return for non-attribution. Gordon's psychological flaws and unwillingness to accept criticism make it impossible for him to accept that when he has made a mistake, and this was a huge mistake, he has to openly make amends. His usual bullying didn't work in this case - he has now made a humiliating U-turn - not an act of leadership.

*Nick Robinson has obliquely confirmed the Mail on Sunday's version of events. He blogs that "Gordon Brown had shouted down those who told him there were many many losers from his last Budget as Chancellor and those who told him he faced a real political crisis as a result." Guido suspects that Nick himself was, as reported, one of "those" shouted down.

UPDATE : U-turn letter (pdf) here.

Lobby Hacks Show Professionalism

At the end of last night's meeting of the PLP Ian Austin, Gordon's PPS, came out to give the official word to the thirsty gentlemen of the Lobby. Last time he did this his cunning plan was to say that everyone loved Gordon and everything was fine.

This had only one tiny flaw: it relied on 350 unhappy Labour MPs keeping their mouths shut. They of course did not, and we all now know that there was a mutiny over doubling the tax rate on low earners. So what did Ian do last night? He explained again that everything is fine and everyone loves Gordon! "That's what you told us last time," said Newsnight's Crick. "I stand by every word of what I said last time," Austin replied, "I tell the truth. I stake my reputation on the accuracy of my briefing."

Guido has previously implied that Lobby hacks are unskilled. On reflection they did show professionalism last night. Not one of them laughed until after Ian Austin was out of sight.

You Won't Read This in the British Press

Andrew Gilligan deservedly won the Journalist of the Year award last night at the self-congratulatory British Press Awards. Who else in the political reporting world deserved an award for actual investigative work? Maybe Johnathan Oliver for the Scoop of the Year, unearthing the David Abrahams proxy funding scandal.

As for the rest of the Lobby - Guido is distinctly unimpressed with most of them. Why do thirsty Lobby hacks have an annual taxpayer subsidy of £210,000 for their bar? Where is the public interest in this subsidy? What other profession needs a bar at their place of work? The only other business that Guido can think of that gets leads in bars is the oldest profession.

Why can't News International and Associated Press pay for their own office space and telephone lines instead of sponging subsidies* off the taxpayer? They are hugely profitable businesses.

The lossmaking Indy, Guardian and Telegraph collectively make less profits than Guido does, so perhaps they need their offices subsidised by the people who refuse to buy their papers. Or perhaps there are just too many newspapers and not enough readers willing to pay for them? The Lobby is full of drunken hypocrites recycling spin from the party machines. A cull of their numbers would hardly be a loss to the world.

Peter Oborne in his Triumph of the Political Class characterises the Lobby system as having produced a tame "client media". He is absolutely right, the Lobby is far too cosily embedded in the politico-media system, far too close to their subjects, with the likes of Nick Robinson flashing his taxpayer-financed credit card to pour the better vintages down the throats of ministers who have their lunch on the BBC telly-taxpayers. The same ministers have their groceries sent to their mortgage subsidised home paid for out of the costs allowance fiddle by low income taxpayers who have just had their tax rate doubled. The system stinks, those who are supposed to be watching over politicians benefit from the system staying the same.

Too much public money is sloshing around Westminster effectively keeping them cosy together. No wonder Nick Robinson and Michael Martin don't want us to see their expenses - they are the biggest beneficiaries of keeping taxpayers in the dark. At the British Press Awards last night Cameron began with "I haven't come here to try and suck up to you" then went on to paraphrase H. L. Mencken saying that the relationship between newspapers and politicians should be "fractious, edgy and confrontational". H. L. Mencken actually said that the relationship between a journalist and a politician should be like that between "a dog and a lampost", journalists should be pissing on politicians not getting pissed with 'em...

*No taxpayers are harmed in the making of this blog.

F o I Me? No Hypocrisy Says Robinson

Nick Robinson has acknowledged Guido's FoI request for his expenses on his own blog. He doesn't get drawn on the whys and wherefores of the issue instead he just gives a politician's answer referring readers to the BBC's official reason for refusing. He doesn't say why he thinks he shouldn't tell his paymasters his expenses yet MPs should.

Your request falls outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act because the BBC and the other public service broadcasters are covered by the Act only in respect of information held for purposes “other than those of journalism, art or literature”

Well that argument seems flawed on two counts. Firstly the cost of a bottle of wine ordered by Nick at the telly taxpayer's expense is not information held for the purposes of journalism. It is information held, by law, for the purposes of accounting. Guido has not FoI'd Nick's notes of the lunch, he simply wants to know how many pound notes a bottle of wine poured down the throat of a politician costs the licence payers. Guido has not requested the names of his dining partners either. There is therefore no journalistic reason to keep the cost of a bottle of wine secret is there? It is public money after all.

Secondly the BBC has given dozens of FoI responses to requests about expense claim requests in the past. So why is this one different? There is a clear public interest in the voters and licence payers discovering how lavish are the contents of the trough that the politico-media nexus dines at - the public pays for the "trebles all round". Guido revealed a few weeks ago that the Lobby's journalists have their own bar subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of £1,000 every working day. Is it any wonder that for so long they have gone easy on MPs when they are guilty of sharing the same trough?

Lobby Lushes Get Blanko on The Taxpayer Too!

Is it any wonder that Guido's four year campaign against politicians with their snouts in the trough got until recently so little traction in the media? Because the Lobby itself is full of expense fiddling drunks who rarely pay for their own drinks. The Billy Blanko parody of a Lobby hack is based on a composite of a few well known hacks. Guido has remarked on the drunken laziness of the Lobby many times but it is really a private affair between them and their Big Media shareholders. The BBC is different since law abiding television owners have no choice and are forced to pay for their output on pain of jailing. So Guido is keen to FoI what Nick Robinson drinks at the telly taxpayers expense...

Here is the news you won't read in the papers or hear from broadcast by our fearless Lobby lushes:-

The total subsidy paid by the taxpayer to the press gallery bar and restaurant last year was £201,100. They drink at the taxpayers expense to the tune of a £1,000 every working day. They really are taking the piss getting pissed at the public's expense.

Splitter! Splits! Hooray!

Political correspondents can breathe a collective sigh of relief. As we exit the substance desert that was the silly season they can now start writing "party split" stories.

Keith Vaz, a former minister for Europe, is calling for a referendum on the European constitution that Jim Murphy, the current minister for Europe says isn't a constitution, just a bit of administrative tidying up. The FCO traditionally lies for its country, Murphy is lying for a foreign superstate. Blunkett says a referendum was promised and Miliband says Labour is not split. Super...

Gummer is getting a kicking from John Redwood saying basically that the mad burger-eater will damage the economy with his Green taxes and plans for increasing airport congestion. Cameroonie sources are briefing that they won't pay much attention to the loopier ideas from Zac and Gummer. Fantastic...

So we have splits, splitters and lots of easy copy ahead of the party conferences. Cynics among you might wonder if the splits haven't just been teased out by the media to manufacture a storyline, the Sun (Vaz article) and GMTV (Redwood interview) can take the credit for getting it going. The show must go on...

Sky News : Sir Michael White versus Andrew Gilligan

A co-conspirator reports a ding-dong of press review late last night on Sky. They clashed over Rushdie's knighthood, with Gilligan apparently implying that Sir Michael could look forward to some reward in Blair's resignation honours list. How disrespectful of young Gilligan to the doyen of the lobby...

Sieghart Says Times Colleagues Craven to Brown

Startlingly candid admission in Mary Ann Sieghart's farewell column:

As this is to be my last regular column for The Times, I am in a different position today from other commentators. I don’t have to worry about whether the new regime at No 10 will return my calls, at least until the autumn. I don’t have to curry favour with anyone or worry about giving offence. Instead I can give you an unvarnished prediction of what the next few years of a Gordon Brown premiership will be like.

She has, it is rumoured, taken up the offer of a redundancy payout in the latest round of News International job cuts. Last time Guido indulged in a bit of Times-bashing they got very upset. Peter Riddell even called up an associate to tell him to stop associating with Guido, there was talk of them getting Guido back with an "exposé". But here you have it from someone who knows; Peter Riddell, Phil Webster et al suck up to Brown and Balls out of fear. It must be true, it is printed in The Times...

Fancy a Bet George?

The Sun's George Pascoe-Watson, author of this famous front page prediction, says we may have an election in October, but most likely next June. Guido is offering 2/1 against George, if you are interested.

Talking of betting with journalists, Mark Townsend, the Observer hack who wrote in the loss making Sunday paper that the CPS would wind up their inquiry into Loans for Lordships last October with nothing doing and wagered with Guido accordingly, still has not paid up.

Phone calls and emails go unanswered. Guido strongly recommends that he pays up this week.

Journalists Consorting with Known Police Suspects

Peter Wilby, the ex-editor of the New Statesman, writing in the Guardian on Monday, backed the Guido thesis, that the Westminster embedded Lobby is too cosy with its subjects. He wrote that "political correspondents tend to give politicians the benefit of the doubt... The lobby system makes the press a poor watchdog over government".

Guido wonders what kind of coverage will be given to Levy's expected trial by the likes of Anne McElvoy, Dominic Lawson, Matthew d'Ancona (Speccie editor), Will Lewis (Telegraph editor), Charles Moore, Nick Lloyd, Eve Pollard, Piers Morgan and errm, Sue Lawley. Lobby low-lifes were also at Levy's leaving party in numbers.

One wonders about the wisdom of frontline editors like Will Lewis and Matthew d'Ancona attending, could it lead them to compromise their coverage? Even encourage them, in the words of Peter Wilby, to give the Sleazemaster the benefit of the doubt?

Incidentally, Guido's champagne-swilling co-conspirator spied Dominic Lawson deep in conversation with John Scarlett for much of the evening.

UPDATE : Just noticed that d'Ancona outed himself as an attendee on his blog this morning. He mentions the "oblique reference in His Lordship's own speech to the great cloud of loans for honours and the files now with the CPS."

They Don't Like It Up 'Em

Iain Dale had a go at the Sunday Lobby yesterday for recycling a Brownite speech and spin package. The gentlemen of the Lobby were not slow to respond. Patrick Hennessy from the Sunday Telegraph and Ian Kirby from the News of the World have jumped into his comments to protest.

Having read the stories in the Sunday papers, it does seem that there was a speech in Glasgow on Saturday where Gordon tried to have it both ways - more bugging and surveillance with more accountability. Clearly a briefing of the Sunday Lobby by somone on Gordon's spin team followed.

Hennessy and Kirby imply there was no condition of the briefing that they should keep it from being put to David Davis, Nick Clegg or even John Reid. Nevertheless Iain is right, it does seem odd not to ask "what do you say to this?" when according to the Sunday Times "a source close to Brown" is spinning that he plans "to build a nonpartisan consensus on the best balance between obtaining convictions of people plotting terrorist acts and preserving our sources of intelligence for the future." One would have thought a good journalist would have asked Clegg or Davis did they see much chance of a nonpartisan consensus on 90-days-without-trial? Just a thought...

Informed Sources?

Isn't today the day that the Sun's George Pascoe-Watson revealed on the front-page that Blair would leave office? "ITS MAY 31" ran the headline.

Not quite...

Informed Sources?

Clarke in 'kamikaze' challenge
By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Political Editor
May 03, 2007

CHARLES Clarke was last night poised to mount a “kamikaze” challenge against Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership. The former Home Secretary has successfully rounded up the 45 Labour MPs he needs to back him in the contest.

Clarke will not challenge Brown
By Sun Reporter
May 05, 2007

...and another classic bit of old media punditry from Alex Bell:

Guardian Media Section,
Monday April 30

This week voters north of the border will decide who to elect to the Scottish parliament, but despite the SNP's popularity in the polls, not a single newspaper will back it, reports Alex Bell

Four Sunday newspapers in Scotland had endorsed an SNP-led coalition the day before: the Sunday Times, Scotland on Sunday, Sunday Herald and Sunday Express. As reported here.

UPDATE : Iain Dale has shredded a so-bad-it-is-bonkers article by Melissa Kite-Flier on the shape of the Tory re-shuffle. Honestly some of these dead-tree-press types seem to write any old crap.

Chief Political Correspondent Wanted

The Times' chief political correspondent, Anthony Browne is off to run the Policy Exchange think tank after only one year in post. The job interview must have been interesting, since only last month he described Policy Exchange as "very close to the Conservative leadership" and accused them of issuing a report "giving perfect cover for a hard-hitting speech on the same day by David Cameron, detailing how he would tackle the issue." Clearly they forgave him for that sensitive jibe.

The job opening comes at a crucial time, Murdoch having basically decided to back Brown and try to crack the whip on Cameron to bring him into line. If our tele-democracy is about bread and circuses, Guido is in no doubt who is the ringmaster. So who will be the clown who gets the job?

It will be interesting to see if it goes to a journalist with known sympathies. If Tom Baldwin gets it, you can be sure the Times will be slanting reportage even more favourably to Gordon. It is one thing for the comment columnists to be partisan, if they weren't, it'd be boring. Some days even the Times' political reporting reads like it was written by Ed Balls.

UPDATE : This just in from Machiavelli , frankly nothing would surprise Guido...

Marr Misses Out

Marr's production people are more persistent at pestering Guido than Marr himself is with his guests. Nevertheless Guido declined their invitations. So you'll just have to make do tomorrow with Iain Dale on their political blogging special.

Strangely they turned down Guido's generous counter-offer to direct and produce a 5 minute look at why the Lobby/BBC lets us down, and how bloggers are performing a necessary service to democracy.

Guido suspects that they would much rather record and edit the footage to fit their agenda. Guido would rather "frame" them.