A lot has been said about the press release and the fact that Labour announced that a "guide will be distributed to MPs this week on how best to use these social media websites to engage with constituents". So the thinking is that firstly tools like Twitter are able to nurture social engagement - well they can be but it depends how they are used but something like Twitter is not if it is used to simply communicate tiny url links to speeches. Secondly, there is an assumption that, perhaps because it worked for Obama, constituents want to listen to 'Tweets' from MPs. It works for some - Tom Harris for example - but Twittering must have a purpose (yes I twitter and I'm not sure why) so insisting MPs tweet may not be the good idea. The danger seems this notion that it is about engaging with constituents, actually though it is really about communicating. But the key point is that a good MP will already know both how to communicate to and also engage with constituents; if MPs need a guide to do so it is rather worrying. Equally if there is a theory that this can be best done via social networks then that is a flawed premise. Some MPs blog frequently and have a constituency of readers (this may or may not correspond with the area they represent), but they have created a buzz over a period and gained loyalty. The danger of this strategy, at this point, is it will seem like preparation for an election; but it is doubtful that it will create the buzz that is required to build relationships between the twittering MPs and their constituents.