The magazine was the brainchild of Mike Thomas, (Labour Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne East) who came to the House in 1974 and the first issue appeared in the Autumn of 1976. In those days there was a profile caricature on the front page and a gossip column called Guy Fawkes, written by Hugh McPherson. The rest was mainly information. But although some of the older, more staid, Members looked down at this far-from august journal, and gave it a few months, the majority warmed to it, feeling that it did supply a need and had real potential.
I became involved fairly early on as a member of a small advisory group Mike Thomas recruited from both sides of the House. It was about that time that the magazine first attracted the attention of the national media when, on April 1st 1977, an imaginary knight of the shire was the subject of the profile. One or two journalists were heard saying that they’d never heard of him – which was not quite as bad as the “colleagues” who said they had.
Mike Thomas did not have the funds to develop the magazine and in 1978 a white knight, one Keith Young, a printer and publisher from Clerkenwell, bought the infant publication. I met him at a dinner party shortly afterwards and he invited me to chair an Editorial Board, consisting of members from both Houses and all parties and senior officers of the House.
In 1979, shortly after the General Election, Keith Young asked Chris Price, Labour MP for Lewisham, and me to act as joint Editors. Chris lost his seat in the Thatcher landslide of 1983 and I then became Editor, initially with the prefix of ‘consultant’, in order to distinguish me from the tiny full-time editorial team at Clerkenwell. I was, in effect, Executive Editor, and ‘consultant’ was dropped soon afterwards in the wake of an incident which resulted in a whole issue of the magazine being pulped and the withdrawal from the Board of the Clerk, the Serjeant and the Librarian. The piece, which was mildly defamatory, came to my notice too late, having been passed by someone without real experience of this place who quickly moved on to rather more congenial employment elsewhere.
And in the Editor’s chair I have remained, ably assisted by a succession very talented young full timers – including John Healey, Michael Trend and Daisy Sampson, the newly appointed Chief Political Correspondent of ITN. In the House itself, Austin Mitchell has been Associate Editor for more than twenty years. He was joined in 1990 by Charles Kennedy. He left to lead his party, to be succeeded by Mark Oaten. After the 1997 election it was felt we should have another Labour Associate to reflect the political complexion of the House. So, the newly elected John Healey came back. On John’s promotion we gained Ruth Kelly and on hers, after the 2001 election, we were joined by Gisela Stuart.
I have often likened the Editor’s job to walking on eggshells. We have always striven to be impeccably fair, ensuring that all views are adequately reflected in a balanced way. As I said at the dinner in Speaker’s House held to mark the 25th Anniversary of the magazine, my role models have been the occupants of the Speaker’s Chair. The House Magazine is not The Spectator or The Economist or The New Statesman – all thoroughly admirable publications. Although it has never received a penny from pubic funds, or from the House’s coffers, members in both Houses feel very proprietorial about it. They expect it to reflect fairly the mood and opinions of the House; to report on, and respond to, issues in a way that no national newspaper or magazine needs to do.
And they expect to appear in it. I came to adopt a private rule that those who asked to be profiled did not go to the top of the list. But, in selecting profile victims we have always had regard to the need to keep a balance between the Houses and the parties, and between ages, sexes and geographical areas. Naturally we always welcome unsolicited contributions from Members, although sometimes they have created their own embarrassment – as when a Member submitted four pages of blank verse, convinced that the Laureatship was in his grasp – and turned very tetchy when we could not publish. But that was better than the secretary who became very tearful when her rhyming diary was received, but rejected, with thanks.
Running the magazine has only been possible because of the skill and dedication of the full-timers (and Daisy Sampson’s successor but two, Richard Hall, has quite rightly been promoted to Managing Editor recently) and for the wonderful help of Associate Editor colleagues. Every Tuesday we have gathered in my room for what Charles Kennedy was kind enough to describe last year as “some of the best moments of the week”. Trusting each other totally, we are able to make plans as we swap anecdotes, knowing that we can be totally uninhibited in what we say to each other without any fear of any leak.
The ultimate editorial responsibility can be a lonely one – and a demanding one too. I have not had a holiday in the last twenty-three years which has not been interrupted by telephone calls and faxes from the magazine. Bemused waiters and receptionists in Venice and Verona, the Highlands and the Hebrides, Australia and the Solomon Islands have come at all hours clutching reams of paper from London. For I really have read every article that has appeared. It has been necessary to have an eagle eye, so as to delete the odd expletive from a diary or to save unnecessary wounds from being inflicted and libel writs from being incurred. And in striving for balance I have often had to telephone a Minister’s private office – or an Opposition Spokesman’s secretary – to ensure that a promised piece appeared on time to avoid publishing only one side of the argument.
In the very early days it was not unusual for Members’ contributions to come written in longhand – and then to have to guess the intention. We once had an assistant who was very good at typing the apparently indecipherable. She was so good that I began to feel that I did not need to read the transcript too carefully – until the day when the “L” was missed out of “public affairs” in a note by one colleague referring to another’s intimate knowledge of them.
During Keith Young’s long ownership of the magazine we were able to expand considerably – to become truly a magazine that covers both Houses – as we increased coverage of the Lords. Trying to compensate for the lack of Parliamentary reporting in the national press we introduced our Commons and Lords Galleries features. At the same time we kept and built on those items which successive surveys showed us Members’ particularly liked – such as the diary, the profile and Cobbett. And it has been no small satisfaction to find those pieces frequently quoted in the national press.
Last year Keith Young decided that the time had come to sell. For many years he had sustained the magazine but it had become part of the Parliamentary scene, and he was delighted to be able to negotiate a sale to Huveaux Plc, owners of Dod’s. The sale also saw the magazine’s sister publications – The Parliamentary Monitor, Whitehall & Westminster World, The Parliament Magazine – as well as ePolitix and its offshoots – move into Dod’s stable. Under our new proprietors we have been able to expand still further, bringing in new features and a new layout.
So the time has come to hand on my editorial duties. I shall still have real responsibilities, but holidays will not be interrupted and the magazine will be in the safest of hands. Gisela Stuart and Mark Oaten are becoming the joint Editors, and they will still have Austin Mitchell there to enliven their meetings and take their photographs. He never comes to an editorial meeting without a camera, and generally two. On one occasion he had six, all of which he used.
As the old order changeth I feel very confident about the magazine’s future, but above all I hope that colleagues in both Houses will continue to feel proprietorial about it. That is why the Editorial Advisory Board will continue to have a major role in shaping that future.
