It's time to give up Twitterstorms

In this guest post, James Ball argues that perpetual outrage is obscuring the truly important issues

Yesterday, I wrote about the challenges facing feminism in the year ahead -- and noted, in passing, that I didn't see anything wrong with complaining about smaller issues as well as the huge problems. I may have used the words: I CAN CARE ABOUT MORE THAN ONE THING AT ONCE, YOU KNOW.

It's fair to say that James Ball, a fellow journalist of liberal leanings, takes the opposing view -- and he offered to rebut my argument. I took him up on this, although not on his suggested headline: "Never Mind the Bollocks: Or Why Helen is Wrong About Everything". Do you agree with him, or with me? Have your say in the comments below, or on Twitter, where we are @jamesrbuk and @helenlewis. Over to James:

Life is turning into a regular sequence of outrages. There's no shortage of sources: those with right-wing inclinations will find an abundance in the pages of the Daily Mail, while the left-wing twittersphere offers a daily smorgasbord of things to get cross about.

Perhaps these daily two-minute hates provide healthy catharsis - but my suspicion is it's going too far. The rages are quickly reported, leading to inches of column space across the papers, and in Jeremy Clarkson's case, tens of thousands of complaints to Ofcom.

This week's travesty of choice was the BBC's admittedly dubious decision to include a Panda among its "Faces of the year - women" page on its website. The predictable Twitterstorm started at faint amusement, progressed to irritation, and culminated in full fury, with follow-up blogposts on the significance of the scandal we must now apparently refer to as "Pandagate".

Not to sound intolerant, but this is an absolute pile of tosh. Yesterday, Helen Lewis-Hasteley wrote a lengthy blogpost on the challenges facing feminism in 2012, which broadly-speaking hit the nail on the head: the challenges facing women (in the Western world at least) are smaller than once they were - we have anti-discrimination laws, women in certain age groups now out-earn their male counterparts, and women won the vote long ago.

When today's battles are smaller, how do you prove they are still relevant? The answer isn't to fixate on noticeable-but-irrelevent issues like Pandagate.

Note this isn't the same as saying we can only care about one issue at once. The 'logic' of this strawman argument follows roughly as such: that between instability in North Korea, a collapsing eurozone, climate change, and the rise of new superpowers, we have no time to worry about smaller problems.

Yes, it's true we're facing the prospect of a UK populated solely by irradiated survivors foraging for scrap to pay down the Eurozone's bankruptcy, learning Mandarin in the few spare moments each day in order to communicate with the world's new corporate owners. But the presence of dire issues - which deserve more attention than they get - is no reason not to pay attention to other important issues.

Feminism still has no shortage of serious problems to tackle: women are chronically under-represented in boardrooms, the media, and elsewhere in public life. The overall pay gap is closing at a glacial pace. Rape conviction rates remain low, and deficit reduction measures seem to be hitting women considerably harder than men.

All serious issues worthy of immediate attention, especially given several are capable of being tackled with relative ease - after last month's treaty negotiation there seems alarmingly little anyone in the UK can do about the Eurozone crisis, so why not spend some time looking at women in boardrooms?

Feminism, then, still faces significant challenges, but also faces the battle of convincing an often sceptical public this is the case. Paying attention to trivial issues is a gift to those who would like to dismiss women's issues. When the country's feminist voices are fixated on pandas, or Clarkson, or a Daily Mail article designed to wind people up (good morning Richard Littlejohn), feminism looks like a trivial subject.

The most common argument is that these piddling issues are a symptom of wider societal problems. This is undoubtedly true. But very few malaises are remedied by tackling the symptoms: trying to fix society's attitude towards women by complaining about pandas is roughly akin to trying to fix a Japanese knotweed infestation by picking at leaves, one-by-one.

It's a trap a huge number of the diverse groups loosely referred to as 'the left' fall in to. Gay rights groups who rise to Daily Mail bait on each occasion are likely not furthering their cause, nor are community or religious groups who do the same.

But perhaps the biggest dereliction of duty in favour of trivia in recent weeks comes from the trade unions. As public sector unions battled pension reforms - without a doubt the biggest issue facing their membership in decades, Jeremy Clarkson made a stupid and tasteless joke on the One Show.

Unison took the bait, and released a statement saying the union was exploring legal action. Coverage of one TV presenter's career prospects rapidly overshadowed (by a huge factor) cuts to pension provision for millions of UK workers.

This year had no shortage of bait to rise to, causes to champion, and Twitterstorms to join. The recipe for success in 2012 will be about picking which ones to join: not picking a single issue to care about, but deciding what's important and what isn't, and letting the latter fly by.

Or, as I plan to do, getting into the garden and digging a handy nuclear bunker, looking for tinned-food recipes, and brushing up on my Mandarin. Just in case.

James Ball is a journalist at the Guardian

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Love him or loathe him, Britain needs more Alan Sugar

Big business is driving down wages, failing to invest, and funnelling rewards to the richest.  Entrepreneurs - and the state - need to fill the gap. 

The business baron who loves a bust-up has just been hired by Her Majesty’s Government to tour the country inspiring the next generation of apprentices. And he’s got his work cut out for him.  

Britain is loads more enterprising than it used to be - but the truth is, we’re miles behind our rivals. The good news is that Britain boasts nearly two million more firms than at the turn of the century. Over 40 per cent of Europe’s “unicorns” (new firms worth over $1 billion) are UK based. And by the next election, there will be more self-employed people than public service workers. 

But, here’s the bad news. Globally, we’re only 48th out of 60 in the global enterprise league table - and of the top 300 companies created in the last thirty years, only a handful are British. The only two British websites in the global 100 were actually founded in America - google.co.uk and amazon.co.uk. Worst of all, according to new House of Commons library figures which I commissioned this week, over a million people have left entrepreneurial activity in the last three years. 

Yet in my new history of British capitalism, Dragons, published today, I show how we’re a nation built by some of the greatest entrepreneurs on the planet. They were the buccaneers like Robert Rich, who built the trading companies and colonies of north America. The traders like Thomas Diamond Pitt who built old multi-nationals like the East India Company. They were industrial revolutionaries like Matthew Boulton who perfected the steam engines, and capitalists like Nathan Rothschild who built the bond market. Down the ages, there were of course great rogues and fraudsters, slavers, opium dealers and imperialists, like George Hudson, William Jardine and Cecil Rhodes. And through the centuries, women were in particular, were frozen out of the power structures of the market. 

But, throughout our past, great visionaries like George Cadbury, William Lever and John Spedan Lewis not only created new wealth but invented new ways to share it, from Port Sunlight to Bournville, to the board rooms of the John Lewis Partnership. 

Theirs is the entrepreneurial spirit we are going to need to rebuild Britain. Why? Because we can no longer leave the task to big business. Big business is driving down wages, failing to invest, and funnelling rewards to the richest. Today, UK firms are sitting on an extraordinary £522 billion in cash. And that’s after they lavished out £100 billion in share buy-backs in 2014. According to Larry Fink, the head of Black Rock which is the world’s biggest investment manager, the gargantuans of the global economy are simply failing to invest in the new jobs and industries of the future. 

So we’re depending on our entrepreneurs to turn new ideas into new industries and new industries into new jobs - whether it is in big data, cyber-security, driverless cars, the internet of things, or genetic medicine. It’s not just good for progress. It’s good for jobs. In fact, if our young people today were as entrepreneurial as their counterparts in Germany or America, its estimated they would create an extra 100,000 jobs. 

The big lesson from 600 years of the history of capitalism is simple: entrepreneurs make history - by inventing the future. So we need the government to start doing an awful lot more for the enterprise economy; spreading enterprise education, investing more in science, shifting government contracts to small high growth firms, and sorting out the banking system. But if we want a better future for Britain, we need an awful lot more entrepreneurs to do well. And so we need AlanSugar to succeed.  

Dragons: Ten Entrepreneurs Who Built Britain is published by Head of Zeus today

Liam Byrne is Labour MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill, cofounder of the UK-China Young Leaders Roundtable and author of Turning to Face the East: How Britain Prospers in the Asian Century.