Hansard Society

What happens if there's a hung Parliament? - March 11, 2010

admin — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:18:00 GMT

A guide to process and procedures

A new pamphlet from the Hansard Society and the Study of Parliament Group, published today, examines what will happen if there is an uncertain election result - with particular focus on the implications for Parliament.

Who Governs? Forming a coalition or a minority government in the event of a hung Parliament sets out what will happen if no party has overall control. The authors (Robert Blackburn, Ruth Fox, Oonagh Gay and Lucinda Maer) explore the constitutional process of forming a government, the role and impact that parliamentary procedure will have in the process, and examine the constitutional issues regarding the calling of a second general election. Drawing on past history, they examine the lessons to be learnt from the devolved legislatures, and international comparisons, and explore what impact, if any coalition and minority government might have on the culture of politics in the next Parliament. Finally, they assess what role constitutional and parliamentary reform may play in any post-election inter-party agreement.

Key themes explored in the pamphlet include:

Who wins - the party with the most seats or the most votes? What does this mean for formal coalitions or informal agreements with other parties?
Who has first call on forming a government?
What's the constitutional position vis-à-vis a second general election?
What is the role of the Queen?
How long can the politicians take to form a government?
What happens to Parliament if the election result is uncertain?
What impact will parliamentary procedure have on the process of forming a government - will it help or hinder?
What effect would a hung Parliament have on the House of Lords and the Salisbury Convention?
What effect will the financial markets have on government formation?
Does a hung Parliament mean weak government?
How will MPs balance Westminster and constituency duties in a hung Parliament?
How important will electoral reform for the House of Commons be in any post election inter-party negotiations?

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government Programme and joint author of Who Governs? Forming a coalition or a minority government in the event of a hung Parliament commented:

‘In the event of an inconclusive election result, Parliament will be the ‘theatre' in which the decisions of the political leaders play out. Our recent Audit of Political Engagement found that the public see Parliament as an institution with declining influence on their everyday lives. But a general election that results in no overall control will see renewed interest in Parliament as it moves centre stage. So it is vital that the public, politicians and the media understand the process and procedures that will influence the politicians in the decisions they may have to make after the election.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552

Editor's Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity. We aim to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics. For more information about other Hansard Society publications visit the website at http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/
The Study of Parliament Group was founded in 1964 to study the workings of Parliament and Parliamentary institutions: its membership brings together staff of UK Parliamentary institutions and academics active in this field. The views expressed by members of the Study of Parliament Group are not necessarily those of the Group. The Group's website http://www.spg.org.uk/ provides further information about its activities.
The authors: Robert Blackburn is Professor of Constitutional Law at King's College London. Ruth Fox is Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government Programme and a member of the Executive Committee of the Study of Parliament Group. Oonagh Gay is chair of the Study of Parliament Group and a member of the Hansard Society Council. She has worked at the House of Commons Library for 27 years and is currently head of the Parliament and Constitution Centre. Lucinda Maer is a Senior Research Clerk in the House of Commons Library and a member of the Executive Committee of the Study of Parliament Group.

Who Governs? Forming a coalition or a minority government in the event of a hung Parliament

admin — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:03:00 GMT

Authors: Professor Robert Blackburn (Professor of Constitutional Law at King’s College London) and Dr Ruth Fox (Director of the Hansard Society’s Parliament & Government Programme), Oonagh Gay (Chair, Study of Parliament Group), Lucinda Maer (Senior Research Clerk, House of Commons Library).

The Hansard Society and the Study of Parliament Group have published a new pamphlet on hung Parliaments on Thursday March 11. Who Governs? Forming a coalition or a minority government in the event of a hung Parliament examines what will happen in the event of an uncertain general election result this year – with particular focus on the implications for Parliament, but also looking at issues such as financial markets, how long it will take to resolve and the role of the Queen. Key questions include:

Who wins – the party with the most seats or the most votes?
What does this mean for formal coalitions or informal agreements with other parties?
What can a ‘caretaker’ Prime Minister do? What can he not do?
What is the role of the Queen?
How long does it all take to get sorted out?
What effect will the financial markets have on the process?
Would the Wright Committee reforms help or hinder the process?
Does a hung Parliament mean weak government?
How will MPs balance Westminster and constituency duties in a hung Parliament?
What effect would a hung Parliament have on the House of Lords and the Salisbury Convention?

Download the full briefing paper here.

No Overall Control? The impact of a 'hung parliament' on British politics (March 2008)

For press queries please contact Virginia Gibbons on 020 7438 1225 or mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Read the Press Release here.

Reforms Must Now Be Implemented After House of Commons Votes Unanimously For Reform - March 4, 2010

admin — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:08:00 GMT

Hansard Society Welcomes Wright Committee Result

As a strong advocate of the Wright Committee proposals for reform of the House of Commons the Hansard Society has welcomed this afternoon's vote by MPs who unanimously accepted the key recommendations.

Commenting on today's outcome, Dr Ruth Fox, said, ‘Today's result is an important milestone in reform of the House of Commons. We urged MPs to support the reforms - indeed we first recommended a Business Committee for the House of Commons nearly two decades ago - so we are delighted with the unanimous support for them in the House today.'

‘There is now a clear mandate for change and the Government should move quickly to implement them. If the proposals are to be in place for the next Parliament the Standing Orders of the House need to be amended.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552

Editor's Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity. We aim to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics

Can your MP use their email once parliament is dissolved?

admin — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:38:00 GMT

Once an election is called and Parliament is dissolved our MPs (and their staff) have to contend with some significant changes to the way they can use IT (and other parliamentary services). From the day of dissolution, their status changes and they can longer do many of the things that, since being elected, MPs have taken for granted. Traditionally (and fairly obviously) this includes using House emblems on stationery and free postage (although postage for existing case-work can be claimed back).

This time around, restrictions will apply to IT. From 5pm on the day of dissolution, members who are seeking re-election won’t be accessible via email or be able to access their files through the parliamentary network (members standing down have access until the day before the election). This presents an obvious challenge but one that can be easily got around by nominating a forwarding email address, to which email is automatically redirected until after the election.
It’s made clear that the cost of this new email account can’t be claimed on expenses.

Assuming re-election, everything returns to normal post-election, so MPs need to make sure that email accounts that will be restored don’t include any staff who might leave during this time. If you don’t get re-elected then network access gets turned back on for ten days… then it’s gone for good!
Remote access to the parliamentary network goes west at 5pm too. MPs need to backup anything that they need ahead of this. Forget to do this and, once the network goes off, you’ll have to wait until after the election to get at your files and contacts. Given that all but emergency IT support services are also withdrawn at this time, there’s not much else an MP can do.

During the campaign, MPs and their staff don’t have access to their Westminster offices, so they have to take their own computers back to their constituencies. If they’re seeking re-election and intend to carry on with constituency work during the campaign, then they can make use of parliamentary supplied laptops but not desktops. These can’t be used for election-based activities – or if they are they must be ‘rented’ from Parliament for the duration of the campaign!

The guidelines are clear about it being OK to carry on with case work but make it clear that you can’t identify yourself as an MP during this time. The same rules apply to electronic communication. So websites, blogs and social networking profiles must be changed and so must email addresses, Twitter accounts and anything else that includes the letters ‘MP’. Websites that are paid for out of public funds or use the term ‘MP’ in the domain name will have to be suspended until after the election. Whether this means closing them down or providing a click through link remains to be seen (I can’t imagine automatic redirection being acceptable).

In a world of following-by-identity, this presents some challenges. A number of MPs have already created new online personas for the duration of the campaign at least and others will have to follow suit. It’s unimaginable to think that party HQs aren’t monitoring the situation closely too (I know at least one has done an audit). Having to abandon an online brand at a time when visibility and public awareness is even more important might just make some politicians reconsider the strategic value of a brand that relies on the term ‘MP’!

And finally, in case you were wondering, yes MPs lose their gym membership too!

Andy Williamson

Audit 2010 Media Coverage

admin — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:53:00 GMT

The 2010 Hansard Society annual Audit of Political Engagement has received lots of coverage in the media, some of which is listed below:

MPs' expenses scandal 'has not caused collapse in trust in politics' - Guardian, Wednesday 3 March 2010

Parliament's drift into irrelevance - Politics.co.uk Wednesday, 03, Mar 2010 01:33

Many young voters not registered, says watchdog - BBC, Wednesday, 3 March 2010

Only 22% of parents would be proud to see their child become an MP - Andrew Sparrow, Guardian, Wednesday 3 March 2010

Blunkett warns of widening gap between politicians and public - David Blunkett MP's blog, Wednesday, 03, Mar 2010

Hansard: No silver bullet - Politics.co.uk, Wednesday, 03, Mar 2010

Expenses row had 'modest impact' on MPs' reputations - Epolitix, Wednesday 3 March 2010

Move over Mondeo man - Mr Bored and Ms Mistrustful rule road in 2010 - Polly Curtis, Guardian, Saturday 27 February 2010

Lalit Modi eases fears of IPL terrorism after Englishmen wobble - Guardian, Saturday 27 February 2010 16.52 GMT

MPs' expenses scandal has mixed results - March 3, 2010

admin — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:51:00 GMT

Decline in relevance of Parliament - but Parliament ‘worthwhile'

Increase in dissatisfaction with MPs in general - but not own MP

The 2010 Hansard Society annual Audit of Political Engagement published today shows that while the MPs' expenses scandal has affected the public's satisfaction with and perception of MPs and the Westminster Parliament, there has not been a collapse of trust in politicians or politics.

Most significantly, there has been a big decline since the first Audit in 2004 in the perceived impact of the Westminster Parliament on people's lives, compared to other institutions. Only 19% think Parliament is one of the top three influential institutions on their everyday lives - an 11% drop from 2004. But 60% still think Parliament is ‘worthwhile', compared to only 14% who disagree.

Public dissatisfaction with how MPs in general do their jobs has risen by 8% since 2004 - from 36% to 44% - but dissatisfaction with how individual MPs do their job has risen by only 3% - from 13% to 16%. Twice as many people (38%) are satisfied with the way that their own MP does his/her job than are dissatisfied.

While 71% of people say they have discussed MPs' expenses in the last year, only 41% say they have discussed politics or political news. The gap between these figures raises questions as to why people do not regard MPs' expenses as a ‘political' issue and may go some way towards explaining why the MPs' expenses scandal has had such mixed results in terms of trust and satisfaction with MPs and Parliament.

The report also looked at public attitudes to voting: 76% say it is their duty to vote, but only 54% say they are absolutely certain to vote in the general election. Using statistical techniques the Audit divides the public into eight segments and looks at the ‘voting gap' for each group - the difference between each group's ‘duty to vote' and their ‘certainty to vote'. There are two groups of people who politicians and political parties should concentrate on to improve turnout:

The ‘politically contented' (6% of British adults) where 92% have a ‘duty to vote' but only 55% have a ‘certainty to vote'. This group are mostly middle class and are generally fairly positive about politics and more trusting of and satisfied with politicians. They may be more open than most to positive efforts to engage with them.
The ‘disengaged/mistrustful' (24% of British adults) where 60% have a ‘duty to vote' and 24% have a ‘certainty to vote'. This group are mainly young and working class. They are more likely to be mistrustful of politicians but are not alienated or hostile. At 24% of the population, they are too large to ignore and present opportunities for targeted engagement initiatives.

The Audit concludes that if the gap between ‘duty to vote' and ‘certainty to vote' could be narrowed for these groups, electoral turnout might increase by approximately 6% overall.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government programme, commented: ‘There is no silver bullet to resolve the public's lack of trust in MPs and dissatisfaction with how they do their jobs. The public have long been sceptical about the motives of politicians and the expenses situation has merely confirmed their views. But the fact that the public now perceive Parliament to be a less relevant institution than previously is a worrying development that the new intake of MPs after the election must address.'

‘Our research suggests that part of the solution may lie in a long term commitment to improve public knowledge about how Parliament and our political system works. The Audit demonstrates that increased familiarity leads to improved favourability.'

The Audit results this year, as in previous years, reveal the complex nature of public attitudes to politics and political engagement and how, at times, they point in contradictory directions.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity. We aim to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics.
Audit of Political Engagement 7 is the seventh Audit in a series which started in 2004, produced jointly by the Hansard Society and the Electoral Commission. This year's is the third Audit produced solely by the Hansard Society, with funding from the House of Commons and the Ministry of Justice.

The information in Audit of Political Engagement 7 is based on a Political Engagement Poll undertaken by Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of the Hansard Society. Ipsos MORI interviewed a representative quota sample of 944 adults aged 18+ in Great Britain. Interviewing took place face-to-face, in respondents' homes, between 13 -19 November 2009. An additional 83 interviews were conducted with BME adults using the same methodology. Additionally, 79 interviews were carried out in Scotland and 51 in Wales. In total, 1,156 interviews were conducted and the data has been weighted to the national population profile.

The 7th Annual Audit of Political Engagement

admin — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:32:00 GMT

The 2010 Hansard Society annual Audit of Political Engagement has been released. The Audit this year has a special focus on MPs and Parliament, raises a number of topical issues in the context of MPs' expenses and the forthcoming general election, and provides longer term reflections on the level of continuity and change charted in the Audit findings over the course of this Parliament.

It shows that while the MPs' expenses scandal has affected the public's satisfaction with and perception of MPs and the Westminster Parliament, there has not been a change in the level of trust people say they have in politicians or politics. However, a significant finding of the Audit this year is that there has been a big decline since 2004 in the perceived impact of the Westminster Parliament on people's lives, compared to other institutions. Only 19% think Parliament is one of the top three influential institutions on their everyday lives - an 11% drop from 2004. But 60% still think Parliament is 'worthwhile', compared to only 14% who disagree.

Other key findings include:

Public dissatisfaction with how MPs in general do their jobs has risen by 8%
Whilst 71% of people say they have discussed MP's expenses in the last year, but only 41% say they have discussed politics or political views
76% say it is their duty to vote, but only 54% say they are absolutely certain to vote

Using statistical techniques the Audit divides the public into eight groups and looks at the 'voting gap' for each group - the difference between each group's 'duty to vote' and their 'certainty to vote'. Two groups of people have been identified as the people that politicians and political parties should concentrate on to increase voter turn out:

The 'politically contented' (6% of British adults) where 92% have a 'duty to vote' but only 55% have a 'certainty to vote'. This group are fairly positive about politics and therefore may be more open than most to positive efforts to engage with them.
The 'disengaged/mistrustful' (24% of British adults) where 60% have a 'duty to vote' and 24% have a 'certainty to vote'. This group are more likely to be mistrustful of politicians, but they are not alienated or hostile; at 24% of the population they are too large to ignore and present opportunities for targeted engagement initiatives.

Download the full 2010 Hansard Society annual Audit of Political Engagement.

Listen to the launch event

See the photos from the launch

Read the press release for the 2010 Hansard Society annual Audit of Political Engagement.

Audit of Political Engagement 7

admin — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:09:00 GMT

The annual Audit of Political Engagement carried out by the Hansard Society measures the nature and extent of political engagement and reveals where views have changed - and where they remain constant. It offers a yearly snapshot of political knowledge and engagement in Britain.

This year's Audit shows that while the MPs' expenses scandal has affected the public's satisfaction with and perception of MPs and the Westminster Parliament, there has not been a collapse of trust in politicians or politics.

Most significantly, there has been a big decline since the first Audit in 2004 in the perceived impact of the Westminster Parliament on people's lives, compared to other institutions. Only 19% think Parliament is one of the top three influential institutions on their everyday lives - an 11% drop from 2004. But 60% still think Parliament is ‘worthwhile', compared to only 14% who disagree.

There has been no overall collapse of trust in politicians - 26% say they trust politicians generally compared to 27% in 2004 and 73% say they distrust politicians compared to 70% in 2004. Because levels of trust were already low, the MPs' expenses scandal merely confirmed and hardened the public's widely held scepticism about politicians rather than changed their views.

Public dissatisfaction with how MPs in general do their jobs has risen by 8% since 2004 - from 36% to 44% - but dissatisfaction with how individual MPs do their job has risen by only 3% - from 13% to 16%. Twice as many people (38%) are satisfied with the way that their own MP does his/her job than are dissatisfied.

While 71% of people say they have discussed MPs' expenses in the last year, only 41% say they have discussed politics or political news. The gap between these figures raises questions as to why people do not regard MPs' expenses as a ‘political' issue and may go some way towards explaining why the MPs' expenses scandal has had such mixed results in terms of trust and satisfaction with MPs and Parliament.

The report also looked at public attitudes to voting: 76% say it is their duty to vote, but only 54% say they are absolutely certain to vote in the general election. Using statistical techniques the Audit divides the public into eight segments and looks at the ‘voting gap' for each group - the difference between each group's ‘duty to vote' and their ‘certainty to vote'. The Audit concludes that if the gap between ‘duty to vote' and ‘certainty to vote' could be narrowed for these groups, electoral turnout might increase by approximately 6% overall.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government programme, commented: ‘There is no silver bullet to resolve the public's lack of trust in MPs and dissatisfaction with how they do their jobs. The public have long been sceptical about the motives of politicians and the expenses situation has merely confirmed their views. But the fact that the public now perceive Parliament to be a less relevant institution than previously is a worrying development that the new intake of MPs after the election must address.'

‘Our research suggests that part of the solution may lie in a long term commitment to improve public knowledge about how Parliament and our political system works. The Audit demonstrates that increased familiarity leads to improved favourability. The Audit results this year, as in previous years, reveal the complex nature of public attitudes to politics and political engagement and how, at times, they point in contradictory directions.'

To download a copy of Audit 7, click here.

For more information about the Audit of Political Engagement series, click here. The tabulated survey data from the opinion polling carried out by Ipsos MORI for Audit 7 is available to download here. The raw data for all the Audits is available in SPSS format from the UK Data Archive.

Audit 7 was funded by the House of Commons and the Ministry of Justice.

First time voters want a conversation with their MPs

admin — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:43:00 GMT

Our new report, Parliament 2020: visioning the future Parliament, asked first-time voters, parliamentarians and parliamentary officials about their visions for a future Parliament. We found that all groups wanted to see Parliament using new technologies to more actively engage with citizens.

The top priorities for all three groups (first-time voters, parliamentary officials and MPs and Peers) were:

Greater use of new technologies
Interactive communication

The main concern of MPs and Peers was the modernisation of procedures in Parliament, and while parliamentary officials, MPs and Peers prioritised access to information, first-time voters prioritised:

Education and outreach
Transparency and accountability
Diversity of representatives

In the wake of the recent expenses scandals, this report follows a sea-change in British politics where the whole political system is now subject to a level of interest and scrutiny not seen before and this includes the inner workings of Parliament. The research consisted of focus group discussions with three key stakeholders: first-time voters, parliamentary officials and MPs and Peers. The groups were asked to focus on how Parliament works and to think about what a Parliament of the future might look like and how new digital media will affect and influence the way that citizens engage and communicate with Parliament and MPs.

First-time voters want Parliament to engage with them through activities such as MPs visiting schools or through popular websites and social networks. They want to better relate to their representatives, identifying with them as members of their community and part of a more diverse Parliament. They wanted to feel that their MP was ‘real' and practised what they preached and they wanted to build trust in their MPs by increasing the links between MPs and their constituents, as well as improving transparency and accountability.

Parliamentary officials, MPs and Peers prioritised informing the public but focused less on engaging in two-way communication. MPs and Peers were more interested in modernising procedures and using new technology to make parliamentary processes more efficient and understandable for those both within and without parliament.

Andy Williamson, Director of the Hansard Society eDemocracy Programme and joint author of Parliament 2020: visioning the Future Parliament, commented: ‘There is a clear divide between the internal groups of MPs, Peers and parliamentary officials and the group of first-time voters. Both the internal groups were more interested in informing the public as opposed to two-way communication. While utilising new technology to modernise procedures is long overdue, there is a danger that if Parliament remains in ‘broadcast' mode it will alienate first-time voters who demand more engagement, transparency and accountability.'

The report includes 21 recommendations to refine and improve how Parliament communicates and engages with the public, the technology and information that support this work and the procedures around how Parliament works.

Download the Parliament 2020 Report here.

Parliament must change from ‘broadcast' mode - March 1, 2010

admin — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:11:00 GMT

Young voters demand more two-way communication

A Hansard Society report - Parliament 2020: visioning the future Parliament - asking first-time voters, parliamentarians and parliament officials about their visions for a future Parliament found that all groups wanted to see Parliament using new technologies to more actively engage with citizens.

The top priorities for all three groups (first-time voters, parliamentary officials and MPs and Peers) were:

Greater use of new technologies
Interactive communication

The main concern of MPs and Peers was the modernisation of procedures in Parliament, and while parliamentary officials, MPs and Peers prioritised access to information, first-time voters prioritised:

Education and outreach
Transparency and accountability
Diversity of representatives

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons, Head of Communications at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity.
The Hansard Society eDemocracy Programme's thought-leading research has been a formative part of an emergent digital Britain from the internet's impact on Parliament, to better government engagement with citizens and the potential for civil society to harness digital media. The eDemocracy Programme undertakes research and produces publications and commentaries with a focus on online political communication and citizen engagement, exploring the many faces of digital inclusion, citizen engagement, political campaigning and parliamentary process.

‘We must nurture politicians if we want a healthy democracy' - Feb 24, 2010

admin — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:58:00 GMT

Peter Riddell, Hansard Society Chair, gives the inaugural Parliamentary Affairs Annual Lecture

Thursday 25 February, 6.30pm, Macmillan Room, Portcullis House

In 2009 the reputation of politicians and politics itself reached rock bottom. Peter Riddell, Chair of the Hansard Society, in his speech at the inaugural Parliamentary Affairs Annual lecture tomorrow evening will examine the role of politicians in a modern representative democracy. He will say:

‘...We need, and should nurture, politicians if we want a vibrant and healthy democracy. Criticising politicians as a class - regardless of their individual merits, as well as weaknesses - is counter-productive and dangerous. It is likely to deter good people from putting themselves forward as candidates - and is one reason for the record retirements at the end of this Parliament. So, just as we celebrate politics as a crucial activity in a healthy democracy, so let us recognise the vital role of politicians.'

Peter Riddell will examine the substantial challenges facing politics and politicians and outline the changes that must be made if public confidence in politicians is to be restored.

In defence of politicians - in spite of themselves

Inaugural Parliamentary Affairs Annual Lecture

Speaker: Peter Riddell (The Times & Hansard Society Chair)

Introduction by Professor Steven Fielding (Joint editor of Parliamentary Affairs)
Chaired by Dr Ruth Fox (Director of Parliament & Government Programme, Hansard Society)

Thursday 25 February, 6.30pm, Macmillan Room, Portcullis House

Members of the media are invited to attend - email mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk to book your place or to request an embargoed copy of the speech

Editors' Notes

Parliamentary Affairs is a long-established journal published by Oxford University Press in association with the Hansard Society

Sex education - what do young people think? Feb 23, 2010

admin — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:26:00 GMT

Sex education - what do young people think?

11-18 year-olds give their views on the sex education they receive

1 March - 19 March www.headsup.org.uk

The next online HeadsUp forum for 11-18 year-olds will be Sex education - do you get enough? The topic has never been more relevant with political parties and commentators entering into the debate, giving their views on how and when young people should receive sex education and a government consultation on the matter. But what do young people think about when and what they are being taught about sex?

Young people will give their views and debate the following themes on HeadsUp.org.uk with their peers, legislators and decision makers:

Is society too sexualised? - Is there too much emphasis on sex in the media and advertising? Is sex really that important? Is pornography too easily available? Should we be more open as a society when it comes to talking about sex?
Teenage pregnancy - why do we have such high teen pregnancy rates in the UK? Does it matter how old you are when you have a baby? Is it better to be married before you have a baby? Is teenage pregnancy over-emphasised by the media?
Who do you want to teach you about sex? - Is school the best place to learn about sex? Would you like your parents to talk to you about sex more? What do you need to know to help you make informed decisions? What's the right age to start learning about sex?
The age of consent - Do we have it right? Is there a better way to decide who is responsible enough to have sex? Should there be a law about age differences in relationships? Why does the age of consent differ between countries?

HeadsUp is an online debating space for 11-18 year-olds, from the Hansard Society, to discuss their views on political issues with their peers and influential decision-makers. It aims to build young people's levels of political awareness and participation so that they can play an effective role in the democratic processes affecting their lives. HeadsUp is also a space politicians can use to consult with young people and find out their ideas, experiences and opinions.

Legislators and decision makers taking part so far are:

Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat shadow spokesperson for Children, Schools and Families)
Mike Hancock MP
Jenny Randerson AM (Welsh Liberal Democrat Shadow Minister for Economy, Transport and Education)
Janet Ryder AM (Chair of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Welsh Assembly)
Bethan Jenkins AM (Plaid Cymru Spokesperson for Child Poverty and Culture)
Anna Martinez (Sex Education Forum)

Editors' Notes

HeadsUp (http://www.headsup.org.uk/) is an innovative website where young people aged 11-18, debate political issues and learn about the political process. The site is a non-partisan, cross-party educational resource that provides a secure, structured and student-centred discussion platform. It includes information for students and lesson plans and activities for teachers to ensure quality debate on the forums.
Two ways to register to participate in HeadsUp:

Young People - If you are 11-18 and want to get in on the action you need to complete the Student Sign Up Form.
Teachers/youth workers - can register a whole class/school year/group by completing our Teachers Registration Form.

All HeadsUp forums are open to be viewed and the debate followed by the public. Participants need to register or login to post comments (11-18s and supporting teachers/youth workers only).
The project is part-funded by the House of Commons.
There are currently 868 schools registered with HeadsUp.

Hansard Society eNewsletter - February 2010

admin — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:10:00 GMT

Independent MPs - what can they bring to Parliament?
Tuesday March 16, 6.30pm, Houses of Parliament, Westminster.
Speakers: Professor Philip Cowley (academic and author of Revolts and Rebellions: Parliamentary Voting Under Blair), Chris Mullin MP (Labour MP for Sunderland South), Cllr Diane Park (independent PPC for Halifax), Dr Richard Taylor MP (independent MP for Wyre Forest)
Chair: Fiona Booth (Chief Executive, Hansard Society)

This Democracy Forum will debate the effectiveness of independent MPs and what they mean for the operation of Parliament and politics in general. Will independent MPs spend more time in their constituencies at the expense of Parliament? Can a large number of independent MPs without the influence of whips effect real change?
To register for this event click here

In defence of politicians - in spite of themselves
Thursday February 25, 6.30pm, Portcullis House, Westminster.
Speaker: Peter Riddell (The Times & Hansard Society Chair)
Introduction by Professor Steven Fielding (Joint editor of Parliamentary Affairs)
Chaired by Dr Ruth Fox (Director of Parliament & Government Programme, Hansard Society)

In 2009 the reputation of politicians and politics itself reached rock bottom. Peter Riddell, Chair of the Hansard Society, in his speech at the inaugural Parliamentary Affairs Annual lecture, will examine the role of politicians in a modern representative democracy.
To register for this event click here

Birds of a feather?
eDemocracy blog
Twitter is a hot topic and the media love the Twitter angle. But how much value is Twitter adding to the political debate and, realistically, what expectations should we have for Twitter during the forthcoming campaign? A look at recent Twitter activity suggests that in reality Twitter's real value lies in keeping in touch with the already highly engaged and as a conduit to the mainstream media.
To read the full article click here

How many women does it take to make a difference?
At this meeting on Tuesday February 9 the Hansard Society addressed issues of equality and women's rights by asking the question ‘How many women does it take to make a difference?'. The panel included Professor Sarah Childs , Nadine Dorries MP, Harriet Harman MP and Linda Tarr-Whelan. The speakers addressed the issue from a number of perspectives and viewpoints creating a debate which was serious, informative and inspiring. International data and research was combined with candid insights into life in parliament and politics.
To read a summary of the event or listen to the audio click here

Sex Education: do you get enough?
Monday March 1 - Friday March 19, 2010
The next online HeadsUp forum for 11-18 year-olds will be Sex Education: do you get enough?. Topics to be discussed are:

Is society too sexualised?
Teenage pregnancy
Who do you want to teach you about sex?
The age of consent

The topic has never been more relevant with a government consultation on the issue and political parties and commentators entering into the debate. But what do young people think about when and what they are being taught about sex?

Hansard Society recommended in Procedure Committee report
February 3, 2010
A report released by the Procedure Committee, Election of the Speaker and of the Deputy Speakers, recommended that hustings for the position of Speaker of the House of Commons should be organised by organisations such as the Hansard Society.
Read more on our website

Conservatives and Conservatism Specialist Group Prize
January 29, 2010
Professor Andrew Thorpe has been jointly awarded the 2008-9 prize from the Political Studies Association Specialist Group on Conservatives and Conservatism for his article Reconstructing Conservative Party Membership in World War II Britian published in Volume 62, Issue 2 of Parliamentary Affairs.

Hansard Society eNewsletter - January 2010

admin — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:06:00 GMT

In defence of politics and politicians - in spite of themselves

Thursday February 25, 6pm, Portcullis House, Westminster.
Speaker: Peter Riddell (The Times & Hansard Society Chair)
Introduction by Professor Steven Fielding (Joint editor of Parliamentary Affairs)
Chaired by Dr Ruth Fox (Director of Parliament & Government Programme, Hansard Society)

In 2009 the reputation of politicians and politics itself reached rock bottom. Peter Riddell, Chair of the Hansard Society, in his speech at the inaugural Parliamentary Affairs Annual lecture, will examine the value of politics and politicians in a modern representative democracy.

The speaker will give a lecture, followed by questions from the audience. Attendance to this event is free.

To register for this event click here

How many women does it take to make a difference?

Tuesday February 9, 6pm, House of Lords
Speakers: Linda Tarr-Whelan (former Ambassador to the UN Commission on the Status of Women), Professor Sarah Childs (Professor of Politics and Gender, University of Bristol). Further speakers to be announced.
Chair: Matt Korris (Research Fellow, Parliament and Government Programme, Hansard Society)

This Democracy Forum discusses how many women it takes to make a difference in politics, business and society. Is it the 30% tipping point advocated by women's leadership expert and former US presidential adviser Linda Tarr-Whelan in her new book, 'Women Lead The Way'? Or should we focus on true equality at 50/50 parity?

The panel of speakers give their views followed by a Q&A session with the audience.

To register for this event click here

HeadsUp Forum - The Economy: what went wrong?
Monday November 23 - Friday December 11, 2009,
HeadsUp.org.uk
The young people using the HeadsUp online The Economy: What Went Wrong? forum expressed a sense of shock that adults had allowed the credit crunch to happen and thought it was important for their generation to learn from the situation to avoid the same thing happening in the future. They wanted more education from a young age, about economics and how to manage their personal finances.

Public spending was also discussed, including which services should be saved or cut. The top five choices were:

1.      Spending on education
2.      Scrapping ID cards to save money
3.      Creating jobs
4.      Creating more youth training schemes/apprenticeships
5.      Investing in health

Click here to read the full report.

Trustee Vacancies
The Hansard Society is currently looking for new Trustees. The Hansard Society is managed by a Chief Executive and six Directors and is currently governed by a Board of seven volunteer Trustees. The Society is looking for three new Trustees to join the Board.

If you are interested in participating in the governance of the Hansard Society, please download the application pack. The deadline for applications is Friday, 26 February at 5pm. If you would like more information, please visit our website.

Ten Years On: A multi-perspective evaluation of the Human Rights Act
Friday 5 & Saturday 6 June, 2010, University of Salford
The Salford Human Rights Conference 2010 will evaluate the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) from multiple perspectives. It will comprise both a domestic and international legal academic analysis of the effects of the HRA.

The conference will include a wide-range of participants and multiple perspectives and will offer a unique and comprehensive analysis of the Act which can inform future directions. Following the conference a selection of papers will be edited and offered for publication.

Further information can be found on their website or by sending enquiries to law-hrconference@salford.ac.uk

Digital citizens and democratic participation: An analysis of how citizens participate online and connect with MPs and Parliament

admin — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:31:00 GMT

On February 10, the Hansard Society published the report Digital citizens and demoncratic participation: An analysis of how citizens participate online and connect with MPs and Parliament which has received coverage in several online publications. Dr Andy Williamson, participated in a panel discussing whether MPs should use online tools on Sky News on February 16.Director of the Hansard Society eDemocracy Programme. Below is a selection of articles discussing the report.

What do the public want politcians to get up to online? - Mark Pack, Liberal Democrat Voice

Hansard Society report: Britons want MPs to communicate online - Total Politics blog

People want MPs to engage online - Public Service

Digital Citizens want to engage with politicians - passive democracy is not enough - UKauthorITy.com

Hansard Society Membership

admin — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:48:00 GMT

To become a Hansard Society Member or to renew your Membership:

Download the Membership form

This includes details of benefits, how to pay and the freepost/email address to return the form. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact Kate Egglestone, Communications & Events Coordinator k.egglestone@hansard.lse.ac.uk or telephone 020 7438 1210.

The Hansard Society offers two types of Membership:

Individual Subscription Membership - £35

Subscription to Parliamentary Affairs, at a reduced rate of £27 (usually £60)
Electronic notification of our high-profile public seminars, meetings and briefings
Subscription to the Hansard Society's Monthly eNewsletter
Electronic notification of upcoming publications
Free publications posted to you

Parliamentary Affairs is a quarterly academic journal published by the Oxford University Press in association with the Hansard Society. The subscription runs from January to December and is billed separately by the Oxford University Press.

Basic Membership - £20

Electronic notification of our high-profile public seminars, meetings and briefings
Subscription to the Hansard Society's Monthly eNewsletter
Electronic notification of upcoming publications
Free publications posted to you

[BUY:35:Individual Subscription Membership]

[BUY:20:Basic Membership]

Parliamentary Reform Lecture Series - 9, 15 & 18 March

admin — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:30:00 GMT

Since its inception the Hansard Society has made many influential recommendations for parliamentary reform. In the run up to the general election the Hansard Society has asked the three main parties to lay out their party's plans for parliamentary reform, should that party form the new government. The lectures, Chaired by Peter Riddell (Chair of the Hansard Society), continuing after the very successful lecture given by Jack Straw MP on Monday March 9, are as follows:

David Howarth MP (Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary of State for Justice and Shadow Solicitor General) - March 15, 6pm.
Please note that this lecture starts a half hour earlier than the others, at 6pm. David Howarth will examine the Liberal Democrat's priorities for reform of Parliament.

Sir George Young MP (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons) - March 18, 6.30pm
Sir George Young will discuss the Conservative Party's parliamentary reform agenda.

So far...

Jack Straw MP (Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice) - March 9, 6.30pm.
Jack Straw started his lecture by saying that there is nothing more important than the distribution and exercise of power, and that parliamentary reform is a part of this. He went on to discuss Labour's record on parliamentary reform since 1997 and said that the most significant achievement of this was the removal of the majority of hereditary peers from the House of Lords and said that the cultural change in Westminster over the past decade has been great, citing the example of the UK Youth Parliament sitting in both Houses. He discussed upcoming reforms such as the referendum on AV, the Wright Committee proposals and the commitment to the full removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords, at the same time pointing out that having a wholly appointed House of Lords is unsustainable for a modern democracy.

Read the full speech
Listen to the speech
Listen to the Q&A

The three lectures will culminate in a pamphlet containing the lectures, as well as an introductory chapter from Dr. Ruth Fox, director of the Hansard Society's Parliament & Government Programme.

NOTE: When you sign up using the online registration system or by emailing hans_admin@hansard.lse.ac.uk please tell us if you would like to attend all three lectures, or specify which lectures you would like to attend.

Digital citizens and democratic engagement

admin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:39:00 GMT

Digital citizens and democratic participation: An analysis of how citizens participate online and connect with MPs and Parliament - shows that for Britons who are already online, the internet has made it easier to take part in civic and political activities and that half of them prefer to use the internet to take part in democratic life.

With over two thirds of the British population online, this report explores how people use the internet to connect with their elected representatives and also the trends in online digital engagement across civic and political life. The research draws on two samples. The first was a national survey of individuals who were already online and the second was a sample of ‘digital leaders' -people with a strong interest in social media and politics. The first group demonstrated how Britons currently use the internet to participate in politics and civic life and the second group identified trends for future and developing technologies.

70% of respondents agree that the internet makes it easier for them to participate in civic and political activities
49% agree that they would generally prefer to use the internet to participate in civic and political activities
Age is not a barrier to digital engagement when it comes to contacting one's elected representative
People aged 55-64 are the age group most likely to contact their MP online (54% did so), and people aged 18-34 were more likely to use the telephone (including mobiles and texting) than any other age group

Among the digital leaders group, the majority (69%) used the internet or email to contact their MP. They use websites, Twitter and blogs to contact or keep informed about their MP. They would most like to see MPs embracing online tools that allow for conversation and opportunities to engage with citizens. Finally, the group wanted accurate, up-to-date, available information and open data standards which would make data accessible for individuals and groups to use.

Andy Williamson, Director of the Hansard Society eDemocracy Programme, and author of Digital citizens and democratic participation: An analysis of how citizens participate online and connect with MPs and Parliament commented: ‘Citizens do not want the passive, broadcast-only relationship with their MPs that has existed until now, they wish to communicate and engage, to track and contribute to the democratic debate. Higher levels of engagement and wider participation in the democratic process will happen when citizens feel that they are a central part of it. This presents a challenge for Parliament - both for MPs and the House authorities.'

Download the full report here...

Digital Citizens want to engage with politicians - Feb 10, 2010

admin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:18:00 GMT

Passive democracy is not enough

A Hansard Society report - Digital citizens and democratic participation: An analysis of how citizens participate online and connect with MPs and Parliament - shows that for Britons who are already online, the internet has made it easier to take part in civic and political activities and that half of them prefer to use the internet to take part in democratic life.

Furthermore, the research suggests that they want online tools which allow them to participate and engage with politicians rather than having a passive, broadcast-only relationship with them.

70% of respondents agree that the internet makes it easier for them to participate in civic and political activities
49% agree that they would generally prefer to use the internet to participate in civic and political activities
Age is not a barrier to digital engagement when it comes to contacting one's elected representative
People aged 55-64 are the age group most likely to contact their MP online (54% did so), and people aged 18-34 were more likely to use the telephone (including mobiles and texting) than any other age group

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons, Head of Communications at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity.
Digital citizens and democratic participation: An analysis of how citizens participate online and connect with MPs and Parliament is a parallel publication to the report MPs Online: Connecting with constituents which looked at how MPs are using digital media to communicate and engage with constituents and was published in February 2009.
The Hansard Society eDemocracy Programme's thought-leading research has been a formative part of an emergent digital Britain from the internet's impact on Parliament, to better government engagement with citizens and the potential for civil society to harness digital media. The eDemocracy Programme undertakes research and produces publications and commentaries with a focus on online political communication and citizen engagement, exploring the many faces of digital inclusion, citizen engagement, political campaigning and parliamentary process.

Digital citizens and democratic engagement

admin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:18:00 GMT

Download Digital citizens and democratic participation: An analysis of how citizens participate online and connect with MPs and Parliament

Open letter to Harriet Harman - February 2, 2010

admin — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:05:00 GMT

In an open letter to Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, seven organisations concerned with parliamentary and constitutional reform have come together to urge the Government and MPs not to act as a roadblock to reform of the House of Commons before the general election.

The Better Government Initiative, Constitution Unit, Democratic Audit, Electoral Reform Society, Hansard Society, Power 2010 and Unlock Democracy all support implementation of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons (the ‘Wright Committee') which include:

a Business Committee for the House of Commons to give MPs a greater stake in the shaping of the parliamentary agenda, thus offseting the power of the executive;
reforms to the appointment of Select Committee members and chairs;
new opportunities for public initiation of House of Commons proceedings, for example through the trialling of a Petitions Committee.

The proposals are to be considered by the House of Commons on February 23 through the introduction by the Government of up to 21 separate ‘non-amendable' resolutions. Such resolutions can be blocked by the objection of just one MP raising the prospect that the Wright Committee recommendations will be derailed by a small minority of members who object either to the proposals themselves or to the perceived anti-democratic nature of the procedure being used by the Government to introduce them. If objections to any resolution are made then the Government will need to make time available in the parliamentary timetable after the February 23 for the House to consider the resolution again in more detail. However, thus far the Government has declined to name a date and with parliamentary time running out the proposals may not be in place before the general election.

This coalition of parliamentary and constitutional reform organisations has therefore come together to urge that the Government:

1. Change the procedure for consideration of the Wright Committee recommendations on the February 23 to enable MPs to debate and vote on the proposals;

2. At least announce a date when the House will deal with any outstanding issues to which objections may be raised by one or more MPs on the February 23 - this should be within a week of the 23^rd if there is to be enough time to implement the proposals before the general election.

‘The Wright Committee was set up by the Prime Minister in response to the MPs' expenses scandal' said Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society. ‘This Parliament more than any other in recent memory needs to reform itself. The reputation of MPs, of Parliament and that of the Government itself will be further eroded if, having established a clear direction for reform, a procedural roadblock is now erected and the reforms are blocked before the general election.'

‘One of the objectives in establishing the Wright Committee was to help enhance the collective authority and reputation of the House of Commons', said Stuart Wilks-Heeg of Democratic Audit. ‘MPs should have the democratic opportunity to debate and amend the resolutions on which they vote or at the very least should know the date on which they might be permitted to consider the reform proposals in more detail if any member objects to them. It is nearly three months since the reform proposals were published - any further delay which prevents implementation before the general election is inexcusable.'

ENDS

Notes for Editors

A copy of the letter to Harriet Harman from the Better Government Initiative, Constitution Unit, Democratic Audit, Electoral Reform Society, Hansard Society, Power 2010 and Unlock Democracy can be read here.
When the House of Commons has previously considered reform proposals in the last decade - for example, changes to sittings of the House (May 1999), the programming of bills (November 2000), Select Committees (May 2002), reform of sitting hours (January 2005) and the establishment of regional Select Committees (November 2008) - all MPs had an opportunity on each occasion to debate and amend the resolutions before them. This right to debate and then amend resolutions is not permitted under the procedural device that the Government currently proposes to use for consideration of the Wright Committee reforms.

For further information contact:

Kate Egglestone at the Hansard Society on 0207 438 1210 or Ruth Fox on 07779 666771

Stuart Wilks-Heeg at Democratic Audit on 07875 696104

Harriet Harman has given a date for discussion of the Wright Committee report as March 4 - Guardian, Tuesday 9 February 2010

Dr. Ruth Fox on BBC Breakfast - February 6, 2010

admin — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:43:00 GMT

Dr. Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament & Government Programme, was on BBC Breakfast discussing the process of parliamentary privilage. This interview was also covered in the Independent:

"If it is a defence against almost any action that an MP takes in Parliament, in any relationship with their work, then I think this is going to be deeply damaging for the public. They will see that it is putting MPs above the public, giving them enhanced powers, making them essentially above the laws that they themselves make."

Read the coverage:

The Independent

BBC News

Coverage of the open letter to Harriet Harman

admin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:46:00 GMT

Telegraph - February 4

Liberal Conspiracy - February 4

Left Foot Forward - February 3

Guardian - February 3

Read the press release and letter here

Hansard Society recommended in Procedure Committee report - February 3, 2010

admin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:06:00 GMT

The Hansard Society is recommended in a report released by the Procedure Committee - Election of the Speaker and of the Deputy Speakers. In its conclusions and recommendations it suggests that hustings for the position of Speaker of the House of Commons should be organised by organisations such as the Hansard Society. In June 2009 the Hansard Society organised the first ever public hustings, which were streamed live on the BBC - the first time a non-parliamentary business event had been broadcast live from within Parliament. The report said:

"Hustings

4. We welcome the part played by outside organisations such as the Hansard Society in organising hustings for the election of the Speaker and believe that this is a role best filled by these bodies, rather than by the House itself. (Paragraph 19)"

Birds of a feather?

admin — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:43:00 GMT

Following Tweetminster's analysis of the state of play in ‘Twitter and UK Politics', Iain Dale updated his list of top 20 political twitterers from each the two main parties. Dale is annoyed that the Labour twitterati have jumped on the Tweetminster comment about Twitter being the tool of the ‘Tory machine' and ‘Labour's grassroots activists'. He raises a good question that neither he nor the Tweetminster paper answers, ‘how representative of the party are the comments posted on Twitter?' In reality, the answer exists in a continuum between @Conservaties and @DanHannanMEP populated by @ericpickles, @grantshapps, @mayoroflondon and @torybear!

A purely quantitative ‘follower' count is interesting but inherently problematic. Not least, we know that Twitter is notorious for ‘follower spam' and it is difficult to assess the quality of listening or level of engagement (if any) - which is what matters. Tweetminster has the advantage of having lots of data and so can take a much more nuanced and robust view of Twitter usage. They focus on reach by analysing not only followers but more importantly the number of times an account has been retweeted (forwarded by another Twitter user) or mentioned in a third-party Tweet. Where this analysis falls short is looking at the nature of mentions and retweets; positive or negative!

Dale puts Sarah Brown at the top of Labour Twitterers. But her tweets aren't political, certainly not party-political. Indeed, it's likely that her popularity is exactly because she is not seen as a politician (Tweetminster include her too). She might be associated with the Labour Party but clearly is not pushing a party message, policy agenda or anti-Tory rhetoric. Kerry McCarthy on the other hand clearly does all of the above and ranks 9^th in Dale's list of followers. McCarthy, Labour's ‘Twitter Tsar', is first by a huge margin in terms of most mentioned and retweeted MP (but McCarthy has also suffered from negative Twitter campaigns, so again it is difficult to suggest value from this).

In Tweetminster's Top 10 mentions for MPs are two Liberal Democrats and one Conservative (Nadine Dorries, who ranks 15^th in Dale's list). For re-tweets, Eric Pickles makes the top 10 and only Nick Clegg (2^nd) remains for the Liberal Democrats. In both lists all other places are taken by Labour MPs.

Previous Hansard Society research on Twitter shows that Labour MPs were taking to Twitter in much greater numbers than Conservatives in Westminster but this levels out for PPCs. Tweetminster data shows about 75% more tweets from PPCs than MPs in the last year but both remain dwarfed by tweets emanating from news sources, journalists and political bloggers. It also shows that Labour-supporting Tweeters have considerably more followers than other parties. Tweetminster's findings echo our own in terms of Conservative PPCs being more effective users of Twitter than their MP counterparts. Louise Bagshawe and René Kinzett (PPCs for Corby and East Northants and Swansea West respectively) rank second and third for mentions, although Labour's Paul Smith comes first. Outside the top three, Esther Rantzen's decision to stand as an independent candidate makes her the 6^th most mentioned PPC and Ian Parker-Joseph, standing for the Libertarian Party ranks 9^th. Again, the other places are filled with Labour candidates.

And let's not forget, the public has yet to engage with Twitter, fewer still use it as a tool for following politics. Preliminary data from our soon to be published Audit of Political Engagement 7 suggests that only 2% of the public surveyed use Twitter to follow a political group or politician (twice as many use Facebook). Most of those using social media do so to keep in contact with friends and family or follow celebrities. Worse still, feedback from Hansard Society focus groups suggests that the public are sceptical of politicians using social media; that they are doing this ‘to look cool' or ‘to curry favour' and because ‘some adviser that has told them to do it'.

So what influence can Twitter have beyond the Westminster bubble? To what degree can it shape political debate in election year? In terms of followers, Downing Street has 1.7 million and Sarah Brown has 1.1 Million but, by contrast, the top UK elected politician by far is Boris Johnson with 64,000 followers and the top MP is John Prescott, who has 14,000 followers. Further afield Barack Obama has 3.2 million followers and Britney Spears 4.2 million - almost one thousand times more than Kerry McCarthy!

This isn't to write off Twitter as an important tool simply to contextualise reach of political twitterers as narrow and their ability to influence at this stage limited to political activists, insiders and the media. Kerry McCarthy is clearly the politician with the greatest digital reach, but that's largely because of her role within the Labour Party and her influence beyond these circles is perhaps limited. And, as McCarthy knows only too well, not all coverage on Twitter is positive, so measuring retweets and mentions only goes part of the way to determining influence. Influence in fact would appear to be determined by two things. Primarily it's about an established real-world profile (either within or outside established party structures) and, second, an ability to say something controversial (preferably at odds with or which could embarrass the party). Examples in the former category include @nick_clegg and @johnprescott and in the latter, @danhannanmep. For this election at least, it's all about creating a profile amongst the media commentators who follow Twitter and it is through this filter bed of mainstream media that twittering has its ultimate but limited potential to influence the election. Twitter's value is going to be as a conduit to the mainstream media or as a foil for the story itself - launching an otherwise uninteresting policy in Twitter can make it news!

Andy Williamson