"UK_Election is now friends with SocialMedia!"
Last night the journalist forum Frontline hosted a panel debate on how important social media has become in politics. To watch their debate, have a look at the Frontline site, frontlineclub.com. Today on the Catch21 blog, Joe Friel gives us his take on whether social media is a big enough political force to win or lose an election in the UK.
If at the last election someone had told you that the next election could be decided by the use of social media and sites such as Facebook, your response probably would have been, “What‘s a face book?” Even when Gordon Brown was appointed prime minister, only two and a half years ago, the idea of Facebook (newly available to people outside of University) and Twitter (only a year into it’s existence) being so politically important would seem ludicrous. Yet social media has quickly become one of the most vital and exciting issues in how to approach the upcoming election. However, as with any new development, it leaves massive questions over how effectively the UK political parties will use social media as well as the potential problems they will face. In the next fortnight, I'll be looking at whether social media is a silver bullet for British politics, or just another red herring.
Foremost in the political parties’ minds will be
how to make the most effective use of social media. It is seen by many as a
promising way to reach the ever-increasing apathetic portion of the electorate.
It is also, perhaps crucially for Labour considering the poor state of their
finances, an exciting tool for cost-effective promotions; by using the vast,
ever-increasing reach that social network sites possess promotional campaigns
can cost virtually nothing. It is something the political parties are trying to
utilise, creating sites such as ConservativeHome and Leftfootforward as well as
the political leaders’ rather cringe-inducing posts on “webCameron and the
“Number 10 Channel” on Youtube.
However, since people have to actively seek out their blog, twitter or facebook
account, surely there is a danger that you are preaching to the converted?
After all, Gordon Brown can make as many personal posts as he likes, but the
Youtube clip of him picking his nose still has more views than any clip of
Gordon Brown on the Number 10 Channel.
It was of course used to notable effect by Barack Obama in his presidential
campaign. Using the innovative ideas of Blue State Digital, Obama’s online
campaign created 3.2 million Facebook profiles, 35,000 groups, organised 200,000
offline events, created 400,000 blogs and generated over $500 million through
donations averaging $100. This was done pretty much entirely through
volunteers. Furthermore, it proved to create an effective, and ultimately
winning, dialogue between Barack Obama and the population of USA.
And yet, the problem with taking Obama’s campaign as conclusive proof of social
media’s power is that it overlooks the galvanising power and overwhelming
momentum that Obama already possessed. In the UK, where people struggle to
identify the differences between the parties and appear reluctant to have any
of the political leaders as Prime Minister, the political spirit seems to be
less “Yes We Can!” and more “Who Cares?” Therefore, you have to wonder whether
the people power that was vital for driving the social media campaign for Obama
will exist in the UK.
There is no doubt that all the political parties
have identified social media as a potentially effective promotional tool. But looking
at their attempts so far, it seems the solution of how best to use it still
eludes them. It will certainly be interesting to watch their continued
experiments, even if for nothing else than to have a good laugh.
Stay tuned for the second part of Social Media’s Impact on the General
Election: “Policy vs. Personality”
(Picture courtesy Matt Hamm @ Flickr)
It would appear that democracy has been dealt a heavy blow by allowing discrimination to become a key element of how representatives are elected. Even if we were to believe that the outcome of positive discrimination is beneficial, in a system where we value due process, should we ever endorse a method of selecting candidates that is oxymoronic to the very nature of democracy?
Our political system relies on choice. Imposing all women shortlist removes voter’s choice. Regardless of how voters select their representative, we should respect an individual’s right to chose. Without a full choice of candidates we being to embrace dictatorial methods, tainting the results regardless of how legitimate they may appear.
All women shortlists simply allow discrimination by the back door. Should anyone suggest all male shortlists there would be public outcry. Arguments for female equality reek of hypocrisy if we are prepared to allow men to face the same oppression with a respectable facade. By preventing male candidates from standing we risk suppressing people who may be best for the job. A fair playing field where both male and female candidates compete against one another will ensure that the best person prevails, not the best women or the best man.
To select a candidate merely because they are women not only does a disservice to our political system. It is a disservice to women who are selected. People should be judged by their merits. Politicians should be judged by their words and their actions. On these grounds we can hold the people who represent us accountable. We cannot hold someone to account simply for being a woman. For those candidates who do make their way to the House of Commons, they should be able to feel a sense of pride in their achievement. But who can honestly feel proud to be selected simply because of their gender. To allow all women shortlists, we dismiss female candidates as being unable to compete fairly, we reinforce stereotypes that women are in need of help and quite simply we patronise them.
As women prove themselves to be just as capable as men, the numbers of female MPs should theoretically be equal to those of male MPs. Change is often slow. But that does not mean that forcing such changes would be better. Positive discrimination is damaging to voters, damaging to the women themselves and crucially damages democracy.
Write a comment