The key is respect

The government needs to change the relationship between state and citizen, writes the Minister for t

These are difficult economic times for the country and have been difficult political times for the government. But the left should recognise there are grounds for optimism.

The challenges of the time demand progressive solutions - whether it's globalisation or climate change, they make the case for government more not less strong. The Tories are talking about the minimum wage, public services and poverty because they know the mood of the times has changed: we have changed it, and we should be proud of it.

But, to take advantage of this, we need to do a number of things. First, the government and the Labour Party need to show why the record that we have had over the past 11 years is a reflection of the success of progressive values.

Of course we are disappointed that it has proved harder than we expected to tackle inequality. However, child poverty has been cut by 500,000, even after the recent figures, and pensioner poverty has been cut by nearly a million. We haven't yet managed to show an increase in social mobility, though we have halted its decline. But we are proud of the fact that we are making the right long-term investments in nursery education, in schools, in universities and apprenticeships which in the long term will make a big difference to social mobility. And we can be incredibly proud that, 60 years after Aneurin Bevan founded it, we are about to have the shortest waiting times in the whole history of the National Health Service.

Second, we must show that Labour has a big mission for the future that speaks to people's lives. We should demonstrate our idealism, based on our values of equality and social justice. We need to create a society fairer than it is today and one where the next generation does better than the last. As a society, we need to nurture life outside the market, with families, friends and community, and create more of a sense of belonging. As a country we need intergenerational equity, and we must tackle the biggest threat that humankind has faced: climate change.

But how does Labour show that this idealism addresses the daily worries of modern life? Building a fairer society is hard amid globalisation, because globalisation creates bigger winners and bigger losers as well. The progressive task is to shape those forces for the benefit of people. Government action is essential to deal with the issues people are facing amidst the credit crunch and rising oil and food prices.

But it is not just the immediate economic situation that demands progressive politics. When someone comes up to me in my constituency and says, "I'm worried because Polish workers are driving down my wages," we can't simply say "globalisation is good for you". We have to show what difference politics can make. We have to say we understand the need to protect rights at work, to enforce the minimum wage and to take action so wages are not undercut by agency workers, as well as showing how, with second chances for skills and education, people have a chance to get on.

Control for individuals

Then there is the issue of building a sense of belonging. People face massive pressures that they didn't face even ten years ago, with two people working, with having to look after their elderly relatives, with communities under more pressure as a result of inequality and mobility. We have to show that we can build new frontiers of the welfare state - whether it's more progress on work/life balance and parental leave; answering the challenge of social care and elderly care that is such a big issue in so many people's lives; or building new community institutions - as we've done in Sure Start, and by extending it to youth services, to libraries, to play parks, to a whole range of other things that can bring people together in their own community.

The issue of climate change is the biggest threat to humankind that we face. How can progressive politics address the issue? Fundamentally, it is about governments shaping markets. The new national caps on emissions, a UK carbon budget, will have profound effects on the way we use energy. So we need to have a manifesto that thinks radically about our energy policy, transport policy and urban policy - and also about our economic policy. With the oil price as it is, economics and environmentalism now come together.

We also have to answer the challenge of people having more control over their own lives. This dates back to the demands of the New Left in the 1960s: that we have a different kind of state.

What does "a different kind of state" mean? It comes home to me when I think about my own constituency. A particular story comes to mind, of someone who came to see me recently who had been waiting for months for his disabled wife to get a stairlift in his house. His wife had died the previous Sunday, still waiting for the stairlift, but he came in to tell me about it so it wouldn't happen to others. This says something fundamental about the relationship of the state to my constituent, and it was a relationship based on disrespect, not respect.

Our manifesto has to be about doing all we can to change that relationship - and this means continuing to change the way our public services work. It means putting the individual in control. We should be open to new sources of expertise, including those of the voluntary sector. Individuals should be able to control their own care budget, and we should let young people have more of a voice in the way money is spent on local youth services. We should give local people more of a say over local police accountability.

There is a third reason to be optimistic. We can meet these challenges better than our opponents because we under-stand the role of government: to ally the power of the indi vidual and the power of civil society with the power of government, to give individuals themselves more power over their own lives.

Don't believe the Tory argument, which is that this could all be done by the voluntary sector alone. The voluntary sector needs the funding and accountability that government brings.

When it comes to the next election, it will not be the time to play it safe. It will be time for an idealism that doesn't say the progressive moment has ended, but says that we can do more to build a progressive country in the years ahead. So let's debate and argue together, but let's join together to create the kind of manifesto that we can believe in, and build a Britain true to our ideals.

Ed Miliband is minister for the Cabinet Office and co-ordinator of Labour's next manifesto. To submit your ideas, please visit www.labourspace.com

This is an edited version of a speech to the Compass Conference on 14 June 2008

This article first appeared in the 23 June 2008 issue of the New Statesman, Truly, madly, politically

Show Hide image

Tweeting terror: what social media reveals about how we respond to tragedy

From sharing graphic images to posting a selfie, what compels online behaviours that can often outwardly seem improper?

Why did they post that? Why did they share a traumatising image? Why did they tell a joke? Why are they making this about themselves? Did they… just post a selfie? Why are they spreading fake news?

These are questions social media users almost inevitably ask themselves in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy such as Wednesday’s Westminster attack. Yet we ask not because of genuine curiosity, but out of shock and judgement provoked by what we see as the wrong way to respond online. But these are still questions worth answering. What drives the behaviours we see time and again on social media in the wake of a disaster?

The fake image

“I really didn't think it was going to become a big deal,” says Dr Ranj Singh. “I shared it just because I thought it was very pertinent, I didn't expect it to be picked up by so many people.”

Singh was one of the first people to share a fake Tube sign on Twitter that was later read out in Parliament and on BBC Radio 4. The TfL sign – a board in stations which normally provides service information but can often feature an inspiring quote – read: “All terrorists are politely reminded that THIS IS LONDON and whatever you do to us we will drink tea and jolly well carry on thank you.”

Singh found it on the Facebook page of a man called John (who later explained to me why he created the fake image) and posted it on his own Twitter account, which has over 40,000 followers. After it went viral, many began pointing out that the sign was faked.

“At a time like this is it really helpful to point out that its fake?” asks Singh – who believes it is the message, not the medium, that matters most. “The sentiment is real and that's what's important.”

Singh tells me that he first shared the sign because he found it to be profound and was then pleased with the initial “sense of solidarity” that the first retweets brought. “I don't think you can fact-check sentiments,” he says, explaining why he didn’t delete the tweet.

Dr Grainne Kirwan, a cyberpsychology lecturer and author, explains that much of the behaviour we see on social media in the aftermath of an attack can be explained by this desire for solidarity. “It is part of a mechanism called social processing,” she says. “By discussing a sudden event of such negative impact it helps the individual to come to terms with it… When shocked, scared, horrified, or appalled by an event we search for evidence that others have similar reactions so that our response is validated.”

The selfies and the self-involved

Yet often, the most maligned social media behaviour in these situations seems less about solidarity and more about selfishness. Why did YouTuber Jack Jones post a since-deleted selfie with the words “The outmost [sic] respect to our public services”? Why did your friend, who works nowhere near Westminster, mark themselves as “Safe” using Facebook’s Safety Check feature? Why did New Statesman writer Laurie Penny say in a tweet that her “atheist prayers” were with the victims?

“It was the thought of a moment, and not a considered statement,” says Penny. The rushed nature of social media posts during times of crisis can often lead to misunderstandings. “My atheism is not a political statement, or something I'm particularly proud of, it just is.”

Penny received backlash on the site for her tweet, with one user gaining 836 likes on a tweet that read: “No need to shout 'I'm an atheist!' while trying to offer solidarity”. She explains that she posted her tweet due to the “nonsensical” belief that holding others in her heart makes a difference at tragic times, and was “shocked” when people became angry at her.

“I was shouted at for making it all about me, which is hard to avoid at the best of times on your own Twitter feed,” she says. “Over the years I've learned that 'making it about you' and 'attention seeking' are familiar accusations for any woman who has any sort of public profile – the problem seems to be not with what we do but with who we are.”

Penny raises a valid point that social media is inherently self-involved, and Dr Kirwan explains that in emotionally-charged situations it is easy to say things that are unclear, or can in hindsight seem callous or insincere.

“Our online society may make it feel like we need to show a response to events quickly to demonstrate solidarity or disdain for the individuals or parties directly involved in the incident, and so we put into writing and make publicly available something which we wrote in haste and without full knowledge of the circumstances.”

The joke

Arguably the most condemned behaviour in the aftermath of a tragedy is the sharing of an ill-timed joke. Julia Fraustino, a research affiliate at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), reflects on this often seemingly inexplicable behaviour. “There’s research dating back to the US 9/11 terror attacks that shows lower rates of disaster-related depression and anxiety for people who evoke positive emotions before, during and after tragic events,” she says, stating that humour can be a coping mechanism.

“The offensiveness or appropriateness of humor seems, at least in part, to be tied to people’s perceived severity of the crisis,” she adds. “An analysis of tweets during a health pandemic showed that humorous posts rose and fell along with the seriousness of the situation, with more perceived seriousness resulting in fewer humour-based posts.”

The silence

If you can’t say anything nice, why say anything at all? Bambi's best friend Thumper's quote might be behind the silence we see from some social media users. Rather than simply being uncaring, there are factors which can predict whether someone will be active or passive on social media after a disaster, notes Fraustino.

“A couple of areas that factor into whether a person will post on social media during a disaster are issue-involvement and self-involvement,” she says. “When people perceive that the disaster is important and they believe they can or should do something about it, they may be more likely to share others’ posts or create their own content. Combine issue-involvement with self-involvement, which in this context refers to a desire for self-confirmation such as through gaining attention by being perceived as a story pioneer or thought leader, and the likelihood goes up that this person will create or curate disaster-related content on social media.”

“I just don’t like to make it about me,” one anonymous social media user tells me when asked why he doesn’t post anything himself – but instead shares or retweets posts – during disasters. “I feel like people just want likes and retweets and aren’t really being sincere, and I would hate to do that. Instead I just share stuff from important people, or stuff that needs to be said – like reminders not to share graphic images.”

The graphic image

The sharing of graphic and explicit images is often widely condemned, as many see this as both pointless and potentially psychologically damaging. After the attack, BBC Newsbeat collated tens of tweets by people angry that passersby took pictures instead of helping, with multiple users branding it “absolutely disgusting”.

Dr Kirwan explains that those near the scene may feel a “social responsibility” to share their knowledge, particularly in situations where there is a fear of media bias. It is also important to remember that shock and panic can make us behave differently than we normally would.

Yet the reason this behaviour often jars is because we all know what motivates most of us to post on social media: attention. It is well-documented that Likes and Shares give us a psychological boost, so it is hard to feel that this disappears in tragic circumstances. If we imagine someone is somehow “profiting” from posting traumatic images, this can inspire disgust. Fraustino even notes that posts with an image are significantly more likely to be clicked on, liked, or shared.

Yet, as Dr Kiwarn explains, Likes don’t simply make us happy on such occasions, they actually make us feel less alone. “In situations where people are sharing terrible information we may still appreciate likes, retweets, [and] shares as it helps to reinforce and validate our beliefs and position on the situation,” she says. “It tells us that others feel the same way, and so it is okay for us to feel this way.”

Fraustino also argues that these posts can be valuable, as they “can break through the noise and clutter and grab attention” and thereby bring awareness to a disaster issue. “As positive effects, emotion-evoking images can potentially increase empathy and motivation to contribute to relief efforts.”

The judgement

The common thread isn’t simply the accusation that such social media behaviours are “insensitive”, it is that there is an abundance of people ready to point the finger and criticise others, even – and especially – at a time when they should focus on their own grief. VICE writer Joel Golby sarcastically summed it up best in a single tweet: “please look out for my essay, 'Why Everyone's Reaction to the News is Imperfect (But My Own)', filed just now up this afternoon”.

“When already emotional other users see something which they don't perceive as quite right, they may use that opportunity to vent anger or frustration,” says Dr Kirwan, explaining that we are especially quick to judge the posts of people we don’t personally know. “We can be very quick to form opinions of others using very little information, and if our only information about a person is a post which we feel is inappropriate we will tend to form a stereotyped opinion of this individual as holding negative personality traits.

“This stereotype makes it easier to target them with hateful speech. When strong emotions are present, we frequently neglect to consider if we may have misinterpreted the content, or if the person's apparently negative tone was intentional or not.”

Fraustino agrees that people are attempting to reduce their own uncertainty or anxiety when assigning blame. “In a terror attack setting where emotions are high, uncertainty is high, and anxiety is high, blaming or scapegoating can relieve some of those negative emotions for some people.”

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.