By Luke Bozier / @Luke_Bozier
There were a few big stories on Twitter last week. First, a long-running saga involving a major international mineral trading company, which is accused of dumping toxic waste in various African locations, reached Twitter prime time when the company's UK solicitors took out an injunction against the Guardian, attempting to stop the media from covering a question put forward by a Member of Parliament regarding the accusations against their client.
Then, on Friday, the Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir was one of the top “trending topics” on Twitter, after writing a caustic article about Steven Gateley's death and her opinions on the modern celebrity culture.
Saturday's Twitter hype surrounded the favourite biscuit of the British Prime Minister, after @DowningStreet revealed that his preferred sweet nibble is in fact "absolutely anything with a bit of chocolate on it".
One cannot deny the positive potential that the Twitter platform holds: it brings together thousands of people who can mobilise and bring attention to an issue in a fairly short period of time. Many journalists use the network, and they can use it to test the water on a story or to find out what people are passionate about on a certain day. This works well in the political sphere, where the media is always searching for the next story, and where the news cycle is already so short.
The Trafigura case last week took it a step further by stamping out the efforts of a powerful company and their powerful solicitors to stop a Parliamentary question from being debated in the nation. Ironically if they hadn't tried to gag the media, the issue would have gone away – indeed the Twittersphere's moral radar didn't pick up on the Trafigura story until the injunction, even though Newsnight and various media outlets have been covering it for months.
Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats (@nick_clegg / @libdems) was the first major politician to condemn the gagging attempt on Twitter, saying:
“Very concerned about this #trafigura / Guardian story. The @LibDems are planning to take action on this.“
This resulted in Twitter demands for urgent statements from the other two major parties, all just less than a few hours after the initial story emerged, before anybody from the Government or Opposition had half a chance to consider the facts and produce a reasoned statement. And actually, 140 characters will never be enough space to publish a nuanced, balanced political statement on any issue, let alone a complicated full of legal complexities.
Last week's PMQs, the regular Wednesday highlight of the political week, was the first of the new Parliamentary term after the long summer recess. The mood was sombre after Gordon Brown read aloud the names of the 37 soldiers killed in action since Parliament rose for recess in July. As the camera panned around the chamber during the thirty-minute session, many MPs were seen fiddling with mobile phones, Blackberries or other smart phones as the Prime Minister answered questions. Many MPs provide a personal running commentary of PMQs via Twitter, rather than listening to the debate ensuing in the chamber.
Some people think this is healthy for democracy – Tweetminster (@tweetminster) boasted at the end of the session that “there were 94 tweets from MPs during PMQs (compared to the 66 from the previous session)“.
But do the voters who put these MPs where they are really want their representatives playing with their phones and tweeting when instead they could be listening to the debate and representing their views? The vast majority of the UK electorate isn't even on Twitter, so the running commentary of the tweeting MPs in the chamber can really only serve the small audience that exists inside the Westminster village.
The political world, and specifically the people around the Labour Government, have long complained of the damage done by the 24-hour news cycle created by rolling news channels. The culture which encourages, or forces, journalists to constantly search for the next story - or the next embarrassment to the Prime Minister - means that the most insignificant stories, innuendoes and rumours are turned into major stories in the mainstream press and television news. As Tony Blair put it shortly before he left office, the media “In these modes [sic] is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits, but no-one dares miss out“. So are we risking taking our political debate to an even lower level, by constantly feeding and encouraging the Twitter pack that has emerged this year?
If the Twittersphere demands a political statement on every issue, and then judges the politicians who don't react fast enough for Twitter's standards, what does that do to a political environment which already must bend over backwards to satisfy the rapidly-moving feral beast that the mainstream media has become? What happens when the Twittersphere makes the wrong judgement, en masse, on an issue without carefully considering the matter at hand? Surely this has the potential to cause damage and needlessly destroy political reputations.
Don't get me wrong: I have long been a proponent of more online engagement by those in power. In his last months in office, I was in a position to make Tony Blair more accessible to the electorate through platforms such as YouTube, where people had opportunities to ask questions and get answers. For years, we in the Labour party have made our ministers accessible to the public via live question & answer sessions on the web.
I do think Twitter has its place in all of this, but it certainly isn't a panacea, and it won't in the long-term go as far as some people think to improve relations between politics and the wider electorate. Our politicians should be careful not to spend too much of their time, which is precious and comes with democratic mandate and responsibilities, worrying about what the Twittersphere thinks.
Because at the moment, all that sphere adds up to is a large group of people who are already politically engaged, already likely to have voting intentions made up, already consume a great deal of media, and therefore don't warrant special attention from those elected to represent everybody, not just the political elite.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Do you know the collective noun for twitterers? Let me give you a clue: it's a four-letter word containing the consonants t, w and t again.
If we can encourage MPs and other politicians to feel comfortable talking with the public in a more human way, rather than clunky politico speak, then that can only be a good thing. And there aren't many other mediums where the interaction can be two way and involve many people. That is something we should be encouraging more.
"#trafigura"
"This resulted in Twitter demands for urgent statements from the other two major parties, all just less than a few hours after the initial story emerged,"
Nick Clegg twittered @ 2:03 AM Oct 13th
Guido blogged @ 9.57 PM Oct 12th
For me it was the blogs that brought this story and got the gag removed, Twitter was just background noise. Twitter is for people who like the sound of their own voice, blogs that are sensibly written (and this takes time) are the driving force.
But I think you are worrying slightly unnecessarily about the role that Twitter will play in political discussion/decision-making. Given that you admit that Trafigura had been, as you say, on the mainstream media's agenda for months, the government should have formed a view on it already. Civil servants were probably tracking the debate and there would have been an answer ready to go if the story went big. The problem was that despite the very hard work of journalists, no one at the top was willing to say anything. That is until Carter Ruck went too far and people on Twitter helped to turn the action into a catalysing moment.
Similarly with Jan Moir. It is very likely that this story would have passed, as stories do in the Daily Mail every day, without a second thought. But mass movements are about, well, movement. Without the groundswell and a feeling that you're all acting together you won't achieve change. As my article says, the traditional day in day out slog of campaigning will continue - without those journalists spending months and sometimes years tracking down the morally indefensible actions of companies, there will be no stories on Twitter to Tweet about. But, I think last week showed the potential power of Twitter to generate immediate action.
As you point out - this could have its dark side too. I worry about the first paedophile's address to be Tweeted. Or Jamie Bulger style killing which incites mass hatred. But we need to be more certain that our arguments for clemency, restraint and rationality will stand up to sheer mob action, rather than close down a system which could help to make ordinary citizen action a reality. I worry about statements like 'what happens if people make a judgement en masse which is wrong', because that's a bit like saying the public can be irrational, so we should restrict their ability to influence daily debate. I'd prefer to trust the public and work to prevent detrimental mob action through continued debate and political education.
Finally, I really take issue with your view that politicians Tweeting means they aren't doing their job properly and listening to debates. I Tweeted all the way through Labour party conference in Progress and other fringe meetings and if anything you have to concentrate more on what people are saying in order to report it accurately. It's a bit like saying that journalists who take everything down in shorthand aren't really concentrating on what's being said. I am sure that our politicians can multi-task just like we do. And the democratic benefit is in knowing what they think about what's being said - or not. I hope that Twitter will allow people to understand that issues are indeed complex and that politicians do not, and cannot, know the answers to every question which comes up in the House of Commons. If a politician managed to get as many followers as Stephen Fry, would you still say that they shouldn't worry about what the Twittersphere thinks? Most politicians wouldn't get that sort of access to ordinary people in a month of Sundays, let alone in seconds. The great thing about Twitter, as compared to YouTube, is that if a politician really does it personally, it brings them to life. YouTube Q&A's while important, are still incredibly orchestrated - you can't tell whether questioners are hand-picked or answers pre-prepared. As Ed Miliband found out when he had a live Tweeting session at party conference - if someone sends you a question in real time, you have to answer it in real time, and it's much harder to fake.
Twitter won't stop considered political debate, it won't stop PMQ's from taking place, or long reports from select committees. But it might help to give those people who have been shut out of political debate for a long time, a glimpse of the decision making processes and people involved. I'm not sure that's something we should be unduly worried about.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment on the piece. As I said, I do think Twitter has its place in our political system, I was just making it clear that it is not a panacea, it is not in my opinion the most effective way for politicians to engage with the public as there is not enough room for the nuance and deep insight the you've just demonstrated in your comment :)
We should continue to use it of course, but thinking that it's the single platform which will make our politicians and governments more open to the people who matter - the majority of people who make up the electorate, and who are unlikely to use Twitter for any reason let alone political discourse - is a mistake (not saying that you think this, but some people seem to). We should call it what it is, which really is a wider platform for debate & mobilisation inside the political class, and I think that's absolutely fine and necessary. Then we should apportion the time and importance we give it accordingly.
Also, we should continue to look for other platforms and digital ways for politicians to engage with the public, beyond Twitter. I suppose if we get too comfortable and complacent thinking that Twitter is the only answer, we stop innovating and that takes our efforts to make our MPs and ministers more accessible backwards.
Your thoughts are always welcome and I'm glad we're able to have this discussion!
Luke
As for MPs using twitter during PMQs, I'd say the usefulness will be in proportion to the usefulness of the MP. If they're making sensible comments, it can expand the debate and allow people to see what more MPs think without dragging out PMQs for too long.
Of course, if it's just another way for them to shout and jeer, it adds nothing.
Never used twitter, And i am suprised at your statment about making Labour minsters more accsesable , Yes there are on the news/ politcs programes , but do they ever answer a question ? At the moment whenever a minster gos on the tv all we here is " the torys might do this" "the torys might do that" , Also anoucements that should be made to parliment are leaked /made to the media a few days before , and then theres the spin.
ricki
I've lost count of the number of MP's that I've had conversations with via Twitter - almost all Labour (but admittedly I don't spend much time talking to Tory MP's anyway)
I'm no politico by the way - my interest in politics stems from my interest in Twitter - not the other way around
If that isn't a sign of the End Times, I don't know what is.