Wordblog

There is a smell of revolution in the air and it gives British journalism its biggest challenge for a very, very long time. With parliament devalued to Zimbabwe dollar levels the debate about our constitutional future has to be conducted in the media.

Will a media which has long been a part of the Westminster village be able to act as a moderator of the debate? In the age of the internet it is much better placed to do so than before as most now have areas where readers can join in debates.

We are at a  critical point in our history following yesterday’s ousting of the Speaker. The public is disillusioned with politicians. It goes back a long way, but one pivotal point was when a million people marched against the Iraq war in 2003 and Tony Blair took no notice whatsoever.

We wondered why all the Queen’s horses in the Palace of Westminster tried to patch up the banking system rather than change it. Our legislators regarded the bankers’ behaviour as venial: how could they do otherwise knowing how they filled in their expenses claims.

The word “revolution” — and I hope with the prefix  “peaceful” — is strong but look at the headline on the Telegraph’s leader today: Speaker Michael Martin’s downfall: Only the start of a very British revolution.

The Telegraph with its exclusive access to the expenses database has shown mastery of handling a story of this magnitude in the internet age. Every night the tickers on the news channels treat the newspaper’s coverage as breaking news.

The rapid spread of information to the public and the ability of all to respond has changed the landscape in which this debate is taking place.

The Sun’s leader does not use the “R” word but has something of that about it saying:

They should take an AXE to the number of MPs, cutting them from 646 to 450, CREATE an elected House of Lords and ALLOW voters to recall and sack bad MPs.

They should END the lunacy of MPs spending 700 hours debating an unworkable anti-hunting bill — but only SEVEN hours discussing the invasion of Iraq.

In measured tones, the Daily Mail says:

There is a great deal to be done, and the concern remains that the current crop of MPs are not the ones to do it. They chose Mr Martin in the first place.

They got the Speaker they deserved. Which is why his departure does not address the profound moral and political failure of the House of Commons as a whole.

The republican Guardian’s leader is fairly muted using “reform” rather than “revolution”. But the headline on a Jonathan Freedland column is: The Speaker exits with revolution in the air. I say, bring it on

The Guardian has seized the opportunity, introducing a new section of its hugely successful “Comment is free” web debate called “A New Politics” – “An open forum on how to renew our politics.”

If we are to have a real national debate much of it will be on the internet. Bloggers as well as mainstream media will provide the platforms on which everyone can join in.

The regional and local must play a big role in the debate, reaching people others do not. It is much less intimidating for many people to write a letter to their local paper or post a comment there.

There should, of course, be city, town and village meetings up and down the country, but who is to organise them? I thought of Charter 88 which seems to have been incorporated into something called Unlock Democracy. Its website has nothing on the current crisis, which says something about the state of the reform movement.

It is clearly up to the media to conduct the debate we must have.