If you believe some of the initial media commentary on the matter, Gordon Brown's description of a woman he'd just met as a "bigot" has all but ended the election campaign.
The Prime Minister's private remarks made to an aide were caught by Sky TV because Brown was still wearing a microphone from the interview he'd been taking part in.
It's worth asking what the genuine likely impact of this will be though. Brown has already attempted to defuse this by not only apologising to the woman but meeting her personally to do so. Her subsequent response will have an impact on where things go from here.
Those arguing that this will devastate Brown and Labour's campaign will claim that this shows the bully side of the Prime Minister, and also deviousness in making the comment but then apologising when caught.
There will also be the argument - which is surely more relevant - that Brown's description of a woman clearly opposed to immigration as a "bigot" may not play well with people that share those views, even if they are traditional Labour voters.
Considering all of this and the focus of the story so far it's hard to describe this as anything other than bad news for Labour. However whilst it's certainly true to say that it's not positive its impact may yet be overplayed.
There may be some sympathy for the Prime Minister for making a non-public comment to a colleague which has then been blown up. If everyone in the country wore a microphone throughout the day it's debateable they’d all avoid causing offence.
A negative reaction to this also undermines the oft quoted notion that the public want ‘real’ politicians and not simply robots. The fact that Brown apologised perhaps undermines this but if politicians are now to be judged on their public and private remarks the robot problem will be greatly exacerbated.
Of course people should always be honest and say what they think but as noted above this is simply not something which happens in any sphere of life. Expecting politicians to live up to standards that the general public themselves could never aspire to is insanity.
It’s also worth asking – and you can decide whether this is a positive or not for a Prime Minister – if many in the public may begin to feel a degree of sympathy for Brown. He has been the subject of various attacks (as all politicians should of course expect to be) and this may evoke sympathy.
The most obvious comparison was during the case when The Sun attacked the Prime Minister for showing an apparent lack of respect to the mother of a dead soldier. In fact Brown’s reputation did not fall following this as the public clearly decided that the media were being grossly unfair.
The question is what they think here. It’s actually most likely that the majority response will be one of ‘who cares?’; the sheer level of media coverage of the election to date must be alienating many so this will just be yet another story to ignore.
The Sun incident also shows that the public can certainly make up their minds without being told what to think, even by a driven media. The extent to which this latest incident may damage Brown and Labour won’t really be known until next Thursday.
However the next few days may give an insight too. If this story runs and the pressure continues on Brown (although having apologised it’s not clear where the narrative goes from here) then this could be the sign that the public did not take well to it.
But if the story goes away – or if the tone of the coverage changes – that may be a sign the public really could care less about such controversies, however much some in the media may wish otherwise.
28 Apr 2010
26 Apr 2010
Who could be opposed to 'excellence'?
The beauty of the title ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ (CfE) is that it’s so hard to oppose; after all, who could possibly be against achieving excellence in our schools?
However despite this a clear rift has developed between the Scottish Government that want to implement these changes to Scotland’s schools and the people that will actually be expected to deliver it, teachers.
The actual grounds for disagreement are slightly complicated. Most reports and surveys suggest that teachers agree with the principles of this new curriculum but are worried about issues ranging from the timescale for implementation to the resources to support this and other issues too. There are also concerns about the lack of training many teachers have had for this new way of working.
It’s worth examining just what this new initiative is actually meant to achieve. The general principle is that it’s meant to ensure teaching reflects real life experiences and that the traditional silo system in education is broken down e.g. you study English, Maths, Physics, History, etc in isolation.
The long term goal is that pupils entering this system will come out the other end better ready and prepared for the world of work, whatever that may look like in 10 or 20 years time. Those people interested in learning more can visit the CfE website for more information.
And so all well and good, however the splits are already appearing. Primary teachers are particularly open to this however given their role as (normally) the sole educational provider they are in an easier position to provide this.
Secondary schooling on the other hand is clearly different. There are separate subjects and pupils moving from class to class and teacher to teacher several times each day. Therefore it is not nearly as simple to devise plans which bring all these subjects together, far less to find the time to do it.
This point is at the heart of concerns about CfE’s implementation, along with worries about the resources which will be available to support these changes. If the idea of the new curriculum is about moving away from the traditional classroom setting of pupils working on their own from textbooks then this is clearly going to come at a cost, in terms of time and money.
Developing new lesson plans that encourage young people to work together and take part in a plethora of cross-curricular activities is fine in theory. But this clearly carries a huge burden in terms of finding the time to plans all these lessons, something which is exacerbated if different subjects are meant to jointly do this e.g. you cannot even do at home in the evening or weekend.
This point is made worse by another CfE claim, namely that the topics and concepts learned in class should be ‘driven by the pupils’; in other words if you are studying one topic and pupils decide they want to learn about something that is at a tangent to your original plans, you are supposed to change to reflect this.
This undermines the usual attack on teachers that complain about workload, namely the extended holidays they receive. The whole point of CfE is that, to a large extent, it cannot be planned too far in advance relying on the abilities and interests of individual classes and pupils, something which will change on a yearly basis. So it by definition necessitates daily planning work.
However even if all these concerns were easily addressed the big worry which many teachers have relates to resources. If every day is meant to bring new challenges and activities for pupils then this obviously cannot be achieved by just sitting at a desk all day working out of one jotter.
Instead pupils will need access to paper, pens, scissors, glue, books, computers, trips and a range of other equipment not even yet thought of. At a time where education funds are being cut and the number of teachers has drastically fallen, how can this meaningfully be achieved?
These then are some of the concerns that teachers have and that have to date not been addressed. There are in fact more technical concerns, not least about the assessment framework or, simply, how we will measure pupils’ success. It is not clear how you can start teaching a curriculum if it’s not yet been quantified what the exact outcome is supposed to be, beyond some general goals about creating successful learners and confident individuals.
The main problem with CfE is that, as it stands, it will surely be implemented this August (although threats of industrial action may change this); however if it does so without the genuine required levels of support (not merely political promises about this being available) will it be done in a meaningful manner or simply a tokenistic one?
The idea of teachers working together to develop new and interesting courses and activities is a sound one, although one it’s worth noting this already happens in many schools. Ditto with the idea of different activities within the classroom rather than the traditional ‘chalk and talk’ one.
However if radical changes are to be made and resources committed it’s vital this should actually achieve something different and not simply be a cosmetic exercise designed to suggest reform. The danger of CfE is that nothing substantial will happen (for many of the reasons above) but that people in government will simply look at pre-existing activities and claim success.
Excellence is itself a worthy goal but equally a vacuous notion. The whole point of excellence is that only an elite can ever achieve this, whatever the context e.g. sport, academia, the arts, etc. To reduce the concept of excellence to saying everyone will do the best they can is an abomination of the English language.
But, as was noted at the start, who can really oppose the idea of ‘excellence’ in our schools?
However despite this a clear rift has developed between the Scottish Government that want to implement these changes to Scotland’s schools and the people that will actually be expected to deliver it, teachers.
The actual grounds for disagreement are slightly complicated. Most reports and surveys suggest that teachers agree with the principles of this new curriculum but are worried about issues ranging from the timescale for implementation to the resources to support this and other issues too. There are also concerns about the lack of training many teachers have had for this new way of working.
It’s worth examining just what this new initiative is actually meant to achieve. The general principle is that it’s meant to ensure teaching reflects real life experiences and that the traditional silo system in education is broken down e.g. you study English, Maths, Physics, History, etc in isolation.
The long term goal is that pupils entering this system will come out the other end better ready and prepared for the world of work, whatever that may look like in 10 or 20 years time. Those people interested in learning more can visit the CfE website for more information.
And so all well and good, however the splits are already appearing. Primary teachers are particularly open to this however given their role as (normally) the sole educational provider they are in an easier position to provide this.
Secondary schooling on the other hand is clearly different. There are separate subjects and pupils moving from class to class and teacher to teacher several times each day. Therefore it is not nearly as simple to devise plans which bring all these subjects together, far less to find the time to do it.
This point is at the heart of concerns about CfE’s implementation, along with worries about the resources which will be available to support these changes. If the idea of the new curriculum is about moving away from the traditional classroom setting of pupils working on their own from textbooks then this is clearly going to come at a cost, in terms of time and money.
Developing new lesson plans that encourage young people to work together and take part in a plethora of cross-curricular activities is fine in theory. But this clearly carries a huge burden in terms of finding the time to plans all these lessons, something which is exacerbated if different subjects are meant to jointly do this e.g. you cannot even do at home in the evening or weekend.
This point is made worse by another CfE claim, namely that the topics and concepts learned in class should be ‘driven by the pupils’; in other words if you are studying one topic and pupils decide they want to learn about something that is at a tangent to your original plans, you are supposed to change to reflect this.
This undermines the usual attack on teachers that complain about workload, namely the extended holidays they receive. The whole point of CfE is that, to a large extent, it cannot be planned too far in advance relying on the abilities and interests of individual classes and pupils, something which will change on a yearly basis. So it by definition necessitates daily planning work.
However even if all these concerns were easily addressed the big worry which many teachers have relates to resources. If every day is meant to bring new challenges and activities for pupils then this obviously cannot be achieved by just sitting at a desk all day working out of one jotter.
Instead pupils will need access to paper, pens, scissors, glue, books, computers, trips and a range of other equipment not even yet thought of. At a time where education funds are being cut and the number of teachers has drastically fallen, how can this meaningfully be achieved?
These then are some of the concerns that teachers have and that have to date not been addressed. There are in fact more technical concerns, not least about the assessment framework or, simply, how we will measure pupils’ success. It is not clear how you can start teaching a curriculum if it’s not yet been quantified what the exact outcome is supposed to be, beyond some general goals about creating successful learners and confident individuals.
The main problem with CfE is that, as it stands, it will surely be implemented this August (although threats of industrial action may change this); however if it does so without the genuine required levels of support (not merely political promises about this being available) will it be done in a meaningful manner or simply a tokenistic one?
The idea of teachers working together to develop new and interesting courses and activities is a sound one, although one it’s worth noting this already happens in many schools. Ditto with the idea of different activities within the classroom rather than the traditional ‘chalk and talk’ one.
However if radical changes are to be made and resources committed it’s vital this should actually achieve something different and not simply be a cosmetic exercise designed to suggest reform. The danger of CfE is that nothing substantial will happen (for many of the reasons above) but that people in government will simply look at pre-existing activities and claim success.
Excellence is itself a worthy goal but equally a vacuous notion. The whole point of excellence is that only an elite can ever achieve this, whatever the context e.g. sport, academia, the arts, etc. To reduce the concept of excellence to saying everyone will do the best they can is an abomination of the English language.
But, as was noted at the start, who can really oppose the idea of ‘excellence’ in our schools?
21 Apr 2010
The Cassandra Complex: Damned if you do...
In Greek mythology Cassandra was someone that could see the future, which caused two problems. Firstly she was rarely believed and, secondly, even if no-one believed her she was often then blamed when her prediction came true.
It seems that the essence of Cassandra’s problems live on, at least for the UK’s aviation authorities. With all the chaos being caused by the ban on flights on flights across large parts of Europe it seemed inevitable that attention would eventually turn to blaming someone for this.
This highlights a key problem with modern society, namely the desire to seek a scapegoat whatever the circumstances, however inconsistent this may be when compared with previous events. This is often influenced by the media (and newspapers in particular) that may have certain agendas to pursue.
In the case of the cancelled flights we have a huge earthquake which is surely beyond anyone's control. We also had some strong suggestions (clearly supported across Europe) that it was not safe to fly, resulting in all the delays.
However as the extent of the inconvenience (rather than tragedy) caused and the logistical problems airlines will face in getting people home becomes clear there are now growing complaints that there was no need to restrict flights in such a manner.
Like Cassandra, authorities were in a no win situation. If they had allowed flights to go ahead and a crash resulted they would be destroyed by the media for their careless attitude. However as they took the cautious (and safe) approach they are also attacked.
The logic seems to be that because no tragedy has taken place - even though flight restrictions may in fact have prevented this - then the authorities were clearly wrong and have overreacted. Sadly it seems the only way for them to have avoided criticism would be if a crash took place somewhere else, thereby reminding people of the risk which existed.
It's worth comparing the criticisms aimed at aviation authorities for being 'too cautious' with an earlier tragedy. Just before Easter we had the sad death of a young woman after her bus was involved in a crash during a school trip. In the immediate aftermath there was a strong media reaction against the school and bus company, asking why they had allowed the trip to go ahead in poor weather.
As it became clear that public reaction was slightly different - recognising that accidents can occur whatever the weather and questioning how easy it actually would have been to cancel the trip - much of the media coverage changed to reflect this tone.
However in spite of the media’s initial reaction in the wake of a tragedy being to blame authorities that perhaps could have prevented the events, the approach is reversed in the case of the flights. Instead the complaints are essentially that because no crash has taken place then it must have been an overreaction, something no-one can know for sure.
Governments and other authorities should of course be held to account and that is a primary function of the free media in a democracy. However this must be done in a consistent and even manner, not one which is liable to change depending on the biases of the media outlet in question.
The tendency of many in the media to attack people whatever action they take (cautious or otherwise) helps no-one and in fact help creates a climate of distrust and belief that authorities' actions are always incompetent and wrong. In the long run this hurts us all, and ironically makes us less safe.
The scenario in which authorities are attacked if a tragedy occurs but also if they possibly stop one happening leaves them damnded if they do and damned if they don't. It seems that the problems Cassandra faced live on.
It seems that the essence of Cassandra’s problems live on, at least for the UK’s aviation authorities. With all the chaos being caused by the ban on flights on flights across large parts of Europe it seemed inevitable that attention would eventually turn to blaming someone for this.
This highlights a key problem with modern society, namely the desire to seek a scapegoat whatever the circumstances, however inconsistent this may be when compared with previous events. This is often influenced by the media (and newspapers in particular) that may have certain agendas to pursue.
In the case of the cancelled flights we have a huge earthquake which is surely beyond anyone's control. We also had some strong suggestions (clearly supported across Europe) that it was not safe to fly, resulting in all the delays.
However as the extent of the inconvenience (rather than tragedy) caused and the logistical problems airlines will face in getting people home becomes clear there are now growing complaints that there was no need to restrict flights in such a manner.
Like Cassandra, authorities were in a no win situation. If they had allowed flights to go ahead and a crash resulted they would be destroyed by the media for their careless attitude. However as they took the cautious (and safe) approach they are also attacked.
The logic seems to be that because no tragedy has taken place - even though flight restrictions may in fact have prevented this - then the authorities were clearly wrong and have overreacted. Sadly it seems the only way for them to have avoided criticism would be if a crash took place somewhere else, thereby reminding people of the risk which existed.
It's worth comparing the criticisms aimed at aviation authorities for being 'too cautious' with an earlier tragedy. Just before Easter we had the sad death of a young woman after her bus was involved in a crash during a school trip. In the immediate aftermath there was a strong media reaction against the school and bus company, asking why they had allowed the trip to go ahead in poor weather.
As it became clear that public reaction was slightly different - recognising that accidents can occur whatever the weather and questioning how easy it actually would have been to cancel the trip - much of the media coverage changed to reflect this tone.
However in spite of the media’s initial reaction in the wake of a tragedy being to blame authorities that perhaps could have prevented the events, the approach is reversed in the case of the flights. Instead the complaints are essentially that because no crash has taken place then it must have been an overreaction, something no-one can know for sure.
Governments and other authorities should of course be held to account and that is a primary function of the free media in a democracy. However this must be done in a consistent and even manner, not one which is liable to change depending on the biases of the media outlet in question.
The tendency of many in the media to attack people whatever action they take (cautious or otherwise) helps no-one and in fact help creates a climate of distrust and belief that authorities' actions are always incompetent and wrong. In the long run this hurts us all, and ironically makes us less safe.
The scenario in which authorities are attacked if a tragedy occurs but also if they possibly stop one happening leaves them damnded if they do and damned if they don't. It seems that the problems Cassandra faced live on.
17 Apr 2010
How did the public judge debating success?
One of the peculiarities of Thursday night’s leaders’ debate – rather like the scoring of any discussion – was the different way that performances were interpreted.
As the stats below from the BBC website show a number of major media outlets took a snap poll after the debate on how each of the candidates had fared. What is most striking is the complete contrast in attitudes that (presumably) ordinary members of the public showed after watching the same event, although Tom Harris has an interesting analysis based on whether people watched or listened to the debate.
Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats is quite clearly the winner in the public perception stakes, however Gordon Brown and David Cameron attract wildly varying ratings. ITV and The Sun have Brown coming third, and by some distance, whereas Channel 4 and Sky News place Cameron in this slot. How can this be?
Assuming that the people being polled were a genuinely random sample and not party supporters it seems strange that there can be such a variance in how people viewed each of the speakers. This may be linked to the debate which often takes place on the extent to which the media affects the outcome of elections in the UK.
One of the logical conclusions could be that the interpretation of how people did in the debate is based in part on previously held views and biases; thus if someone is more predisposed to Cameron they will score him higher and so on. The question is if it was the media that created this perception.
Alternatively if it’s not based on a conscious previously held view it could be down to how viewers or readers of these particular media outlets have been influenced in recent times. For instance The Sun’s decision to switch its support from Labour could explain Brown’s low scoring in their poll.
The flipside of this particular argument is of course whether the media influences its readers, or whether people choose their media outlet based on their own views e.g. in Scotland, a Labour supporter may explicitly choose to read the Daily Record because it supports that party.
However given that some of these ratings were based on what ITV, Sky and Channel 4 viewers thought this raises another question and perhaps highlights one of the myths of media political coverage in the UK; that newspapers can show bias but that broadcasters are presented from doing so.
Whilst broadcasters cannot take sides in the same way their print colleagues can there are obviously other ways to do this, even simply in terms of the stories that they choose to cover. Thus again people who watch these news outlets may already have had their perceptions of likely success influenced by their regular political updates.
If these influences are all relevant then it does again undermine the notion that these debates are themselves especially crucial to the election’s outcome. So as we move towards the next two debates – which will be on Sky and BBC – it will be interesting to again note the extent to which members of the public can so differently interpret the same information and events.
As the stats below from the BBC website show a number of major media outlets took a snap poll after the debate on how each of the candidates had fared. What is most striking is the complete contrast in attitudes that (presumably) ordinary members of the public showed after watching the same event, although Tom Harris has an interesting analysis based on whether people watched or listened to the debate.
Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats is quite clearly the winner in the public perception stakes, however Gordon Brown and David Cameron attract wildly varying ratings. ITV and The Sun have Brown coming third, and by some distance, whereas Channel 4 and Sky News place Cameron in this slot. How can this be?
Assuming that the people being polled were a genuinely random sample and not party supporters it seems strange that there can be such a variance in how people viewed each of the speakers. This may be linked to the debate which often takes place on the extent to which the media affects the outcome of elections in the UK.
One of the logical conclusions could be that the interpretation of how people did in the debate is based in part on previously held views and biases; thus if someone is more predisposed to Cameron they will score him higher and so on. The question is if it was the media that created this perception.
Alternatively if it’s not based on a conscious previously held view it could be down to how viewers or readers of these particular media outlets have been influenced in recent times. For instance The Sun’s decision to switch its support from Labour could explain Brown’s low scoring in their poll.
The flipside of this particular argument is of course whether the media influences its readers, or whether people choose their media outlet based on their own views e.g. in Scotland, a Labour supporter may explicitly choose to read the Daily Record because it supports that party.
However given that some of these ratings were based on what ITV, Sky and Channel 4 viewers thought this raises another question and perhaps highlights one of the myths of media political coverage in the UK; that newspapers can show bias but that broadcasters are presented from doing so.
Whilst broadcasters cannot take sides in the same way their print colleagues can there are obviously other ways to do this, even simply in terms of the stories that they choose to cover. Thus again people who watch these news outlets may already have had their perceptions of likely success influenced by their regular political updates.
If these influences are all relevant then it does again undermine the notion that these debates are themselves especially crucial to the election’s outcome. So as we move towards the next two debates – which will be on Sky and BBC – it will be interesting to again note the extent to which members of the public can so differently interpret the same information and events.
16 Apr 2010
Debating the debate's effectiveness
Unsurprisingly the only real election issue in the past couple of has been the first of the leaders’ debates which took place last night.
It was notable for various reasons, obviously it was the first time such an event had taken place but also in terms of determining what effect it would have on undecided voters.
It’s debateable that its influence will be huge overall. The Liberal Democrats appear to be last night's main winners but given that same situation surely won’t repeat itself in the actual election it does undermine any notion of these debates being crucial.
However even if this were not the case would that be a good thing; should people really decide how to vote based on TV debates?
There is of course something to be said for this idea. Firstly it’s simply a chance for voters to hear directly from one of the men that will be in Downing Street post-May 6 and compare and contrast their ideas.
It’s also a chance to do this without their views being filtered by a media that often has its own biases and agendas to pursue, meaning the story you read may not always be the most accurate.
In this regard, and simply in the sense that the first debate may have attracted people that otherwise would never have engaged with politics, it’s certainly a positive addition to the electoral calendar.
However in spite of this it’s not without its downsides. The main criticism of the debates is that it was very cautious and rehearsed, with no candidate wanting to make any sort of mistake, which is hardly surprising. It remains to be seen whether this continues into the next two debates.
There is also a vacuous feeling to certain aspects of the debate, linked to the point made above. One of the key problems with politics is people’s unwillingness and inability to admit to mistakes without it being portrayed as weakness and a reason to not trust them in future.
This is legitimate to a point; you don’t want to support someone that’s not up to the job. However the fact is that is that whichever of those three men is Prime Minister in a few weeks, they will at some stage make a mistake or pursue a course of action which is not the most appropriate.
Having people in power that cannot or will not admit mistakes – or even change things as they come to realise this – damages us all and is in fact a bad thing for the country-at-large. So again the value of these debates to truly identify where people should cast their vote is in some question.
There is a line in the West Wing where a Republican says that the Democrat President is indeed a good debater and this is an impressive skill, just like juggling. In other words being able to debate doesn't mean you can actually lead or have ideas which will positively enhance the country. There is a danger of these debates being (fairly low level) beauty contests.
The final problem is simply that most people in Britain do not actually have a chance to vote for any of these people. Unlike in a US Presidential election we simply choose the MPs that will make up the House of Commons and in turn select a Prime Minister.
That means that considerations of who to vote for should not be restricted solely to the party leader, as impressive a TV speaker as they may or may not be. Instead people should take a greater interest in who their actual representative will be, not least because this is the best way to hold people and governments to account.
TV debates may make for interesting viewing but they will not and should not be the crucial deciding factor. And let’s face it, none of them were ever going to look as good as John F Kennedy.
It was notable for various reasons, obviously it was the first time such an event had taken place but also in terms of determining what effect it would have on undecided voters.
It’s debateable that its influence will be huge overall. The Liberal Democrats appear to be last night's main winners but given that same situation surely won’t repeat itself in the actual election it does undermine any notion of these debates being crucial.
However even if this were not the case would that be a good thing; should people really decide how to vote based on TV debates?
There is of course something to be said for this idea. Firstly it’s simply a chance for voters to hear directly from one of the men that will be in Downing Street post-May 6 and compare and contrast their ideas.
It’s also a chance to do this without their views being filtered by a media that often has its own biases and agendas to pursue, meaning the story you read may not always be the most accurate.
In this regard, and simply in the sense that the first debate may have attracted people that otherwise would never have engaged with politics, it’s certainly a positive addition to the electoral calendar.
However in spite of this it’s not without its downsides. The main criticism of the debates is that it was very cautious and rehearsed, with no candidate wanting to make any sort of mistake, which is hardly surprising. It remains to be seen whether this continues into the next two debates.
There is also a vacuous feeling to certain aspects of the debate, linked to the point made above. One of the key problems with politics is people’s unwillingness and inability to admit to mistakes without it being portrayed as weakness and a reason to not trust them in future.
This is legitimate to a point; you don’t want to support someone that’s not up to the job. However the fact is that is that whichever of those three men is Prime Minister in a few weeks, they will at some stage make a mistake or pursue a course of action which is not the most appropriate.
Having people in power that cannot or will not admit mistakes – or even change things as they come to realise this – damages us all and is in fact a bad thing for the country-at-large. So again the value of these debates to truly identify where people should cast their vote is in some question.
There is a line in the West Wing where a Republican says that the Democrat President is indeed a good debater and this is an impressive skill, just like juggling. In other words being able to debate doesn't mean you can actually lead or have ideas which will positively enhance the country. There is a danger of these debates being (fairly low level) beauty contests.
The final problem is simply that most people in Britain do not actually have a chance to vote for any of these people. Unlike in a US Presidential election we simply choose the MPs that will make up the House of Commons and in turn select a Prime Minister.
That means that considerations of who to vote for should not be restricted solely to the party leader, as impressive a TV speaker as they may or may not be. Instead people should take a greater interest in who their actual representative will be, not least because this is the best way to hold people and governments to account.
TV debates may make for interesting viewing but they will not and should not be the crucial deciding factor. And let’s face it, none of them were ever going to look as good as John F Kennedy.
9 Apr 2010
The so-called 'Facebook Generation'
With the election campaign in full swing there has been much talk of the so-called 'Facebook generation', meaning young people and first time voters.
In recent times it seems that every election has to have its 'named' group, whether it's Mondeo Man, Worcester Woman and so on; a phenomenon taken from American politics.
However although it gives the media something to talk about and the parties a hook to show they're 'down with the kids', is there any actual truth or reality to this?
Young people’s participation in politics has always been lower than older age groups, and the problem has been exacerbated in recent years. This is not really a huge surprise. Older people will have more life experiences and responsibilities which will encourage them to vote.
It’s also the case that declining general interest in politics – and in fact rising cynicism – will only result in fewer and fewer young people wanting to get involved, even if this activity extends only to voting.
And so the parties and other concerned groups have turned to Facebook to help fix this malaise. But their efforts are surely doomed to failure. This is simply because it misunderstands the way that young people use these sites, and it’s certainly not as a tool for political and social research.
The spat earlier this week regarding a Facebook page that poked fun at Labour’s Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy is a case in point. Aside from being a contrived controversy this also highlighted the difference between the very small minority of young people that take an interest in politics and their peers.
One of the items on the Facebook page was a poster that the site’s authors tried to encourage young people to print off and put up in their school. To imagine that anyone would ever actually do this, far less that it would influence even a single young voter, is surely delusional in the extreme.
And so it goes for the rest of the online efforts. Facebook’s attempts to at least sign people up to vote may have a slight impact but beyond that it’s hard to envisage hordes of young and ready to be influenced voters really scouring Facebook for political discourse.
Indeed another piece of outrage today focuses on a candidate’s poor use of language when using Twitter. Whilst this was clearly the wrong thing to do again the indignation which all parties do so well is hardly going to encourage more young people – who may be more used to this online approach – to get involved. It does also raise the question of what the point of Twitter actually is, especially for politicians.
In my experience when school pupils are asked about politics their answers often reflect the prejudices of their parents and wider adult society in immediately responding that they ‘know nothing’ about the subject. This can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In this regard reversing the trend of political malaise and disengagement is something which should be fixed, but a short term Facebook or online campaign isn’t going to do this.
The society which people inhabit – and the role of overt or covert peer pressure – is a much greater threat to political interest and involvement. We only have to look at the TV programmes and magazines that attract most followers to see where our society’s concerns and preferences lie.
If society wants young people to take more of an interest (and it’s debatable that this is actually a priority for most in society) adults would in fact have to look at their own level of interest and engagement and consider the extent to which they lead by example.
There is an old adage that there’s no point in voting because the government always wins. Of course another way to look at this is that by not participating all you do is make it more likely that a government you completely disagree with will get in.
Targeting young voters and getting them interested in the political process that will ultimately govern huge aspects of their lives can only be a good thing. Short-term online campaigns which are more about soundbites than anything won’t achieve it.
The only way to get more young people engaged is for society-at-large to lead by example. And it would also help to remember that even if this does happen, young people as a whole will still never be as inclined to vote as older members of society.
UPDATE: There is more on the Twitter incident coming out, which does fully explain why the candidate was removed from his position, and there's rightly no way to defend it. It will no doubt provoke a notable amount of coverage and discourse over the coming days, particularly in Scotland, which is to be expected.
However if we are serious about encouraging people of all ages to take a closer interest in politics it would be good if this level of coverage could also be devoted to policy issues and debates that will actually in any way affect people's lives, as opposed to restricting this to political outrage and intrigue.
In recent times it seems that every election has to have its 'named' group, whether it's Mondeo Man, Worcester Woman and so on; a phenomenon taken from American politics.
However although it gives the media something to talk about and the parties a hook to show they're 'down with the kids', is there any actual truth or reality to this?
Young people’s participation in politics has always been lower than older age groups, and the problem has been exacerbated in recent years. This is not really a huge surprise. Older people will have more life experiences and responsibilities which will encourage them to vote.
It’s also the case that declining general interest in politics – and in fact rising cynicism – will only result in fewer and fewer young people wanting to get involved, even if this activity extends only to voting.
And so the parties and other concerned groups have turned to Facebook to help fix this malaise. But their efforts are surely doomed to failure. This is simply because it misunderstands the way that young people use these sites, and it’s certainly not as a tool for political and social research.
The spat earlier this week regarding a Facebook page that poked fun at Labour’s Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy is a case in point. Aside from being a contrived controversy this also highlighted the difference between the very small minority of young people that take an interest in politics and their peers.
One of the items on the Facebook page was a poster that the site’s authors tried to encourage young people to print off and put up in their school. To imagine that anyone would ever actually do this, far less that it would influence even a single young voter, is surely delusional in the extreme.
And so it goes for the rest of the online efforts. Facebook’s attempts to at least sign people up to vote may have a slight impact but beyond that it’s hard to envisage hordes of young and ready to be influenced voters really scouring Facebook for political discourse.
Indeed another piece of outrage today focuses on a candidate’s poor use of language when using Twitter. Whilst this was clearly the wrong thing to do again the indignation which all parties do so well is hardly going to encourage more young people – who may be more used to this online approach – to get involved. It does also raise the question of what the point of Twitter actually is, especially for politicians.
In my experience when school pupils are asked about politics their answers often reflect the prejudices of their parents and wider adult society in immediately responding that they ‘know nothing’ about the subject. This can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In this regard reversing the trend of political malaise and disengagement is something which should be fixed, but a short term Facebook or online campaign isn’t going to do this.
The society which people inhabit – and the role of overt or covert peer pressure – is a much greater threat to political interest and involvement. We only have to look at the TV programmes and magazines that attract most followers to see where our society’s concerns and preferences lie.
If society wants young people to take more of an interest (and it’s debatable that this is actually a priority for most in society) adults would in fact have to look at their own level of interest and engagement and consider the extent to which they lead by example.
There is an old adage that there’s no point in voting because the government always wins. Of course another way to look at this is that by not participating all you do is make it more likely that a government you completely disagree with will get in.
Targeting young voters and getting them interested in the political process that will ultimately govern huge aspects of their lives can only be a good thing. Short-term online campaigns which are more about soundbites than anything won’t achieve it.
The only way to get more young people engaged is for society-at-large to lead by example. And it would also help to remember that even if this does happen, young people as a whole will still never be as inclined to vote as older members of society.
UPDATE: There is more on the Twitter incident coming out, which does fully explain why the candidate was removed from his position, and there's rightly no way to defend it. It will no doubt provoke a notable amount of coverage and discourse over the coming days, particularly in Scotland, which is to be expected.
However if we are serious about encouraging people of all ages to take a closer interest in politics it would be good if this level of coverage could also be devoted to policy issues and debates that will actually in any way affect people's lives, as opposed to restricting this to political outrage and intrigue.
