Is social media changing political opinion?

The Prime Minister is proving more popular than he probably ever expected. In the six days since David Cameron joined the social networking website Twitter, he has amassed over 110,000 followers. That’s 20,000 more than Deputy PM Nick Clegg, 50,000 short of Labour leader Ed Miliband and 400,000 short of his great friend, political rival and by far the most popular Conservative tweeter of them all, Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

Cameron may be learning the intricacies of becoming a digitory – what to say and what not to say – but what about his party?

One true thing about the Conservatives is that they have never struggled to find voices; in fact, it is one of the things that have made it so vibrant. Yet does having several tweeting members of the Cabinet - William Hague, Jeremy Hunt, Eric Pickles, to name but a few - really make any difference to how the party is run or how policy is made?

The man Tatler magazine named ‘the most powerful man in politics’ Tim Montgomerie believes so, and for the better. Montgomerie, the editor of the influential ConservativeHome website said that social media is helping to create a ‘level playing field for grassroots Conservatives’. In his own words social media has caused ‘mass decentralisation of power’. He should know. Montgomerie and ConservativeHome – read by around 250,000 people a month - led the calls in February for the Government to rethink its NHS reforms – a story that topped the BBC News headlines – and vexed the Telegraph’s Peter Oborne.

Oborne, as frank as ever, acknowledged that the ConHome website is a new force in politics but asked whether this is a shift to the elite. Is this just a digitalised version of the Westminster Village? Oborne seemed to believe so; he called social media the ‘political equivalent of 20:20 cricket’. As a cricket writer it is more than likely this remark was not auspicious.

And what about the politicians view of Twitter? Matt Hancock, a Business and Education Minister, glorified its use. As one of the 2010 intake’s most recognisable and vocal MPs, he noted that it allowed backbenchers to voice their concerns to a bigger audience, but disagreed that it created a level playing field. He said ‘big names’ have ‘big voices and followers’ online. He was fervent that the party needed to embrace social media more.

So what would success look like through using social media? Does having more followers ensure victory? Does a ‘Like’ translate into a vote?

At this moment in time, no, but politicians cannot underestimate the power of how quickly social media is evolving. Tweets are already setting the agenda on 24-hour news and local democracy is being enhanced by the expansion of community news websites. An MP visiting a local branch of a national charity, once seen by one community, can suddenly be seen by millions. At some point soon we are bound to see a 140-character manifesto, though I’m not quite certain what it will look like.

One group we cannot underestimate are pollsters and electioneers. New technology channelled through social media is allowing parties to target individuals to their smartphones and iPads. This is not a phenomenon only used by President Obama and his campaign team, but also by Alex Salmond and his SNP party. The words and ideas of politicians can be sent to millions in an instant and more importantly, it is working.

It does not change the fundamentals of how politicians should interact with constituents, but it is another platform to interact.

So what did everyone think by the end of the debate?

Political parties are constantly battled with engagement both at a local and a national level, yet now all three parties have developed flourishing and growing social media channels – both official and unofficial. Communications is about delivering an effective and simple message that people remember, but also listening to what people have to say. Conversation is a two-way street and the likes of Facebook and Twitter are allowing policy-makers to have instant dialogue with their constituents.

As the debate overwhelmingly illustrated, politicians believe it to be a good thing.

This article first appeared on Gorkana and can be found here.

Goodbye guru: Steve Hilton leaves

After a week of headlines questioning whether the Prime Minister David Cameron rode Rebekah Brookes’s ex-police horse, the Prime Minister may be looking to the Cheltenham Festival for a change in fortunes both nationally and within his own party.

The departure of Steve Hilton, the chief of strategy and the so-called architect of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ comes as a blow at a decisive time. Hilton, a former advertising executive and a long time friend of the PM, is taking a year sabbatical to California to teach at Stanford University. He has stated that he does intend to return to the post before the next general election. Should Cameron be worried and does Hilton’s departure open growing concerns?

Hilton arriving for work.

Over the past few months, the coalition government has seen a dip in fortunes in the press and politically. The Labour party have managed to castigate, successfully, the government’s Health & Social bill and much more focus is being placed on the lack of growth in the British economy. A couple of months ago, Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, was certain to win the Mayoral elections in May, now polls show him to be neck and neck with Labour’s candidate Ken Livingstone.

Since coming to power in May 2010, the coalition government have managed to pass through a great deal of radical policy. In education, the academies bill has given schools the potential to govern themselves and just last week the House of Lords passed the welfare bill that caps benefits at £26,000 per household. The localism bill plans to give further powers away from Whitehall.

Yet, Hilton’s departure shows the growing frustration from within Number 10. Mr Cameron and his aides appear now to be managing every policy decision, far from the style of government they had planned when they first arrived. The Prime Minister has had to intervene on numerous policy initiatives including: public owned forests, wild animals in circuses, the EU, but most notably the health bill and the economy.

Hilton’s plans for the ‘Big Society’ and less red tape for businesses appear to have been put to one side. There are growing frustrations of the Liberal Democrats and their often bizarre requests to delay legislation. Only last week in Cabinet, the Business Secretary Vince Cable was supposedly rebuked for the lack of growth policies coming out of his department. Not to mention the Deputy Prime Minister’s attempts to reform the House of Lords. At the same time, Cameron has to deal with a growing unrest from his backbenchers, who feel policy is being hijacked by the Lib Dems. Prime Minister’s Questions have repeatedly seen cheeky questions of whether Clegg is a ‘goodie’ or ‘baddie’ or why certain Lib Dem ministers have not voted for government bills.

This day-to-day reactionary politics appears to have been the reason why Hilton has left for now. His departure leaves Cameron without another key advisor, a year after Andy Coulson’s decision to leave. For now, Cameron will be glad to see the Health bill finally pushed through the House of Lords and a reshuffle in the spring may allow him to clean up some of his flagging departments. Ultimately, a return to growth and a re-election for Boris would be better than a 100-1 outsider in the Gold Cup.

                                                                                                                                                     

Bankers' Bonuses: A sensible policy.

The question surrounding bankers’ bonuses continues to dominate political debates. Fred Goodwin, the disgraced former Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), joined an unflattering list of people, including Zimbabwean tyrant Robert Mugabe, to have their Knighthoods stripped. His successor, Stephen Hester, also succumb to growing public and political pressure by waiving his annual bonus.

Goodwin, who oversaw the flawed takeover of the Dutch bank ABN Amro, was made to resign after the UK government were forced to rescue RBS with a bailout package worth in the region of £45 billion. In 2009, RBS went on to report the biggest loss in UK corporate history totalling £24 billion. Goodwin, meanwhile, left with a pension pot worth in the region of £703,000 a year. Hester his replacement, by all accounts a good manager, has had to oversee massive changes in the organisation and deal with plenty of criticism as he has put to task. The UK government still owns 81 per cent of RBS shares.

Bankers are still not popular in the UK after the financial crisis in 2008, and despite the curbs on pay and apologies from bosses, financial regulation and policy is still an affliction on government policy, particularly bonuses. As the public sector endures a pay freeze and high inflation, it would be difficult for a government to be seen endorsing bonuses to a bank which is owned by the public.

Last year, the Chief Executive of Barclays Bob Diamond, once called the ‘unacceptable face of banking’ by the former Labour Business Secretary Peter Mandelson, told members of the House of Commons Treasury Committee that the period of remorse and apology for banks needed to end. Diamond, who received a £6.5 million bonus in 2010, believed the language being used on British financial institutions was unfair and could have an adverse impact on future regulation. The Barclays chief, aware of the public mood, introduced a new ethics code for misbehaving or ostentatious bankers.

Bob Diamond

The government has been unable to counter the venomous attacks from the media and its ability to generate campaigns. The Daily Mail’s front page targeted ‘Sir Fred’ day after day and then subsequently Hester. The Transport Secretary Justine Greening was forced to be seen to prevent Network Rail chiefs from taking their annual bonuses too.

Perhaps this is where the Conservative party is getting into trouble. It is too keen to submit in what is developing into a shotgun democracy. It wants to protect the City but it doesn’t want to be seen as protective of bankers. The Labour Party, who can still form no sensible policy or opinion of their own, continues to flip flop on the spur of public opinion. They are more content on trying to target left-leaning Liberal Democrats and splitting the coalition. Their agenda is fast becoming one of envy and class, yet the Tories retreat from any form of debate. Most people agree that it was correct to strip Goodwin of his Knighthood, but the hysteria is spiralling out of control.

This is fast damaging London’s reputation. The RBS Chairman Sir Philip Hampton said that bankers’ pay is something that needs reforming but it would require an overview of how we want to the City to work. If the 50p higher rate of tax on highest earners remains in place until the next election, London and the UK could potentially become an economically and politically ugly place to do business. It is a question that government must answer sensibly and putting business and jobs first. Otherwise, bonus season will become a never ending carousel for government.