Tag Archives: John Prescott

Twitter: powerful, but not yet stronger than mainstream media

Posted on by
Reply

John Prescott’s Guardian article about Twitter this week caused a stir.

The former deputy prime minister seized on the fact Twitter now had 10 million UK users to claim that Twitter was now more influential than the mainstream media. He pointed out that just nine million buy a national newspaper.

Now I’m the first to accept that Twitter is influential. It is now a news source, noticeboard and echo chamber. It is richly entertaining. I will link to this post from my @robskinner account. But its influence is closely linked with the mainstream media. Britain’s top media groups and their journalists are prominent on Twitter. Many of the most popular links from Twitter content are to the mainstream media. After all, 140 characters leads you wanting more information about a big story.

Prescott argues that Twitter takes power away from the mainstream media. Here he’s on stronger ground. There’s little doubt that social media gives an important counterbalance to the rich and powerful. Prescott cites the backlash against Jan Moir’s poisonous article about Stephen Gately‘s death as an example. But it’s ironic that a politician at the heart of a government notorious for spin and control freaks should see himself as a champion of the battle against bias:

“It’s given me a voice and a connection to millions of people that the distorted prism of the mainstream media denied.”

Prescott is well on the way to national treasure status. And Twitter is largely responsible for that.

Britain’s progressive coalition was a non-starter – but Labour could still win

Posted on by
Reply

Britain has its first Conservative prime minister for 13 years – and its first coalition since the dying days of the second world war.

The Guardian's Polly Toynbee was urging a Labour-LibDem progressive alliance again in today's paper. But it was always an impossible dream. The time had long passed for Labour to lead a centre-left alliance. Tony Blair had the chance in 1997; he wanted to seize it, as Paddy Ashdown revealed in his diaries. But Gordon Brown and John Prescott torpedoed any possibility of a deal. Brown must regret his foolishness. Prescott, the old warhorse, won't care – he is a Berlin Bunker man.

Many thought Brown's first resignation (as Labour leader) was a masterstroke. It appeared to open the way to a Lab-Lib pact. But this always seemed unlikely. How could the Lib Dems deal with a party with no leader? And Labour has shown great judgement and dignity in deciding not to pursue a coalition to stay in power. John Reid had mixed motives, but he was absolutely right to warn of the dangers in creating a partnership of losers and nationalists. In the long term, Labour may well prove to be the big winner. Despite a disastrous election, Labour is still in sight of the Tories, as the coalition contest showed. Labour will be the only true opposition party, and will surely reap the rewards in tough times to come.

As a natural supporter of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, I find a Conservative-LibDem alliance hard to swallow. But Nick Clegg was right and honourable to say the Tories had the first right to try to form a government (even though constitutionally a rainbow coalition would have been just as legitimate had it garnered a Commons majority). I hope that the Lib Dems will housetrain the Tories, making this government far more palatable (even allowing for our perilous financial position) than the dark day when the deeply divisive Margaret Thatcher entered Downing Street in 1979. And some kind of electoral reform is essential.

The tragedy for all of us who believe in progressive politics is that it could have been so different. Had Labour really believed in fair votes and a progressive alliance, it would have sealed the deal back in 1998. It would have adopted Roy Jenkins' fair voting proposals and completed Tony Blair's 'project' to include the Lib Dems in government. But Labour's tribalists said no. And the party kept faith with Gordon Brown long after it was clear that Labour would do badly with him as leader in the 2010 election. Had Gordon gone, it's likely that Labour would have been far closer to the Tory result, making a Lab-LibDem deal far more realistic.  

So much for might have beens. We have a new government. Our first coalition for 65 years. And a true breakthrough for the Liberal Democrats, with Nick Clegg as deputy prime minister. I hope the party won't suffer. I hope Labour will regenerate quickly. Most people in Britain voted again for progressive parties. Shame on Labour for failing to allow a progressive alliance before it was too late.

Needless to say, many have expressed their utter disgust with a new Tory government. They may be proved right. But I believe in democracy. The Conservatives did better than any other party in the general election across Britain as a whole. They got more votes and more seats. The Lib Dems should temper their excesses. Let's not assume failure on the new government's very first day.

PS: nothing became Gordon Brown and his family as the way they left Downing Street. I'm proud of the way Gordon and Sarah protected their young sons during their time at No 10.