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.

David Cameron: a radical, a suit or more?

Prime Minister David Cameron goes into this week’s Conservative Party conference in Birmingham knowing that his job is secure but the lens on his leadership is closer than ever. 2012 has not been a particularly good year for the coalition government or for the Prime Minister and his Chancellor George Osborne. Despite the buoyant mood among the British people, fed by the Queen’s Jubilee and the wonders of the London Olympics, reaction to the Government has moved away from inauspicious to outright hostile. The so-called ‘omnishambles’ and constant U-turning on policies has seen the government increasingly labelled as out of touch and more worryingly incompetent.

Cameron, the Conservative leader since December 2005, has always outperformed his party in the polls, yet even this year his rating has started to flag. Unfavourable headlines about his relationship with News International executives, stories about him and his wife leaving their daughter behind at the local pub and Tory MP Nadine Dorries calling him and Osborne ‘two arrogant posh boys who don’t know the price of milk’. Politicians are used to being lambasted by the popular press on a day-to-day basis and inevitably must accept it as part of the job description. But for Cameron, portrayed as a snake by The Sun, these stories are starting to question his value and what he actually represents.

Cameron for a long time was described as ‘above the prey’ and distinctly agile against criticism, the main reason being his likeability. Cameron could not transcend class barriers like Tony Blair – not that he ever tried to - or have the ideological fervour of other Conservative leaders like Margaret Thatcher – not that he ever wanted to. Yet Cameron was intellectually fierce, approachable and extremely optimistic. People generally liked him and took him for his word.

However, things have become palpably fragile and for many reasons. Ed Miliband, though still far behind Cameron in the leadership polls, gave an effortless and impressively delivered speech (though rather vacuous) to the Labour Party conference last week. The government as well appearing rather feckless at times is making some rather unpopular decisions in a tough economic climate. Not to mention, the elephant in the room- and one with two electoral victories - one Boris Johnson.

So why is the PM being questioned all of a sudden. Why are many in his party appearing bitter?

Cameron is often described as a pragmatist. One not bogged down by ideology and one who leads by instinct rather than manuscripts. Cameron, as well as other Tory modernisers like Osborne, William Hague and Michael Portillo knew that the party had to change if it was to become electable again. The Conservative Party could not remain clinging to ‘meat and drink’ policies of the Right. It had to change and embrace a wider electorate. Some called it ‘compassionate Conservatism’ but in effect it is just pitching to the middle-ground. The ‘husky dog’ moment and ‘hug –a-hoody’ were attempts to re-approach these issues and they seemed to work. 

Yet now Cameron has appointed a climate sceptic Environment Minister and evicted the liberal Ken Clarke out of the Justice department. Who are we to believe? Is Cameron the moderniser? A Thatcherite evangelist or as some people lazily label him, someone who simply wants to be Prime Minister?

To a large extent Cameron’s perception has presented as a reality. He remains compassionate about environmentalism, but understands that the costs of implementing expensive environmental reforms must come second when reforming the economy. Here Cameron’s pragmatism takes charge. Ed Miliband may have put forward his bizarre ‘One Nation’ Labour vision but Cameron remains firmly as a modernising One Nation Conservative.

He is not someone who changes tact on the flip of the coin, but puts things into perspective. People turn their nose up at concepts like ‘The Big Society’ but they truly still remain in the Government’s plans and are taking shape, but like most things the economy must come first. Cameron is fully aware that he must balance the issue of the economy before anything else.

In his two and half years as Prime Minister, under huge economic constraints – more than anyone could have anticipated - he has still managed to perform huge reforms in areas like education, welfare, localism and planning – the Downing Street policy room does not lay dormant – all driven by the Prime Minister himself.

Advisors know that when headlines are bad and polls forecast an undesirable outcome it is easy to draw back to your comfort zone. There may be pressure from certain voices within and new think-tanks such as Conservative Voice calling for Cameron to move right, but that would be profligate. The country remains conservative on issues like law and order, welfare and tax, but the centre has by no means shifted in this Parliament. The recent reshuffle was important to freshen up the ranks and introduce new ideas, but strategically there has been no great shift. Cameron remains in the centre and that is where he intends to remain.

When Cameron approaches the platform on Tuesday he does not need to be like Miliband, in fact far from that. Cameron needs to be bullish and affirm the good this government has done and what is continuing to do. It is not about changing message, it is about ensuring about rebuilding the narrative and pushing for electoral success in 2015. Cameron and Osborne know this because if they fail, they’ll both be gone.