Twitter - Influence

Here is an interesting little tool, it is called twInfluence, and it measures the influence of any individual Twitter user. It works on number of followers and their followers and so the basically the degrees of separation between you and a larger network. Obama has a huge network, and it is argued an even larger 'horizon of communication' because his followers can re-tweet his messages. In the words of twInfluence, this is how it works: "Imagine Twitterer1, who has 10,000 followers - most of which are bots and inactives with no followers of their own. Now imagine Twitterer2, who only has 10 followers - but each of them has 5,000 followers. Who has the most real "influence?" Twitterer2, of course". So, based on the site's calculations, who is influential in British politics?

Well Downing Street have too many followers for a simple calculation to be made so hard to say with that one but we assume it is up there but not in the top 50 globally. Labour fare worse on the whole, Labourlist for example is 25,919th with only 317 followers; Labour Party have slightly more followers with 562 but are only 24,091st. The Conservative Party fare much better with 5,840 followers and so are 4,008th, Cameron though has only 551 followers but they are better networked than Labour as he ranks 15,486th. Party wise the Liberal Democrats come out in the middle, 10,624th with 1,078 followers. Interestingly the strategists and commentators do well, LibDem Mark Pack is 9,387th; Conservatives Craig Elder is 6,832nd and Iain Dale is 8,942nd. But here is the surprising one given interest in politics, Labour's Derek Draper has 50,431 followers and is 477th globally. Why, well it is suggested he has ruthlessly built a network, befriending (following) those with a large network and so gaining reciprocal relationships. And that is the way to make Twitter work, if you want to influence then you need people to get your Tweets, if no-one is listening then you are simply not influential. Derek has advantages of being more than just the Labour online guru, so potentially multiple audiences to draw to his tweets, also he had received a lot of media coverage, but so has David Cameron. Does this mean anything? Who knows, but it is interesting and lets face it everyone wants to know if there is any indication of their influence even if it means little. If you are interested, I have no idea why you would be, I am 11,177th, so I beat David Cameron. Labourlist, and Labour itself but who is counting?

Are we expecting too much?

There has been a lot of negative comments about the beta version of Labourlist, particularly from among the Conservative bloggers. Less has been said about their Blue Blog, but essentially both have the same raison d'etre. The aim of both is to promote the respective parties and their policies. Derek Draper, the strategist behind Labourlist told the media: "I am building a site for 60 million people, not 60 bloggers" which is perhaps an odd claim. Why odd, well it is doubtful that there are 60 million people who are interested enough in politics to read the words of elected representatives or party members? The Blue Blog gains very little in the way of comments; Labourlist is doing better in that respect, 18 comments on a post that tells members not to be disheartened by the polls (including one essay). The webmasters also seems to be allowing all comments, or at least it is not a place to find purely positive messages. What is wrong with Blue Blog? It seems to be dominated by very serious statements from senior Conservatives, that may not be a bad thing but will only attract a certain type of visitor. Labourlist is more random in terms of content, so perhaps some grab greater attention than others appearing more like Labourhome and Libdem Voice. Also it is new and was hyped by the media, so perhaps there will be more interest. But is there a long term pull factor with either site and can either engage anymore than the normal website is a big question. Chances are Labourlist could well be successful as a portal for members, some of whom may be mobilised to a greater extent due to the site when they are required to come out and canvas for the party at the next election; the problem is though that it can be attacked by flamers and trollers and so used to undermine the brand. The Blue Blog seems to be more of an information portal, it offers the same opportunities for opponents, but seems of more use to journalists and those keenly involved in the party and its political platform than a wider audience. With the former, if it is a supporters network why make it public; with the latter why make policy announcements in blog format? Both are interesting despite the attacks, but neither currently seem to be attracting the interactivity the creators seem to desire - as for recreating the Obama phenomenon that is a real pipe dream!