How many of your Twitter followers are dead?

This question occurred to me recently. I started to do some calculations and what I found is a bit creepy.

I have a little over 7,300 followers on Twitter. I have been active on the site since 2009 so that's roughly 4 years. If we assume that there has been a fairly steady rise then in each of the years I have been active I have had an average of around 3,650 followers in each of those years.

In the UK in 2011 there was a mortality rate of 0.623%. So if we use that as the standard rate for each year that means that on average in each of the years I have been active on Twitter we would expect just under 23 of my followers to die. Over the 4 years it would be 91.*

I expect some of the accounts of the deceased are closed down but as we know there are problems with this and it requires surviving relatives to be quite on the digital ball which often they are not. They have after all more important things to worry about! So if I assume that half of those accounts will have been closed down (which I think is generous) that still leaves 45 of my followers that are likely to have passed away. And of course those with more followers than me and/or those who have been on Twitter for longer will likely have even more followers who are in reality no longer with us.

If you are alive and want to follow me on Twitter you can do so here: Follow @MarkReckons


*I am of course making a few assumptions here regarding the maths and also assuming all my followers are from the UK and distributed evenly across the age ranges. If anything a more detailed analysis would probably find the figure of 42 is something of an underestimate. Oh and I am also assuming that all of my followers were real people in the first place rather than automated accounts or spambots. These things probably balance each other out though.

Top 20 Lib Dem "influencers" on Twitter

Egged on by both Will Straw and Jonathan Sheppard and following on from the post I did this morning listing the 20 Lib Dems on Twitter with the most followers, here is a slightly different methodology.

Edelman have a web application called Tweet Level which claims to calculate the influence level of Twitterer. So what both Will and Jonathan have done is take the Labour and Tory top 20 lists respectively and put each of them through Tweet Level and then reordered the top 20. I have done the same for the Lib Dems. The value in brackets is where they were in the top 20 originally in terms of followers:

1 (2). Nick Clegg - 60

2 (1). Lib Dems - 57

=3 (8). Mark Pack - 55

=3 (19). Mark Thompson - 55

=5 (3). Jo Swinson - 54

=5 (9). Lib Dem Voice - 54

=5 (15). Will Howells - 54

8 (16). Andy Reeves - 52

9 (5). Lynne Featherstone -46

10 (14). Jonathan Fryer - 45

11 (4). Vince Cable - 44

12 (6). Alan Belmore - 43

13 (10). Phil Willis - 42

14 (7). Toran Shaw - 40

15 (18). Sandra Gidley - 38

16 (20). Norman Lamb - 36

17 (13). Susan Kramer - 30

18 (11). Lembit Opik - 24

=19 (12). Julia Goldsworthy - 23

=19 (17). Graham Watson - 23

Of course this approach has a big problem. All we are doing is reordering the Top 20s. This takes no account of the fact that there may be Twitterers who are more influential but that didn't have enough followers to make the original top 20. For example, Stephen Glenn who just missed the cut coming in at 21 (or the Stephen Glenn position as he refers to it) has an influence score of 49 which would have put him in ninth position in this new list. I am sure there are loads more like this and in fact the top 20 would look very different if they were all included, for all the parties. But I don't have time to put every single Lib Dem tweeter through Tweet Level right now! Maybe someone else can have a crack?

And I refuse to believe that I am as influential as Dr Pack and more influential than every single MP except Nick Clegg on Twitter! What about Jo Swinson and Sandra Gidley's PMQs tweets for a start?

Anyway, it's all good fun until the next round of lists comes, probably tomorrow at this rate!

The Top 20 Lib Dem Twitterers

Iain Dale did a list of the top 20 Labour and Conservative Twitterers this morning. I thought we Lib Dems deserved our own list for comparison. I went through the list of Twitter accounts listed on the "Tweets" page of the Lib Dem Blogs aggregator and pulled out the top 20 (in terms of followers).

Here we go:

1. Lib Dems 7,692

2. Nick Clegg 7,199

3. Jo Swinson 2,666

4. Vince Cable 2,399

5. Lynne Featherstone 2,226

6. Alan Belmore 2,030

7. Toran Shaw 1,607

8. Mark Pack 1,580

9. Lib Dem Voice 1,547

10. Phil Willis 1,359

11. Lembit Opik 1,301

12. Julia Goldsworthy 1,264

13. Susan Kramer 1,253

14. Jonathan Fryer 1,245

15. Will Howells 1,094

16. Andy Reeves 1,013

17. Graham Watson 985

18. Sandra Gidley 973

19. Mark Thompson 952

20. Norman Lamb 923

If you think you have been unjustly missed from this list please let me know and I will update it. If you aren't on the Lib Dem Blogs Twitter list then you won't be here so get yerself added!

As Mark Pack (or number 8 as he will henceforth be known) has already pointed out on Twitter, this is just purely based on follower numbers which is a debateable measure but I have stuck with the same method that Iain has used for comparative purposes.

UPDATE: Stephen Glenn has commented asking if he is in position 21 just outside the chart and indeed he is! This is becoming something of a meme with Stephen regularly just missing the cut in various charts so I thought I'd include a link to his twitter feed here to compensate for his rotten luck. He is definitely worth following!

Twitter is full of liberals apparently

There is an interesting piece of research out in Prospect magazine this month which shows that Twitter users are likely to be very high up the liberal scale. In fact they claim that only Lib Dems and Londoners as groups are actually more liberal.

This chart sums up where Twitter users are positioned compared to other groups:

They claim that this is why so many "liberal" campaigns have managed to gain traction on Twitter and list the following recent examples:

• Breaking the Guardian’s court injunction banning them from naming mining company Trafigura.
• Attacking Daily Mail writer Jan Moir for “homophobic” remarks on the death of gay pop star Stephen Gately.
• Criticising Sunday Times critic AA Gill for shooting a baboon while on safari.
• Vilifying Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan and his criticism of the NHS in the US, in the #welovethenhs campaign.

I find it very interesting that they should find Twitter users positioned like this. When I saw the above chart I instantly thought that part of the reason will be that there are quite a lot of Lib Dems, Londoners and 18-34 year olds on Twitter. Indeed towards the end of the Prospect article it says:

Reacting to the poll, Prospect managing editor James Crabtree said: “New technologies are often adopted by the political extremes of left and right. It is clear that the urban, metropolitan, Guardian-reading ‘chattering classes’ have flocked online to become the ‘twittering classes’ —and they are now a real force in British politics.”

The survey confirms Twitter’s image in Britain as a tool for a youthful metropolitan elite. 46 per cent of users are younger than 35, compared to 29 per cent of the population, while Twitter users more likely to live in London.

I'm not sure about this final comment though:

But where Twitter users and the rest of the country most disagree, perhaps unsurprisingly, is over the service itself. Twitter users might think the service is worthwhile, but 76 per cent of the British population give the idea a thumbs-down, saying they have never used it and do not intend to in future—meaning the “twittering classes” could have a Twitter monopoly for some time to come.

I think it is like with any new technology, it takes a while for people to grasp it and its benefits. In the case of Twitter I don't think it is helped by some of the ways I have heard it described. People still think it is just used to tell people what you are doing in any one precise moment, e.g. "taking the turkey out of the oven", "going to the shops" etc. The truth is that although it might have started like that, it is now a means of debate and dissemination of information to lots of people who have chosen to follow you. In my case I follow lots of people who are interested in politics.

In fact we debated this very issue as one of the topics on last week's House of Comments podcast with Jennie Rigg and Matt Wardman which you can listen to via this link.

I think we will find the uptake of Twitter continuing to increase rapidly as more people "get it" over the next year or two. That might mean the position on the above scale is quite different in a couple of years time which some liberals might lament but I think will be better for engagement generally.

MPs on Twitter blocking followers

Sara Bedford has tweeted today about how she has been blocked from following an MP. She hasn't said which one (although I can take a wild guess). UPDATE: Sara has done a blogpost herself about this now and it is who I thought it would be - Nadine Dorries MP.

After that I tweeted asking if anyone else has been blocked by MPs and had a few responses both publicly and privately. Sara's case is not an isolated incident. So there are multiple examples of MPs deciding to block members of the public on Twitter from following them. Obviously I can't know all the reasons why these "blocks" might have occurred but I strongly suspect in at least some cases the MP is trying to prevent an opponent from having (easy) access to their Twitter stream.

This seems a bit odd to me. The way Twitter works is that your tweets go into the "public timeline". Anyone can see these either via direct links or just by going to your public page on Twitter. If someone follows you on Twitter, you don't have to follow them back. So to block someone is a bit of a drastic step in my view. Thus far, I have never blocked anyone from following me as I am quite happy for the world to see what I am tweeting about.

Of course people have the right to do what they want on Twitter including MPs. I am sure there are cases (e.g. where someone is being very abusive to you) where you might want to take a step like this, however in the case of Sara above I am sure that was not happening and in the other cases revealed to me I am pretty sure too.

The fact that some MPs are doing this makes me question whether they have understood the nature of the medium. It makes it look to me like they have something to hide or are afraid of allowing their opponents access to their public statements, because that's what Twitter is, a public forum.

(Incidentally it is possible to make all your tweets private but none of the MPs I am talking about here have done that to the best of my knowledge).

UPDATE1: Stu has pointed out in the comments that another result of blocking someone is that it stopping you seeing @ replies which I was not really aware of (probably because I have never blocked anyone). I can understand them not wanting to see @ replies from people being abusive but from people who just genuinely disagree and are questioning them (which I think is the case in the ones I have seen)? That's the Twitter equivalent of having someone kicked out of a public meeting because you don't like their comments or questions.

UPDATE2: Parlez_me_n_Tory on Twitter has also drawn my attention to this blogpost he wrote a couple of weeks ago on a similar theme about former Speaker contended and Labour MP Parmjit Dhanda who has blocked a constituent on Twitter.

Inheritance Tax thoughts

I have spent a chunk of this morning discussing Inheritance Tax with a few people on Twitter. There is clearly a very strong feeling amongst certain people about this tax. Phrases like "Death Duties" and "Taxing the dead" were used at various points. There was also one person who had been forced to sell their home in order to pay IHT.

The view I have taken on IHT is that it is actually taxing the heirs rather than the dead. I have also perceived it as a means of increasing social mobility.

However I fully accept that there are problems with it. I don't think anyone should be forced to sell their home to pay it, that is just wrong. I also know that very rich people get around it in various ways. So I find myself in a position where I agree with the principle (although the exact threshold and percentage I am less definite about) but am concerned about how it works in practise.

from what I can tell, there seems to be a fairly clear position from both Tory grassroots (against in principle) and Labour grassroots (in favour in principle). I am curious to know what other people, especially Lib Dems think about this.

Campaigning against the ISA will not be easy

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the new ISA regulations that are due to come into force next year and that could mean millions more adults having to undergo checks to ensure they are deemed fit to run other people's children to and from clubs and sporting events.

There have been contributions to the debate from various bloggers including Caron, Costigan, James Graham and Iain Dale amongst others.

Charlotte Gore seems to have stayed up half of last night doing an excellent post which is a rallying cry for all who value liberty to boycott the new scheme - she is not kidding. She does is a fisk of the regulations and they are so far encompasing and vaguely worded as to be frankly terrifying. It looks to me like almost anyone could end up being rejected even through hearsay or rumour and thus end up at risk of being ostracised in their community.

I briefly laid out my initial views on this here on Friday. Also, yesterday I jumped into a debate that was going on about this on Twitter. The main person I debated with was a chap who goes by the handle of @GedRobinson and describes himself in his bio as "Democratic socialist, social activist, all round good egg." I have been following him for a while and am pretty sure I have had the odd tweet chat with him previously. However the tenor of the "debate" we had about this yesterday I think gave me a flavour of what those of us who are very worried about the further encroachment on our liberties that these latest measures represent can expect when we try to explain our position.

I have reproduced the entire tweet debate we had below. Apologies for length but I wanted to include the discussion from start to finish. I have highlighted points from Ged of particular note in red and ones from me in blue. Also please note that because we are restricted to 140 characters sometimes we either had to abbreviate points or split them across lines. I have made some further comments at the end.

My tweets are preceded by M: and are in italics, Ged's are proceeded by G: and are in bold:

M: Sorry to step in here. Ged, at what point does this all stop? You can never make kids 100% safe.

G: so you shouldnt bother trying? how very apathetic of you

M: But at what price to society do we put these measures in? There is literally no limit to how far you can go.

M: All adults are now assumed to be paedophiles until they can "prove" otherwise with a bit of paper. Why?

G: check into people's criminal past is not excessive, it's a shame you don't take safeguarding seriously

M: It's a shame you're trying to smear me rather than engage with me. The measures announced yesterday are basically unworkable.

M: Not to mention horribly illiberal and foster a deep feeling of mistrust within our society. Listening to 5 live yesterday...

M:... there are a lot of people who agree with me and are very angry. I am NOT apathetic, I am furious about this.

G: why should people prove that they are safe to be left with others children, is that a serious question?

M: YES! Why are you trying to make it sound so ridiculous. What happened to basic common sense and trust?

M: Why do you consider it so sensible to assume every stranger is a pot. child abuser? Most child abuse takes place in the home.

G: Why should strangers who people leave their kids with be checked?

M: How, many times? YES! For gens we did not feel the need to do this. Suddenly you can't move for checks. It's way over the top.

G: I'm sorry you find keeping children and young people safe excessive.

M: And this is the arg I hear all the time. Any opposition to your position is painted as somehow being in favour of child abuse.

M: Do you think having a quarter of the adult population having to be checked to give kids lifts is a proportionate response?

G: I can imagine @MarkReckons in the 17th C - why should we make child labour illegal, we've been doing it for generations

M: Don't try and paint your position as progressive. It's very very illiberal and the attitude it fosters is poisoning our society

G: show me the data that a quarter of the adult population will be checked just to give kids lifts.

M: It's early days yet. The measure was announced yesterday. Let's see. It will be a lot of people and you know it.

G: so your claim of a quarter of the adult pop was BS?

M: My internets keep going down and I keep having to reset my router. might have to continue this debate later.

M: It is the estimate I saw yesterday repeated in several places. I agree it is too early to be sure but the figure will be large.

G: i don't tend to think about made up statistics

M: If it is a quarter, do you think that is too large?

G: I think those that oppose protecting kids should be able to evidence their argument that's all

M: I am trying to find out where you would draw the line. At what point would you concede we had gone too far?

G: why do you think filling in a form is too high an inconvenience for protecting children?

M: So you won't debate the principle of what would be going too far until you know the exact figures?

G: i am not assuming everyone is a paeadophile but recognise those that are are unlikely to publicise the fact

G: how many child deaths would it take for you to support the scheme?

M: There you go again, the turn of phrase of the righteous! How far would be too far? An eighth? A quarter? A half? 100%?

M: Why do you think assuming every adult in the country is a paedophile by default is making society better?

M: So in order to try and catch a very, very tiny minority you make everyone a suspect and thus make children wary of all adults.

M: You really can't see how damaging this is to our society can you. I wouldn't go near a child who had fallen over now for fear..

M:.. of being accused of something. Your attitude is poisoning society. We are becoming atomised and untrusting of everyone.

M: How much increased child obesity and antisocial behaviour due to unintended consequences would it take for u not to support it?

G: i have to complete a CRB yet don't feel a suspect.

M: Good for you! Now try to put yourself in the position of someone who does and hence will no longer run kids to clubs.

G: how many child deaths would it take for you to support the scheme?

G: why would there be increased obesity, even the largest young persons vol movement has no problem with it http://bit.ly/RXwJS

M: Well they must be right then! I am sure that less kids will end up at clubs because of this, hence more obesity.

G: I repeat how many child deaths would it take for you to support it?

M: You could use that argument to go on introducing measures ad infinitum until all kids are watched 24/7 and all freedom is gone.

G: why do you want peodophiles to remain undetected?

M: I don't! But this is not the right way to do it. Can't you debate this without posting tabloid headlines at me?

G: this scheme helps detect peadophiles, to oppose it is to oppose such detection...

M: By that token, any measure to try and detect paedophiles is fair enough and anyone opposing it does not want to catch them.

M: How about cameras in every home in the country monitoring everyone 24/7 to catch paedophiles. Are you in favour of that?

M: It would probably reduce child abuse a lot and if you say you are against it, you are against catching paedophiles.

G: what is your alternative to this scheme?

M: Why do I need to come up with an alternative?

G: so your alternative is to do nothing, to leave kids at risk?

G: however you did say....

G: RT : @gedrobinson I don't! But this is not the right way to do it.

M: Kids will be at risk. These measures won't stop that.

M: Yes, this is not the way to do it because of all the reasons I have given. This is a complex area and any attempt by me to

M: I am not going to try and come up with alternative workable proposals right now on Twitter. I stand by everything I have said.

G: typical libel dem, criticise but nothing to offer

M: Typical Labourite, resorting to ad hominem attacks and distorting their opponents position. See, I can do it too.

M: Of course I would like to see more paedophiles caught but the measures you support will exact a very high cost on society.

G: so you do think something does need to be done?

G: i am only saying what all can see, criticise this proposal but have no alternative

G: i cant see an alternative to checks for strangers who people leave their kids with

G: Maybe we should scrap all CRB checks they are highly illiberal after all....

G: would you agree with the scrapping of all CRB checks?

M: Right, I'm off to do some offline stuff now. Thanks for the debate. We clearly aren't going to agree!

M: This piece by @caronmlindsay sums up my view. I agree with every word of this: http://twi.cc/J8UV

G: do you think all CRB checks should be scrapped?

M: I do not think the current situation should be reversed but I do not want it to go further as I said.

M: That will be my last tweet on this for now though. I have other things I need to do. Read Caron's post - it is excellent.

G: so children are at risk from paid staff but not volunteers?

M: I am not getting further drawn into this now Ged. I knew that would be your next point. No further on CRB checks is my view.

G: ok i'll leave with your arguments in tatters, have a good day sir

I guess there will be those who agree with me and those who agree with Ged. However I just wanted to highlight a few things to illustrate what those debating against this need to be ready for:

1) Several times Ged tries to paint me as being opposed to protecting kids. This measure is supposed to protect kids, I am not in favour of it, therefore I am not in favour of protecting kids according to him. I have seen this debating tactic used many times at the national level by Labour ministers on many issues.

2) He uses the phrase "your solution is to do nothing, to leave kids at risk". In several other places he demands to know what my measures are. The certain idea that "something must be done" is threaded throughout everything that he says. Exactly where the drive for this sudden blanket vetting of millions more adults comes from is really not clear to me. Ian Huntley would not have been caught by this scheme - he was not giving lifts to anyone. Has there been an epidemic of adults who give children lifts abusing them? Also, the way Ged phrases the above comment implies that his solution will result in kids not being left at risk at all (that is the corrolary of what he is saying). I am sure he didn't mean it like that but the impression is left from the phrasing.

3) He asks me why I want paedophiles to remain undetected. I must admit at this point I started getting quite angry with him. He was trying to align me with a category of the most reviled section of society. My response was to take his argument to its logical conclusion (highlighted in blue above) asking if we should put cameras in every home, after all that's where most of the abuse in our society takes place. It is the natural end point of where these measures are taking us.

4) His final tactic was to ask if I wanted the existing CRB checks scrapped. The truth is I am deeply unhappy about the way in which those measures have been brought in. I am not in favour of outright scrapping them but they are very illiberal and I think we have to be very, very careful. I fear that there are too many people at the moment who because of a minor infraction years ago that has nothing to do with child safety are being barred from working with children. I think it needs reform but I reluctantly accept that for people who work with children very, very regularly that some measures like the CRB are warranted. However to then use this as an argument for extending it to volunteers trying to do a favour for clubs and helping out with their local community is a big step too far for me. I could not easily express this at the time as I had other stuff to do. Of course Ged took this as an indication that I had lost the argument with his last comment.

I don't doubt that the people who are bringing this measure in and those who support it have good motivations. They want to help protect our children and I am sure Ged is as he says a "good egg". However I hope as this debate goes on that both sides do not descend into smears and distortions of the other side's position.

Those on the other side of the debate should at least concede that we also have the best of motives.

I strongly and sincerely believe that our liberty is very precious and we give it up at our peril.

Twitter and the rise of the new media (LDV article)

I have written an article which Lib Dem Voice have very kindly published entitled "Twitter and the rise of the new media".

You can read it here.

How STV would re-enfranchise voters

With all the discussion there has been in the last few weeks about potential electoral reform, I have found myself discussing and debating the issues surrounding this in various media.

I was having a discussion with someone on Twitter about this last night. He is a Conservative supporter who lives in the Manchester Withington constituency. Currently his MP is Liberal Democrat John Leech and he is not happy about this. I tried to explain how STV would help to re-enfranchise him but 140 characters is not the STV advocate's friend so I have had a look at the numbers and will try and explain what I mean here.

Single Transferable Vote works with multi-member constituencies. In the case of Manchester Withington, here are the figures for the last General Election in 2005 when the seat was last contested:

General Election 2005: Manchester, Withington
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Liberal Democrat	John Leech	15,872	42.4	+20.4
	Labour	Keith Bradley	15,205	40.6	-14.3
	Conservative	Karen Bradley	3,919	10.5	-4.8
	Green	Brian Candeland	1,595	4.3	-0.1
	UK Independence	Robert Gutfreund-Walmsley	424	1.1	+1.1
	Independent	Ivan Benett	243	0.6	+0.6
	Independent	Yasmin Zalzala	153	0.4	+0.4
	Their Party	Richard Reed	47	0.1	+0.1
Majority			667	1.8
Turnout			37,458	55.3	+3.4
	Liberal Democrat gain from Labour		Swing	+17.3

So there were just shy of 4,000 votes for the Tories on a turnout of 37,458 meaning a vote share of about 10.5%. Under FPTP it looks very unlikely that my friend will find himself represented by a Tory after the next election. Indeed he was talking about perhaps voting tactically for Labour to get Mr Leech out (this was under a hypothetical AV system we were discussing which shows that AV does not stop tactical voting and which further disenfranchises people, anyway I digress).

I then had a look at this page on Wikipedia which shows the Greater Manchester constituencies and had a quick look at how an STV 5 member constituency could be created. I plumped for a merging of Manchester Withington, Wythenshawe and Sale East, Cheadle, Hazel Grove and Stockport. These are all contiguous and would make up a reasonable 5 member constituency I think.

I won't list all the data from these seats but the salient information (taken from the 2005 election results) for this exercise is:

The way that seats are calculated using STV is a little bit more involved than just a straight percentage read-across however if the 2005 election in these seats had been run as STV it is fair to assume that the Conservatives would have got about 25% of first preferences. We cannot know for sure due to second third and so on preferences but it is likely that the Tories would have got one MP under such a system (as 5 members would be elected here and 25% should give them one of those) whereas at the moment they have no MPs in any of these seats.

This would enfranchise my friend in Manchester Withington whose vote would have counted for something in the 2005 election.

Perhaps Conservatives should bear all of this in mind when they are discussing electoral reform in the future and not just dismiss it out of hand. "PR" covers many systems but STV is the fairest one that gives rough proportionality and still maintains good (some would say better than under FPTP) constituency links.

Political Twitterers!

I have spent some time today trying to find more political people on Twitter to follow. I have been actively using it for a few weeks now and it is great for keeping in touch in pretty much real time with what is going on with like minded people.

The problem I have found is in trying to find politically active/interested Twitterers to follow. I cannot find a central repository of this information. There is a Lib Dem Tweets section on Lib Dem Blogs which is very useful and I have joined this (and mined it for potential people to follow!) but that is only a subset of Lib Dem Twitterers and doesn't cover any of the other parties, or non-affiliated people.

I am already following some non-Lib Dems by trial and error but I would prefer a better way of finding them so, I thought I would start this thread as a place where Twitter users who fit the profile above (i.e. interested in and Tweeting about politics) could add their details and handle (in the comments below). I will be happy to follow you and please feel free to follow me. Also, perhaps others who read this thread and are politically inclined might follow you too.

I am @MarkReckons and you can follow me here: http://twitter.com/MarkReckons

UPDATE: Some people seem to think this is a good idea and there are a few handles appearing already. Please follow them if you are a political Twitterer! To spread this further, perhaps Twitterers could RT this tweet I did earlier:

RT @MarkReckons If you are into #UKPolitics, please add yr Twitter handle to the comments here for increased followage: http://twi.cc/49AI

Mark Reckons - Blogging will be light for a couple of days

Just to let you know that I am off to see the folks for a couple of days so blogging will be light to non-existant until Tuesday.

I will still be tweeting though via the magic of iPhone.