Last week I attended a Hansard Society event to mark the launch of their annual Audit of Political Engagement. The Hansard Society is a not for profit organisation concerned with promoting understanding of the role of parliament and politics. It was a good line up of speakers including the Right Honourable David Blunkett MP, Lord Rennard MBE, Shailesh Vara MP and Dr Ruth Fox from the Hansard Society.
The event shone a spotlight on how today's politicians engage, or not, with the electorate and the insights from the Audit were interesting. Against a backdrop of the MPs expenses scandal, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention it being an election year, now would seem the right time to measure the public’s attitudes to politics and politicians.
One particular area of the audit which asked respondents to rank the UK institutions in order of their influence over everyday life caught my attention. Unsurprisingly, Parliament was quite far down this list in third place with only 19% of people finding it amongst the top 3 institutions affecting their lives. This figure has fallen from 30% in the same audit conducted 7 years ago – a significant decline in the perceived influence of the institution. Conversely, the influence people attribute to media has risen by 11% to 63% with the media consistently seen as the most influential institution with the gap between the media and local government, the institution ranking second, widening by 13% this year.
So what does this finding mean for our political process and democracy in the UK? The panel seemed to agree that politicians and Parliament have to find a way to communicate more effectively and engage the media if they are to further democratic engagement with the political process. However, what struck me throughout the debate was the animosity with which new media channels and specifically Twitter was regarded. Twitter was the butt of several jibes by all speakers and there seemed to be an uninformed disregard for anything new media.
The audit may have confirmed that people perceive the media as increasingly important but with media fragmentation and the slow death of local media I doubt the channels MPs traditionally use are the tools they need today. At one stage Shailesh Vara (who was interesting & thought-provoking throughout proceedings) commented that MPs are increasingly struggling to generate coverage as the media are consumed with other actors. Later he added that it’s tough to convince the public that MPs are in fact working extremely hard when they are not sitting in the house either working on constituency issues or in meetings as the public simply see that the house is empty.
Surely, by a better and more considered use of social media channels politicians could help to address this issue. It was clear that MPs are not communicating in a way that meets the needs of today's electorate and that if they were it would inevitably increase their relevance and influence over our everyday lives. For example, if I needed to convince my constituents I was fulfilling my duties Twitter would seem like the perfect tool. We only need to look at the following of people such as Jonathan Ross and Stephen Fry to understand how powerful a communications tool it can be. So why not when an MP debates in the chamber, champions a constituency issue or meets with his local hospital CEO do they not communicate? It would also be an easy way of keeping the local constituency press (and indeed constituents directly) informed of your movements.
There would seem to be a significant degree of naivety amongst the political class here about what can be done. As the Westminster system has been forced to change, an increase in pressure group politics beyond Parliament, an expanding appetite for media and a falling interest in politics it’s only right that politicians become more savvy about how they communicate. And today that means acknowledging the role that digital plays for so many people, without thinking it is just the latest frivolous fancy of a fringe group of technophiles.