Election 2015

I’ve been writing this blog in pieces since the election. Structuring this has been extremely difficult because there are so many strands. The following is a mishmash of thoughts that I have tried in vain to give an effective structure to.

The Numbers:

The following graphs represent the votes in the last election and the regional variation. Overall the Conservatives gained 608k votes, Labour gained 738k votes and the Lib Dems lost 4,421k votes. The hit that Labour took in Scotland losing 328k votes and all but one of their seats made this election result more devastating than it otherwise would have been. The Conservatives gaining so many votes was, for me, the real surprise of the election.

Lib Dems:

The collapse of the Lib Dem vote has changed politics in this country, perhaps forever. This collapse made a significant change to the political landscape in Scotland where I believe the vote transferred to the SNP giving the SNP a platform to control the Scottish Parliament. This control enabled the SNP to improve their popularity through the referendum. This gave the Tories a key campaigning piece that worked better than they could have hoped. In the UK, the votes split off a number of ways enabling Tories and Labour to take many of their seats. This collapse is what gave the Tories their majority in parliament.

Many comments I have read have argued the collapse of the Lib Dem vote is due to them being blamed for the Coalition’s less popular policies. This is not what I encountered talking to their previous supporters on the door. From all of the people I have spoken to, it seems that the Lib Dems failed to appreciate how much they relied on three key issues: tactical voting in Tory seats, how many people who had voted for them were doing so as a protest against Labour and the Tories and finally that their supporters were not at all supportive of Tory policies. As soon as they joined with the Tories in government, the tactical voters and protest voters stopped voting for them and many of their voters were dismayed by what they supported in government leaving them significantly short in votes.

The Popular View:

There are many popular theories as to why Labour failed to increase their vote sufficiently. I have picked out three that I was not convinced were overwhelming but which will have had an influence.

“You picked the wrong Milliband.”

This is something many people have said to me. However, this has overwhelming been from lifelong Tories. I only met a couple of Labour voter on the doorstep who were influenced by this and one unsure voter who said they could not warm to Ed. Whilst this undoubtedly had an impact I do not believe this was the overwhelming factor the media wanted it to be.

“Labour were too left/right wing.”

Not once did I speak to a voter on the doorstep who felt that Labour were too left wing. I did meet a few people that had stopped voting Labour under Blair as they felt he was too right wing who had not come back. However, I think the old definitions of left and right wing are no longer things that the majority of people understand.

The Media

The Tory papers are losing some of their influence, however, they are still the Tories Ace card and it did have an influence. The papers headlines are often read out on the news and radio in the morning. It means that no matter how much money Labour spend on campaigning, they will always have an uphill battle fighting this. That is why the Tories are so desperate to get rid of the BBC. Whilst the BBC has a lot of Tory supporters in key positions, they do make an effort at neutrality that no other media source does.

The Party Campaigns

The Tory Campaign

I heard Neil Kinnock speak several months ago. He said something about the Tories; “Poor at governing, superb at campaigning”. The Tories messages were defined and they concentrated on three things; The Economy, SNP and Leadership. From a marketing point of view the power of three is something that is talked about. This messaging was clear and it was effective.

Beware the SNP! Beware the economy! Beware jobs! Beware overspending! Beware higher taxes! Be afraid, be very, very afraid. The Tories do negative campaigning better than anyone. People say they hate negative campaigning, but this has worked for the Tories for the last fifty years. There is no doubt that it was effective. On the day at the polling station undecided voters were swayed by this. Labour only had one negative line, the NHS.

The Tories threw money at their Social Media campaign. I do not know if it was effective or not. No-one I spoke to said they were convinced by it. However, it is clear that this enabled them to target demographics in a way Labour simply do not have the money to.

The Labour Campaign

Labour’s campaign had only one message, the NHS. The NHS message was effective, but to be electable, Labour needed more. All of the other Labour policies came out far too late and were not clear. If I as a Labour supporter could not define them, what chance would an undecided voter stand. Labour completely failed to distinguish a separate vision to the Conservatives on public spending, education, business and the economy. They were against zero hours contracts, but failed to show how they would make people’s lives better and businesses prosper.

Leaflets and more leaflets! The Labour campaign spammed voters. It was ridiculous the amount that went out. Many people just lobbed them all straight in the bin. I feel that leafletting is only an effective method of campaigning when sending a few pieces with clear messages. Sometimes two pieces were delivered on a single day which was overkill.

Canvassing and more canvassing! Labour’s volunteers spent a huge amount of time over the last four years asking people how they were going to vote. This time could have been better spent talking to undecided voters about Labour policies. Labour’s sole advantage is the feet on the ground and they did not use them as well as they could have.

There was one piece of effective social media campaigning from Labour, it was the NHS birth number. This got people talking and was positive. It reminded people that Labour created the NHS and that it is important to us all. The rest of the campaigning on Social Media, asking people to share/retweet statuses just made people alienate their friends. In my view the Tories were guilty of exactly the same thing. I just ended up blocking Tory friends on social media who shared their campaigning material, and I think Tory supporters will have done the same. The sole difference was that the Tories had money to spend targeting people with adverts to bypass the need for relying on individuals sharing statuses.

The Deciding Factors?

The following two points are what I consider to be the deciding factors in the election. As I have said, I believe the above points were influencers, but these two following issues were the reason Labour failed to gain more votes. I have heard these issues discussed often in the last couple of weeks and as a Labour support, my hope and expectation is that regardless of which candidate becomes the next Labour leader, these issues will not be influencers in five year’s time.

The Big Lie

In the 12 months following the last election the Tories, and their friends in the media, pinned the blame for the global financial crash on the Labour Party and overspending. It genuinely astounds me that this was successful. Anyone who knows their history is aware that Margaret Thatcher deregulated the banks and it is this deregulation that left the UK so vulnerable to the financial crash. Yes Labour did not reverse this deregulation, but given the UK’s reliance on these institutions it would have been economic suicide to do so. Also, if overspending was the cause, then it is worth noting that until 2008, Labour spent a lower amount (as a % vs GDP) than the preceding Tory governments and George Osbourne had publically promised to match Labour’s spending plans.

The Labour Party leadership completely failed to deal with this lie. It had five years to do so yet inexplicably they avoided the argument. Ed Balls losing his seat was an almost symbolic representation of this failure.

Europe and UKIP

More previous Labour voters voted UKIP than previous Tory voters. I would put this at about 2 or 3 to 1. Before the election I thought Labour should have offered voters a referendum on Europe. I only told one person of this thinking it was controversial, and that no one else would agree with me. It is interesting that since the election a number of Labour MP’s have said this publically. Offering the referendum would have neutralised the UKIP vote but also enabled Labour to talk positively about its record on immigration which has been attacked.

To be clear, I do not think the UK should leave Europe, but the issue needs to be taken seriously. There are voters who are concerned that infrastructure and jobs are not going to be there for their children due to immigration. These people are not racists and bigots, simply ignorant of the facts about immigration. This ignorance is mainly caused by the media, but has been perpetuated by UKIP. Right wing papers look for stories to make people angry about immigrants misusing the benefits system in this country. An honest debate is needed to educate the public on the true costs and values of immigration so an informed decision can be made and a referendum is a good way to do this.

My Carphone Warehouse Customer Service Experience

I decided to get a new phone contract through the Carphone Warehouse rather than direct with my current provider (EE). The pricing was better and the website seemed easy to use. When my new phone and case arrived early I was impressed. However, my sim did not fit into the new phone. I rang the Customer Service team and was advised I should have received a new sim with the new phone. However, if I wanted, I could go to a Carphone Warehouse store and get a new sim. As there was a store close by, and it seemed the quickest option, I went into the Loughborough store. After a twenty minute wait I spoke to a member of staff who explained that this was not possible, as EE would only accept sims from their own stores, although I could get a new sim from an EE store. The other alternative was to trim my current sim so it would fit; which we did and that worked.

A little over a month later, my case broke. This was a free item with the new contract. I had not dropped it, the rubber seam along the side split away from the main case. I filled in an online complaint form and got a call from the Customer Service team who told me if I visited a store they would assess if I had dropped it or caused the damage myself and if the case was faulty it would be replaced. I visited the Loughborough store and spoke to a staff member who told me that as it was over 28 days old under no circumstances would they replace it. He said it was “wear and tear” and that “everything has a shelf-life”. When I asked him what he thought of a case only lasting over a month he said “I’d buy another one” and smiled at me. As I work in Customer Services myself I pointed out to him the deficiencies of his general poor attitude in speaking to me and of the fact that I had been told one thing on the phone and another in the store. I did not shout or swear but I was clearly unhappy. Getting no better response I walked out telling another couple being sold something not to buy from them as if it went wrong they would not get a replacement or refund.

I think had I received an ounce of empathy from the staff member I would not have been so angry. I received only smug condescension from someone who clearly did not have any interest in helping me. I appreciate this is a personal rather than a quantifiable observation, but this is an important element in how you deal with people in any customer facing role.

After I calmed down, I rang back the Customer Service team and explained what had happened. The phone contact was extremely calm and professional and told me the staff member should have called them. She advised me to go back into a store and get them to call the Customer Service team and added notes to my account explaining that when I next visited a store, the staff should check the case and if a defective product they should replace it in store. Feeling no confidence in the Loughborough staff, I drove over to the Coalville store. I spent about 30 minutes in that store with very friendly staff who confirmed the case had not been damaged by me, but who were unsure what they were supposed to do. They called the Customer Service phone number and as they did not have a phone case in store, they sent me over to the Thurmaston store. I did try to ask for the case to be sent to me but this did not seem to be an option.

I drove to the Thurmaston store and after another 30 minutes in store whilst the staff again rang the Customer Service phone number and had trouble with their systems which eventually they managed to resolve. I left the store with a new phone case and finally drove home.

Many reading this will wonder why I went to so much effort (37 miles of driving) to get this resolved especially for a free phone case! I have to be honest, the reason I am writing this is not just to vent my frustration at how difficult the Carphone Warehouse are to do business with or with my frustration about the time and petrol-cost I had to put into getting a replacement for a £20-30 phone case. As I wrote earlier, I work in Customer Services myself so I understand how it is supposed to work. There were some severe deficiencies in the Customer Service processes and practices and if I am going to risk getting a new phone contract with them, which is likely given that they helped me save money, I want them to improve. Often from the inside problems and failures are not obvious to the business and British people do not take the time to complain and explain our frustration, we just do not use them again.

Below is the list of issues I believe they need to resolve if they want to provide good Customer Service.

·         There was a clear tension between the staff in store and the staff on the Customer Service phone number, this was obvious in all three stores I went into. This tension seemed to be caused by the different sets guidelines in place.

·         The skills and knowledge of all staff members in all three stores was variable, (as nice as all, apart from the Loughborough store, were).

·         The outcomes and knowledge of the people I spoke to on the phone were also variable, no notes were left after my first call and email.

·         No one in store seemed to have any authority to do anything meaningful to help me.

·         The whole process was difficult and was centred around sticking to inconsistent Carphone warehouse processes, not what was easiest for the customer.

#####   Update from 08/06/15.   #####

I received the following email on Sunday after reporting this to the complaints team:

"I'm very sorry and concerned to hear of the issues you have mentioned in your email regarding your recent visit to the Carphone Warehous stores. Please accept my sincerest apologies for any inconvenience that may have been caused as a result of this. 

At Carphone Warehouse we take all feedback seriously, both positive and negative, which allows us to continually improve the level of service we offer. We also set a very high standard of customer services which sets us apart from our competition, however, regrettably on this occasion these high standards weren’t met.                                                 

A copy of your complaint has been forwarded to the Store Regional Managers of each branch. The Manager will bring your complaint and comments to the attention of their team. This will hopefully bring to light any conduct, behavioural or procedural issues so that they can be addressed accordingly. The outcome will enable the Manager to put into place measures they believe are appropriate to avoid a repeat of the issues you faced.

I would also like to provide you with a goodwill gesture, totalling £20.00 to cover your time and fuel spent.

I can arrange for the total credit amount to be provided to you via a card refund, this would result in you receiving the credit within 3- 5 days or we can send out a cheque in the post which you would receive within 28 days.

Please let me know if you wish to accept this offer as a resolution to your complaint; you can reply to this email, or you can call my direct line *******. Alternatively I can call you to discuss this further if this is more suitable?"

A pretty decent response as I was not expecting a credit. I hope the feedback was valuable to them.

#####   Update from 16/06/15.   #####

I have had my credit through and a couple of calls from the nice woman who wrote the email above to confirm this had come through. How we deal with complaints, which are inevitable, is important. I cannot fault the service received since my complaint.

A Response to an Opponent of Gay Marriage



I recently had a short exchange of views with someone on the subject of gay marriage. It started with the news of Nicky Morgan saying she would now vote for gay marriage making it onto my Facebook wall. Being the comedic genius (?!!) that I am, I could not resist a little quip.

Someone decided to post what I, and many others will, consider to be a bigoted comment on this. Rather than letting it go, I bit. Not my best ever argument if I am going to be honest, but a fairly polite response considering how I feel about the views he posted. I was simply trying to encourage a bit of critical thought on the matter. My friend posted, below my comment, what I consider to be a better response.

The idea that marriage is only about having children is, for me, misleading. As my friend said, “Marriage is about love and commitment”. However, if a couple who want children cannot conceive, surrogates and adoption are perfectly valid ways of having children. From the two adopted children and parents I know, the love they share is every bit as valid as my love for my son. To somehow lessen that connection is to misunderstand what it is to be human and to be a parent.

This evening I received the following personal message from the man who posted the comment:

His first assertion, after the unnecessary jibe, is that every child needs a mum and dad. I would say that many children benefit from having two parents. However, I have not seen any evidence that the sexuality of those parents has any bearing on that. I know a gay couple, and their 9 year old son is one of the most well adjusted young men I have ever met. If there had been any lingering doubt in my mind about the idea of gay parents, it would have been wiped out by this incredible speech by a young man called Zach Wahls: (Incidentally I know plenty of single parents who have done a better job parenting than many couples, but that is not the argument I was having here)

The sad thing is one thing he says is true, but his target is wrong. I agree that the school playground can be a tough place. The fact that child suicide amongst LGBT children is so high proves this. The impassioned speech by Joel Burns on the subject reduced me to tears when I heard it, but my thought wasn’t that gay parents should not have children in case they get bullied, it was that we should stop the bullying of gay children or children with gay parents. For me, creating an acceptance of the love that gay people share is only a stepping stone in that process. In our society, marriage is the ultimate expression of love and commitment that a couple can make. To deny gay people the right to marry, is to deny the love they share is equal to that of heterosexual couples. 

Anyway, there is much I haven’t said. There is a politician from New Zealand called Maurice Williamson, who gave a much better speech on the subject of gay marriage than I ever could.

Testing and Education

Some time ago, the following article appeared on my Facebook wall posted by an old school friend. This article riled me, not because of the right wing jibes against the left wingers contained within it, I have found that jibes like this are almost always used to distract from a lack of critical content. There were a few aspects I found disappointing, primarily the complete absence of reference to facts. One of my key frustrations with articles of this kind is that they are taken seriously despite being written by people with little or no involvement in our educational system. Friends I like have taken this article seriously because it is written in a seemingly respected paper.

From a purely logical point of view, this article has a glaringly obvious straw man fallacy. Just because someone believes that testing seven-year-olds is wrong, does not mean that seven-year-olds should not be educated. I appreciate there is an intended element of humour, but it is as ill-placed as it is ill-informed. Ironically, the reason I do not believe in testing seven-year-olds is because of a belief I have that ongoing testing damages our educational system. This belief is based on my own experience of education and from talking to teachers and university lecturers.

Don’t get me wrong, spelling tests, maths tests and other educational tests can be a great way of learning. I learned my times-tables by doing multiplication tests on a regular basis. A-levels and GCSE’s are a way of proving attainment levels to prove students are able to go onto the next level of education. However, I have seen no evidence in any study that proves that testing seven-year-olds improves educational attainment. Nor have I been able to find any evidence that not testing seven-year-olds damages educational attainment.

My objection with ongoing compulsory national testing is that it forces schools into a situation where teaching is almost solely focused on how to pass tests. I would contend that schools have a wider remit than just producing generations of children who can pass tests. For me, schools are also there to create enthusiasm for learning as well as to teach children life skills including the ability to think for themselves. At no point in my working life has the ability to successfully take a test made me a better employee. In many sectors including science and technology I would argue that the ability to think creatively is of a higher value than the ability to take tests successfully.

I share the belief that poor teachers need to be identified. I had a shocking French teacher and as a result I and the majority of classmates who had the same teacher cannot speak a word of French. I still remember the day that I got 2.5 out of 75 on a grammar test and this wasn’t the lowest mark from the children who had been in her class. However, I do not believe that ongoing compulsory national testing is the only way of checking for defective teaching. Indeed this teacher continued for many years regardless of the test results coming from her students.

I am not an expert on education so I recognise that there may be mistakes in what I have written. Regardless of this, I have several questions/points I believe any educational policy should take into account.

• Educational policies should be critically examined by experts and driven by facts rather than examined through the lens of political ideology by those with no knowledge of educational systems.

• One of my friends frustrations is that our educational system wants children to “get to a level and no more”. If the point of education is to ensure our children achieve the best they can, this should be the primary consideration of any educational system.

• If my friends contention that the UK get “some of the worst educational results in the developed world is correct, which I do not believe is true, then any educational system improvements should be based on the most successful educational systems.

• If testing is proven to hinder educational attainment, alternative methods for proving academic ability and checking teaching quality should be investigated.

I nipped onto Twitter and came across this Tweet from BBC Sporf highlighting a section of the population of Brazil’s discontent with FIFA and the government spending money on preparing for the world cup rather than spending it feeding starving children.

I then scrolled down to the comments and what I found genuinely shocked me.

It wasn’t until I got 10 Tweets down that a sympathetic tweet appeared. The suggestion put forward in some of these tweets that people who struggle to afford to feed their children and who extremely unlikely to see any benefit from this world cup are ungrateful for suggesting that money should be spent elsewhere than on football is an absolute disgrace. I can only imagine that they hold a Daily Mail view of the world where every poor person is so at their own doing and is looking for a hand-out.

Apathy and Politics

Young People in Politics

At a recent Labour Party meeting I was asked how we could engage more young people in politics. As the youngest person in the room at 35, I understood why they asked me! However, at 35 I would say it has been about 15 years since I genuinely thought of myself as young. Also, I grew up in a politically active environment which is not typical of most of the friends I grew up with. An interest in politics, for the majority of people I know outside of my council work, is limited to election time, voting and commenting on something that directly impacts them in a negative way. Right now, there are a number of issues which I see as a barrier to more people of all ages getting involved in politics and also a reason for an increase in apathy towards politics. Below are a few of the key ones, but definitely not the only ones.

The Debate

One of the great problems and frustrations I have encountered from people with regards to politics is the way in which political discourse is undertaken. It is difficult to have an honest debate about any issue where there are politically differing opinions. Both sides desperate to save face will only argue on their own point and not engage in any points that could make them look bad. This means that a piece of genuinely interesting political discourse is never interrogated in public with any integrity by politicians.

Channel 4’s Factcheck has shown that there are plenty of occasions when politicians simply lie. Tony Blair will always be remembered for WMD’s that never appeared and introducing student fees despite saying he had no plans to do so. David Cameron may well be remembered for his pre-election promises of, amongst others, no more top down reorganisation of the NHS, to protect NHS Spending, to protect Sure Start Centres and his cutting of the educational maintenance allowance despite saying he had no plans to do so.

An example of where the debate has fallen down so badly, for me, the student fees debate. The fees were increased from £3k a year to up to £9k a year. At the end of three years student education, a student would owe nearly £20k more as a result of these changes. However, when watching the debate, it was impossible for me to understand what was happening. Conservative politicians were all saying that students would pay less which simply does not seem possible. Why would anyone believe they will pay less when they will owe £20k more than before? With discussions like these, it is perhaps unsurprising people don’t believe politicians.

The Media

(examples of the poor standard of reporting around immigration. The article at the bottom was factually deficient and required a small print retraction)

One major guilty party in this is the media. The majority of the UK media is right wing, due to wealthy owners pushing their own political agendas. The exceptions are the Guardian and the Mirror which are left wing and the Independent which is probably just left of centre in UK politics. If we take a hot topic like immigration, all parties in UK politics are currently claiming they want to limit immigration and it would be political suicide to say otherwise. The right-wing papers have fuelled this debate by printing selective negative stories and in some cases inventing statistics and stories meaning people genuinely believe most immigrants are just here to receive benefits and not work. The hysterical and dishonest media approach means that any politician that claimed to be in favour of immigration for the following completely factual reasons would receive negative headlines on the subject without any attempt to investigate what they are actually saying.

Studies have proven that economically, immigration is good for this country. Immigrants tend to come over at working age and so are net imputers to the tax coffers. Also, studies have proven that they are more likely to work than the indigenous population. Finally, when we look at our NHS, it is staffed by a large number of immigrants from overseas including countries like India, South Africa and Kenya. Without immigrants our NHS would be in a poor state.

Party Politics

I am a Labour supporter, but I do not agree with everything my party does. Recently, Ed Milliband distancing himself from the unions, who have done so much for worker’s rights, has frustrated me. However, I have more in common with Labour supporting the NHS, State Education and the vulnerable than any other political party. My local MP Andy Reed damaged his political career, but gained the respect of many people including myself, when he resigned his cabinet position because of his objection to the Iraq war. Right now, the Liberal Democrats in government have sold out many of their principles to be part of a coalition government. However, whenever any MP speaks out against one of their party’s ideas, the opposition seizes upon it in an almost rabid way treating it as a weakness instead of treating it as an opportunity for a piece of genuine political discourse.

Party Politics frustrates those outside of politics and some inside politics. I remember when I was younger hearing Michael Portillo stating frustration with party politics as a reason for quitting parliament. Rousseau stated that the party political system prevented the British people from ever being free. Democracy is imperfect. Any future Utopian democratic system would have to find a way of eliminating or at least subduing party politics if it is to improve from what we have today.

References

1: http://presstv.com/detail/2013/07/13/313639/immigrants-more-in-work-than-britons/

2: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/13/male-employment-rate-immigrants-oecd

3: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/23/david-cameron-gordon-brown-leaflets

4: http://cameron-cloggysmoralcompass.blogspot.co.uk/p/coalition-christmas.html

5: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/conservatives-delete-internet-promises-pledges-2788442

6: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/labour-targets-camerons-broken-promises-sure-start

7: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/david-cameron-immigration-iceland

How to not be an idiot arguing with people on Twitter

Writing this guide feels something of a necessity due to the amount of people who have no idea how to have an argument on Twitter without resorting to what can be pretty poor behaviour. Rather than tell each person I see behaving in a poor way, I thought I would write this guide, in the form of a set of informal rules, to save myself some time and maybe help people out...

The Basics

Rule one: Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic or offensive about someone’s beliefs.

Rule two: Don’t be threatening.

Rule three: Don’t resort to personal insults

The above items should not need telling to anyone. Unfortunately as we are all aware these are quite common on Twitter. Failing to adhere to these basic rules will ensure you get blocked and reported pretty quickly.

A charming individual trolling Twitter looking for attention.

Intermediate level

Rule four: Don’t include someone (@) in a rude tweet - ie don’t write “I think @spinnyoza ie a #¬!-head” if you feel you have to write something abusive about someone, just write “I think @ spinnyoza is a #¬!-head” so they are not included. However, unless you have a private account, Twitter is an open forum and your tweet could get spotted so don’t be surprised if that happens.

 USA Soccer Guy dealing with a rude Tweeter with class.

Rule five: Don’t correct someone’s grammar/spelling. There is only one situation when this is acceptable(ish) and that is when someone has broken one of the first seven rules. Bad grammar does not invalidate an argument or opinion (unless it changes the meaning of the sentence but please refer to rule seven).

Rule six: Don’t tell someone you’re no longer following them (unless they are a friend and you are explaining why so they aren’t offended). Telling people you’re un-following them just makes you look petty.

Rule seven: Do read other people’s tweets sympathetically. If you could read a tweet one of two ways and one way makes them look pretty unpleasant in your eyes, assume they are not being unpleasant or seek clarification. Twitter is a series of short statements and misunderstandings can occur quite easily.

Rule seven B: Don’t deliberately misread the meaning of what someone has said so you can get offended. I have seen a former Tory Politician do this a few times (and I don’t follow them on Twitter). It makes you look stupid and nasty.

Ie – here I could tweet saying that Louise is supporting violence against people who support different political parties to her. However, instead I need to recognise that this is her attempt at a joke.

Higher Level

Rule eight: Don’t make up “facts” or argue without evidence or reason. Pretty straight forward but this tends to happen in politics (and surprisingly arguments on global warming) quite a lot.

A request for facts followed up by a flagrantly untrue statement based on personal prejudice.

Rule nine: Don’t become part of a Twitter Mob. Someone has said or done something offensive or outrageous and you want to express your ire. Don’t grab the pitchfork and join in. So often I’ve seen these mobs misdirected or on a misunderstanding. Just don’t do it.

The Twitter mob finds the wrong Ian Watkins. Thankfully he has the sense of humour of a hero.

Rule ten: Be careful joining other people’s Twitter arguments. I try not to join other people’s arguments but I do support my Twitter friends if they need it. From both sides Twitter arguments can pretty quickly get out of hand. If you need to join in or feel you can add value to the argument, do so as politely as you can.

If in doubt, follow this diagram (via a follower of Wil Wheaton)