The real way that Twitter can change society

How we use social media may be up to us but it is also shaped by our culture, politics and governmen

As London descended into chaos and looting, data and social media took on a surprising dual role as both bogeyman and white knight. Whilst some used Twitter and BBM to coordinate their criminality, others used live-reportage to quickly develop maps of areas to be avoided and to warn their peers of trouble pending. In the aftermath, Twitter especially was used to inspire and organise a civic response -- hundreds of broom-wielding street-cleaners organised by the invisible hand of technology. Neither the censor-happy "ban the net" crew nor the internet evangelists are wholly right about the role played by data and technology in disturbances like those we witnessed. The truth is that how we use information and social media may be up to us but that it also shaped by our culture, our politics and our government.

Equally, what citizens expect from government is shaped by the culture they inhabit, the aspirations and expectations people have, and their sense of what they are entitled to. Social media and the web are remaking those expectations: how we expect to get information, make our voice heard, connect to others and receive services. Even if social media does not become a platform for overtly political activity, it is already changing how citizens expect to be treated and so what they expect of government. As people are being inducted into a more open, participative and expressive culture in their everyday lives, they are bound to carry those expectations into their interactions with government.

Decades after the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the web is creating a parallel but arguably more effective universal set of expectations among citizens. Facebook and social media are creating the expectation that you will be able to link to people, to find allies. Wikileaks, and the wider movement towards transparency and open knowledge, is creating the universal expectation that no secret can be kept for long. Google has created the expectation that if a piece of information exists it should be discoverable. YouTube and mobile phones with cameras are creating the expectation that if something has happened we should be able to see it. Twitter has created the expectation that if something is happening we should be able to hear about it first-hand, from people close to the real events. Blogging, feedback forms and collaborative rating have created an expectation that we should be able to give our assessment of virtually any experience. Social media is creating the conditions for the emergence of a civic long tail, a mass of loosely connected, small-scale conversations, campaigns and interest groups, which might occasionally coalesce to create a mass movement. From now on, governments everywhere will have to contend and work with this civic long tail.

But far from being threatened by the rise of social media, governments may yet find that through the masses of data it generates, social media offers a way to understand the shifting sentiments, interests and demands of citizens. If government can analyse and understand these data cleverly and quickly it should be in a better position to respond to emerging needs and even to forestall them. Government could become more intelligent, use its resources more efficiently, and create personalised services and localised solutions more easily. If government was good at using the tools and the data which the social web is making available, then it could become more accountable, collaborative, innovative and effective all at the same time. Just as importantly, communities and citizens should become more capable, adaptive and resilient. Better government and stronger communities could grow together.

In contrast to the speed of response people get from online and digital retail services, such as ASOS and Amazon Prime, public services often still seem slow and cumbersome. Through social media sites like Twitter and LinkedIn, people are used to connecting with people easily. In contrast, public services can often seem inflexible, departmentalised, obdurate and unyielding. Given this track record, it seems unlikely that government will be well placed to take advantage of "big data" to make its services more attuned to citizens' needs. It lacks the skills necessary on the scale required. Opening up the data to allow private companies, such as SAS, civic entrepreneurs, like Dr Foster Intelligence, and campaigners like the Open Rights Group to draw on it will help. But openness per se is not the answer. The key will be in crafting the right relationship between government as the holder and collector of data and the civic long tail of people who want to put it to public use, creatively and effectively.

The promise of "big data" to make government more intelligent will only be realised if government learns how to open up data so citizens, entrepreneurs and campaigners can start using it for themselves. "Big data" or, as Francis Maude has termed it, "Freedom of Information 2.0", and the civic long tail need to work in tandem. Together, these powerful concepts translated into reality can mean we see a lot more of the civic activism of the riot clean-up and less of the disenfranchisement and rage that, just possibly, contributed to their happening in the first place.

Charles Leadbeater is an associate of Demos.

Getty
Show Hide image

By refusing to stand down, Jeremy Corbyn has betrayed the British working classes

The most successful Labour politicians of the last decades brought to politics not only a burning desire to improve the lot of the working classes but also an understanding of how free market economies work.

Jeremy Corbyn has defended his refusal to resign the leadership of the Labour Party on the grounds that to do so would be betraying all his supporters in the country at large. But by staying on as leader of the party and hence dooming it to heavy defeat in the next general election he would be betraying the interests of the working classes this country. More years of Tory rule means more years of austerity, further cuts in public services, and perpetuation of the gross inequality of incomes. The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Seema Malhotra, made the same point when she told Newsnight that “We have an unelectable leader, and if we lose elections then the price of our failure is paid by the working people of this country and their families who do not have a government to stand up for them.”

Of course, in different ways, many leading figures in the Labour movement, particularly in the trade unions, have betrayed the interests of the working classes for several decades. For example, in contrast with their union counterparts in the Scandinavian countries who pressurised governments to help move workers out of declining industries into expanding sectors of the economy, many British trade union leaders adopted the opposite policy. More generally, the trade unions have played a big part in the election of Labour party leaders, like Corbyn, who were unlikely to win a parliamentary election, thereby perpetuating the rule of Tory governments dedicated to promoting the interests of the richer sections of society.

And worse still, even in opposition Corbyn failed to protect the interests of the working classes. He did this by his abysmal failure to understand the significance of Tory economic policies. For example, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had finished presenting the last budget, in which taxes were reduced for the rich at the expense of public services that benefit everybody, especially the poor, the best John McConnell could do – presumably in agreement with Corbyn – was to stand up and mock the Chancellor for having failed to fulfill his party’s old promise to balance the budget by this year! Obviously neither he nor Corbyn understood that had the government done so the effects on working class standards of living would have been even worse. Neither of them seems to have learnt that the object of fiscal policy is to balance the economy, not the budget.

Instead, they have gone along with Tory myth about the importance of not leaving future generations with the burden of debt. They have never asked “To whom would future generations owe this debt?” To their dead ancestors? To Martians? When Cameron and his accomplices banged on about how important it was to cut public expenditures because the average household in Britain owed about £3,000, they never pointed out that this meant that the average household in Britain was a creditor to the tune of about the same amount (after allowing for net overseas lending). Instead they went along with all this balanced budget nonsense. They did not understand that balancing the budget was just the excuse needed to justify the prime objective of the Tory Party, namely to reduce public expenditures in order to be able to reduce taxes on the rich. For Corbyn and his allies to go along with an overriding objective of balancing the budget is breathtaking economic illiteracy. And the working classes have paid the price.

One left-wing member of the panel on Question Time last week complained that the interests of the working classes were ignored by “the elite”. But it is members of the elite who have been most successful in promoting the interests of the working classes. The most successful pro-working class governments since the war have all been led mainly by politicians who would be castigated for being part of the elite, such as Clement Atlee, Harold Wilson, Tony Crosland, Barbara Castle, Richard Crossman, Roy Jenkins, Denis Healey, Tony Blair, and many others too numerous to list. They brought to politics not only a burning desire to improve the lot of the working classes (from which some of them, like me, had emerged) and reduce inequality in society but also an understanding of how free market economies work and how to deal with its deficiencies. This happens to be more effective than ignorant rhetoric that can only stroke the egos and satisfy the vanity of demagogues

People of stature like those I have singled out above seem to be much more rare in politics these days. But there is surely no need to go to other extreme and persist with leaders like Jeremy Corbyn, a certain election loser, however pure his motives and principled his ambitions.

Wilfred Beckerman is an Emeritus Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, and was, for several years in the 1970s, the economics correspondent for the New Statesman