Politicians and Twitter

Boris and Sarah Brown need to refine their "twattergy"

It has often been predicted that our political class's engagement with new media will end in tears, and Sarah Brown and Boris Johnson will both be refining their "twattergy" (a composite of Twitter and strategy) after this week.

Brown's son hijacked her Twitter account in order to the post the following:


The rogue tweet came just days before Gordon Brown launched an initiative on children and internet safety. Speaking yesterday at the launch, Brown said the "message of gobbledegook" had taught him a "big lesson" about the need for supervision.

Over at the Media Blog, Malcolm Coles scents a conspiracy:

[D]id Gordon Brown get his wife to send a deliberately gibberish tweet so he could tell a funny story a week later about their son hitting the keys while they weren't watching?

Meanwhile, Boris has been formally reprimanded after using his official mayoral Twitter account for party political purposes. On the day the Sun defected to the Tories, he tweeted: "The sun has got his hat on, hip hip hip hip hooray".

By continuing to tweet and winning nearly 59,000 followers, Boris is stealing a march on David Cameron, who, despite embracing new media with WebCameron, has persistently refused to join Twitter.

It's likely that Twitterphobic politicians will be further discouraged by the experience of Labour's "Twitter tsar" Kerry McCarthy, who was bombarded with more than 100 questions at the request of the comedian Ross Noble. We now breathlessly await McCarthy's appearance at parliament in a gorilla suit.

Asked by one user if she would wear the costume, she replied: "I don't think it's expressly forbidden. I could give it a try?"


You can, of course, follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.