Will MPs vote with their Tweet?

Civitas, 29 March 2011

By Tom Shakhli

Poor old social media. You would think that having put us back in touch with our old school friends, broadened our work networks, and facilitated a revolution or two, we would cut it some slack and be content to take a step back and marvel as it continues to sweep through the world. To oppose it as a concept, goes the argument, is to be elitist, out-of-touch, or an opponent of modernisation. Hopefully this accusation does not inhibit us from questioning it on a case-by-case basis, which is the premise of this post. Most people have benefited from having a Facebook account, looking for jobs on LinkedIn, and despite its futility, spending too much time on YouTube. However, hidden in the news this week was something that perhaps should make us pause and think about whether the juggernaut of social media should be given a free, access-all-areas pass: the recommendation that MPs be allowed to use Twitter in the chamber of the House of Commons.

To bring you up to speed: last week, the Select Committee for Procedure published a report on the use of hand-held electronic devices in the chamber and committees which included, among other provisions, the proposal to overturn a ban on MPs ‘tweeting’ during parliamentary sessions. MPs, 225 of whom have known Twitter accounts, are expected to shortly vote in favour of offering a channel to their innermost thoughts during sessions.

I have read the report, and the subsequent – and limited – media space dedicated to debating the pros and cons of giving MPs the right to Tweet. It is not an especially difficult debate to frame. The report concludes that “‘tweeting about proceedings from the galleries is in our view no different in degree from presenters commenting on live broadcasts of proceedings or indeed from tweeting or blogging about proceedings when watched from outside the Chamber”.

Conservative MP James Gray sums up the opposing view:

“The excessive use of any [electronic] device … could become an epidemic which would both be very unattractive to those observing our proceedings and also diminish the power of our debates. MPs should be in the chamber of the House of Commons and in committee to listen carefully to arguments advanced by colleagues and be ready to intervene or reply in their own speeches.”

However, lacking in the report and media coverage, but foremost in my mind when considering this issue is one word: why? Why do MPs want to tweet during a debate? The report implies that allowing MPs to do so may encourage them to actually turn up more often. Such a suggestion surely alludes to the fact that if MPs find parliamentary debates a bit trivial, then maybe they are in the wrong job. The other claim, that enabling tweeting is a move that will allow MPs to engage better with their constituents, seems like a rather weak antidote to the broken relationship between politicians and the citizens. Would-be politicians who have embraced social media have not quite harnessed this apparent potential: serial ‘tweeter’ Sally Bercow could only manage 868 votes in the 2010 local council elections.

And why do we, the electorate, want them to? Let’s ignore the possibility that our elected representatives are not quite dedicating enough attention to the topic at hand, or the suggestion that the chance to score short-term media points comes before weighing up the various pros and cons. Looking at some of the tweets that preceded the subsequent ban, I find myself at a bit of a loss as to what I have gained from this ‘exclusive’ insight. Below is a selection from the chamber during the 2010 Budget (televised, by the way). I would be interested to know what constituents, or indeed anyone, benefited from Susan Kramer MP’s rapid fingers:

SusanKramer: Brown looking v smug as listens to budget

SusanKramer: 12 mins into budget & nothing significant yet. Eyes starting to close.

SusanKramer: It’s sweltering in HoC. Add the Darling drone & its getting to be torture

Others included:

Stewart4MP: we’ve only shrunk the economy by 6% boasts Darling

jgoldsworthy: Never before has a chancellor said so little in so many words….

Call me an optimist, but I do not think that humans have lost the ability to reason and think for themselves. There is clearly a need for politicians to regain the trust of voters, and part of that will involve communicating between one another. But clogging up this communication channel with reactionary spin is not the way to do it. Being reduced to keeping up to date with parliamentary goings on through TV news, newspaper websites, and the dedicated parliamentary TV channel, would hardly be disastrous. However, the likely vote in favour will see the start of a one-year trial period, so for this time at least we will have this extra channel into parliamentary procedure. It will be interesting to see how MPs choose to use it.