Liberal Democrat MPs have learnt that social media is a two-way street

Image representing Facebook as depicted in Cru...

Whatever the outcome of the increasingly frenzied negotiations between the political parties at Westminster today, I think we have started to see how influential social media can be in modern political debate.

All through the election people were waiting for social media to exert a real influence and apart from the ridicule of the Tory press's smear campaign against Nick Clegg it never really happened. Many commentators have already rushed to the conclusion that social media was the dog that didn't bark. They were premature.

While the TV debates were always going to be the biggest novelty factor in the election campaign itself, although just how much influence they had is going to take some very thoughtful analysis, I think that social media is showing more of its potential in the aftermath of the election.

The Liberal Democrats focussed on Facebook as their main social media platform during the campaign and every MP and candidate with a serious chance of winning was encouraged to set up Facebook pages and groups. The way this presence on Facebook was used has been rightly criticised by many commentators for being too much about 'pushing' information to followers but over the weekend the tables were turned.

As it became clear that Nick Clegg was serious about negotiating with the Tories - as he promised he would during the campaign as they had the most votes and the most seats - there was an outpouring of outrage from Liberal Democrat activists. In previous generations making these views known to their party leadership over a weekend in the immediate aftermath of an election would have been very hard but the social media presence, especially on Facebook, suddenly became a two-way street. Within hours of being set up, groups that opposed the talks with the Tories attracted tens of thousands of members and every Liberal Democrat MP from Nick Clegg downwards was bombarded with views from the party's all-important activist base (without funding from business or the unions the Liberal Democrats are more dependent on individual supporters than the other two parties) making it clear that the majority were instinctively opposed to a deal with the Tories.

What effect did this have? At the very least it must have strengthened the resolve of the one-third of the party's MPs who are identified with the party's radical left and will have worried many others who know that their small majorities are vulnerable to attack if the Labour vote rises and their grassroot workers desert them. This will have been a major factor in the debates Nick Clegg had with his Parliamentary colleagues yesterday and which resulted in the first Tory offer being rejected.

Of course, events suddenly accelerated after that with Gordon Brown resigning and the Conservatives surprisingly coming back with an offer of limited political and electoral reform. This morning a trawl through Facebook and Twitter suggests that Liberal Democrat supporters are now more divided over their preferences in terms of who they support and whether there should be any coalition at all. Nick Clegg and his staff will be monitoring that reaction very closely.

11 May 2010

Topics: UK Election 2010, Twitter, Social media, Liberal Democrats, Labour, Hung Parliament, Gordon Brown, Facebook, Conservatives

Permalink

Do you agree?

Add your comment

I think that the use of social media in UK elections is only in its infancy but is clearly the way forward and will be a powerful tool in forthcoming elections and in general political debate. The current media is too partisan and reactive. Sites such as Facebook give people the opportunity to set the political agenda and it was noticeable to me that the main issues being discussed on Facebook were completely different from the direction that the newspapers were trying to push us e.g. Mrs Duffy. This can only be a good thing for democracy in this country. The gradual diluting in the influence of a few press barons is to be welcomed. Why was it that the Tories who had the undying support of over 80 per cent of the UK national newspapers and spent twice as much as the other political parties could only increase their share of the vote by a measly 3 percentage points? The demographics of social media sites are also changing. A year ago they consisted almost entirely of 14 to 20 year olds. Now many other age groups see its benefits.

Posted by: Paul C, 11 May 2010 | 11:51

Facebook may be the voice of the young but the voice of business is increasingly Linkedin. The Liberal Democrats are now is the enviable position of being an important part of a government. The unenviable part is what the coalition has inherited in terms of the economy. Now, more than ever, is the time for the party to embrace new media, especially social media, to get the real messages out as the coming years and difficult decisions play out. It is either an awful time to be part of a government or a real opportunity to change this country for ever for the better - from a precarious starting point. Getting the messages out and people and business behind the tough decisions may well rely on the methods employed. Good luck with this new coalition. There are more people quietly behind the governing parties then you might be being led to believe right now.

Posted by: Andrew Johnson, 15 May 2010 | 19:07

What is intereting from this article is that the engagement of the on-line community really took off after the result rather than before. This is not just a phenomenon of Facebook. On other more specialist sites, the level of postings has risen dramatically as speculation has turned to a realisation that everything is up for grabs and that there is a possibility of real change. As one of the Liberals who suddenly woke up, I would say this analysis is fair for me! By Henry Tapper Independent pension consultant

Posted by: Henry Tapper (via LinkedIn), 16 May 2010 | 09:12

It was interesting to watch this trend continue yesterday at the Liberal Democrats' special conference. Nominally behind 'closed doors', these doors were opened wide by social media which made it possible to follow the events minute-by-minute.

Posted by: David Worsfold, 17 May 2010 | 10:51

I'm in favour of it, it makes it easier for us to help....the country needs to be run just like any other organisation and I fear that our leaders don't have that experiance...but we all do and we can help...as I'm sure none of us would want their job! Jane Dronsfield MD at Jane & Co Ltd

Posted by: Jane Dronsfield (via LinkedIn), 18 May 2010 | 10:11

Add your comment

Your name:
Your email address:	We won't publish your address
Your comment title:
Your comment:	By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions. Your comment will be moderated before publication.