Show Hide image

Cameron's liberal lie

After two and a half years of working for the Tories, including being press officer and believing in

David Cameron has embraced Barack Obama’s 'plan for change' slogan for this week’s Conservative party conference in Birmingham.

But while I believe the Democratic presidential hopeful's promises are genuine, I find the claim absurd that the Conservative Party under Cameron has changed to such an extent they can now be called “Liberal Conservatives”.

Obama’s life epitomises the American dream. In America they celebrate the individual, the idea that when you grow up you are told that you can do anything.

He is a liberal who transcends party political borders and to most Americans, even those who will never support him, there is agreement that Obama’s candidacy represents real change, even if on the superficial level of his race and family background.

But in Britain, Cameron still has to convince the British public that he’s not just another Tory leader from a privileged background who parachuted into politics from an already comfortable life. Eton smoothes the way and it has done that for Cameron.

For the last two and a half years I have worked in and around the Conservative Party. In particular, I have spent the last 11 months within the press office, serving as a spokesman for the Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, Shadow Leader of the House and the Conservative Head of Policy.

Sadly over this time I have become disillusioned with the Tories and I feel on a very personal level that I cannot wholehearted support them, and it didn't work out for me.

When I started working for the Tories I was convinced that because they had no idealistic anchor they could adapt, becoming what they needed to be to suit the age. So when Cameron claimed he is a ‘Liberal Conservative’, like many others I fell for it, and I was so wrong.

I’m sceptical of the idea that you can be both socially liberal and politically conservative. With the economy facing recession, a Tory government will have to rely more on its politically conservative instincts at the expense of any liberal agenda.

The Tories talk about social mobility and opportunity for all. This is hard to believe when the party itself hasn’t changed at the core.

Firstly, the Conservative parliamentary party is unrepresentative of modern Britain. In the two and a half years that I worked in and around Conservative Party Campaign Headquarters, I encountered only a handful of staff from black minority ethnic backgrounds.

Cameron’s top table is even more elitist, looking like something out of a 1960s American boardroom, pre-civil rights movement.

As for Cameron’s credentials as a ‘Liberal Conservative’, it was he who authored the Conservative manifesto at the last election, with its dubious undertones of “are you thinking what we’re thinking?” on immigration.

When David Davis took the principled and liberal stand of resigning over 42 days, Cameron failed to put the full weight of the party behind him. It was not an issue that Cameron thought was important.

Two weeks ago, Theresa May launched a campaign for equal pay for women, but Cameron was not involved in the publicity and there was hardly any coverage.

It was not an issue that resonated with readers of the right-wing press, so it did not get the full backing of Tory high command.

And on the issue of the family, I agree with JK Rowling when she criticises Cameron for excluding single parents from tax breaks for married couples.

In the US, the Democrats are the only genuine home of the liberal and during this American presidential election campaign they are reaching out to young adults like me.

The message of hope from Obama’s nomination as the first black candidate for President, and by the tenacity shown by Hillary Clinton, has re-engaged me with politics.

I can’t identify with any of the three leading parties in Britain with adequate conviction that I would be comfortable knocking on people’s front doors in the hope of convincing them to vote red, yellow or blue.

Neither Labour, the Lib Dems nor the Tories have sparked debate on key controversial issues in the way in which Obama has done - on race and religion in politics.

Bring Hillary into the picture, and the Democrats embrace three of the key issues that I feel most strongly about: social cohesion, cultural integration and women in politics.

By contrast, political correctness in Britain has driven all of these issues into the background where they are neither openly discussed nor openly addressed for the issues that they are.

Young people want to be more politically active but are left with nothing to be politically active about.

In Britain, in place of hope, aspiration or stimulating political debate, we have to endure the protracted death of the current administration in anticipation of the next, which holds little promise of change.

Obama’s rock star persona, however much maligned, would do it for me. He is representative of American society, while Cameron doesn’t represent British society at all.

That is why I am leaving for the US to race across the country and help campaign for Barack Obama to become President, for real change that I can believe in.

Ashish Prashar will be blogging on newstatesman.com about his time in the US where he will volunteer in Pennsylvania for the Democrats.

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.