Fishburn Hedges

05.12.2011

‘The trouble with Twitter, the instantness of it - Too many twits make a twat’. The words of our esteemed Prime Minister David Cameron reminds us that for many politicians Twitter remains a procrastination tool for under-worked wannabe journalists, nerdy political activists and egotistical backbench MPs. For the civil service, it is difficult to imagine the mandarins of Whitehall dancing to the tunes of a Twitter feed, regardless of the number of ‘retweets’, the amount of followers, or even the supposed ‘klout’ of the user. For those who spend years painfully researching and formulating legislation, it seems foolish and light-weight to suggest that 140 characters can change public policy.

Undoubtedly Twitter has affected our politics. Whether it is the manic Tweets during PMQs that are followed neurotically by political advisers from both parties or the ‘instantness’ which quickens the spread of news stories and the gossip of Westminster, Twitter, like blogging before it, it has become a key player in the political discourse of our country. Yet, it remains a distinctly political tool, rather than resulting in significant policy debates.

Twitter and Transparency

Issues which have dramatically affected our politics have been given renewed momentum due to Twitter. The phone-hacking story is an example of Twitter being a supporting force for the crusading backbencher, liberated from the oily ladder of parliamentary patronage. During those weeks immediately after the Milly Dowler story broke, it was Tom Watson MP (59,000 followers) and Chris Bryant MP (15,000 followers) who were consistently tweeting updates of fast-moving revelations. Indeed, at one point Louise Mensch MP (42,000 followers) embarked on a remarkable Twitter debate with Piers Morgan (1.5 million followers) about his time as Editor of the Daily Mirror. Far from Twitter being a platform of inane drivel, Mensch’s accusations had the potential to incriminate Morgan. The power of global celebrity was unable to prevent the newly-elected MP. Terrifying as it might seem, Twitter has the potential to be a real-time, constant Select Committee performed in front of the whole world.

Scandal, not Politics

Yet, phone-hacking was a unique story which still has the feel of a Hollywood thriller film, rather than a rather dry select committee report on pensions reform. Indeed, the very ‘instantness’ of Twitter lends itself more to scandal and celebrity, than to slow, tectonic shifts in policy. It would be surprising to see #WelfareReform trending, when Jeremy Clarkson has just spouted some ignorant nonsense on the One Show. The democratic nature of Twitter has its advantages, offering another avenue by which politicians can engage with public opinion thus pressurising the government. It also has its distinct limitations. Formulating policy is a lengthy process, full of pitfalls, legal disputes, compromise and politics. Twitter lends itself to popular campaigns on single issues, and rather than partaking in serious debates about long-term problems. A danger for Twitter is it becoming the newest tabloid in town.

Accountability

In fact, the very accountability that comes with Twitter also creates a new problem. Twitter could become another form of a stale constituency surgery rather than a force for change. Currently, there are a handful of energetic back-bench politicians who are using Twitter as a campaigning tool, with some success. However, the vast majority of MPs use their accounts to tweet mundane updates of the local school fete, or the campaign to save a playground. Important as constituency accountability is, it may be the case that Twitter remains another tool for self-serving politicians, rather than a force for significant policy changes.

Political Parties and Twitter

It is easy to be too negative. Social media can also be a catalyst for a more open-politics. As mentioned earlier, it has also been part of a process of liberation for backbench MPs, who certainly have the ability to reach a new audience. The single-issue campaigns should not be under-estimated, as Stella Creasy’s impressive campaign against legal loan sharking shows. But Twitters biggest impact on policy is as a platform for political parties to be more open to their bases. Our panellist, Tim Montgomerie, is a perfect example of becoming a leading figure of the Tory base on Twittersphere. Through intelligent debate and writing on ConservativeHome, he has amassed a following of 17,000. And for the Tory right, Tim is a powerful voice helping them to influence government policy, when many feel disenfranchised by Cameroonians and Clegg. It is key not to underestimate the impact of a single Tweet; Tim’s blog from last week that criticised George Osborne, which he also tweeted, was immediately followed by a call from the Treasury.

Talking to themselves

Fundamentally, Twitter in our politics will test the health of democratic accountability. Yet so far, the debates on Twitter have failed to produce really thorough campaigns against substantial policies. Whilst the public constantly complain that politicians don’t listen to the public, why should they listen when Frankie Cocozza (him of X-Factor fame) has 7 times the followers of the Shadow Chancellor. As Churchill one said, ‘the best argument against democracy is a ten minute conversation with the average voter’. Arguably, the birth of Twitter has proved the great man completely and utterly correct. Indeed, is the dark truth that democracy is simply not helpful for good policy making? What we may see is Twitter widening the political class, with more pundits and party activists offering more advice, fighting for followers, talking to themselves, as the public continue to Tweet about X-Factor.

Posted by Jake Richards