TV+Twitter = social medium

Interesting blog post by Darren waters.

It seems to me that there are fewer and fewer water cooler moments, in part because television has become less of a cohesively social experience.

PVRS, video on demand, BitTorrent, digital download stores, DVD box sets have all helped to fracture the common viewing experience.

We tend to watch our TV content out of sync with one another these days.

But last night I experienced a water cooler moment as a programme was being broadcast. It was social TV at the point of broadcast, and it was thanks to Twitter…

Needless to say, I found the post from Darren’s Twitter stream!

The cost of madness

I’ve never voted Tory in my life, but the awful prospect is beginning to look like a possibility. A key determinant of how I vote next time will be the parties’ stance on the national ID card scheme to which Gordon Brown & Co are fanatically committed. On Friday Bill Crothers, commercial director for the Identity and Passport Service, announced that five companies had won the right to bid for the billions of pounds worth of work involved under a framework agreement announced on Friday. They are CSC, EDS, IBM, Fujitsu and Thales. No surprises there, then.

But get this. These companies will have to be compensated for lost profits, in addition to their bid and other costs, if the Conservatives win a general election and carry out their pledge to scrap the scheme.

According to the Financial Times report,

The promise of loss of profit payments – standard in government IT contracts where there is a change of government policy – was, however, attacked as “improper and quite extra-ordinary” by David Davis, shadow home secretary.

Mr Davis said he had written to the IT suppliers in February giving formal notice that the Conservatives would cancel the project, and had reminded Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, of the “longstanding convention that one parliament may not bind a subsequent parliament”.

“To guarantee these payments knowing that a future Conservative government has already said it will scrap ID cards is improper and quite extraordinary,” Mr Davis said. “I will be pressing ministers to explain under whose authority senior officials are making these promises.”

Stand by for the Labour argument that scrapping the ID Card would be wrong because it would cost too much in compensation.

Much is made of the fact that this kind of ‘compensation’ clause is standard for government work. Presumably, that’s because nobody would bid for the contracts without it. But doesn’t that tell you something interesting about the projects?

Network Power

Sigh. Another book to add to the ‘must read’ pile — David Singh Grewal’s Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization. Here’s the abstract:

David Singh Grewal’s remarkable and ambitious book draws on several centuries of political and social thought to show how globalization is best understood in terms of a power inherent in social relations, which he calls network power. Using this framework, he demonstrates how our standards of social coordination both gain in value the more they are used and undermine the viability of alternative forms of cooperation. A wide range of examples are discussed, from the spread of English and the gold standard to the success of Microsoft and the operation of the World Trade Organization, to illustrate how global standards arise and falter. The idea of network power supplies a coherent set of terms and concepts—applicable to individuals, businesses, and countries alike—through which we can describe the processes of globalization as both free and forced. The result is a sophisticated and novel account of how globalization, and politics, work.

So after Hard Power, and Joe Nye’s Soft Power, students of International Relations will have to come to terms with Network Power. About time too.

Christopher Caldwell wrote a thoughtful piece about the book in yesterday’s FT. Excerpt:

At the heart of globalisation is a basic, and politically explosive, mystery; globalisation proceeds through the breaking down of boundaries, the unfolding of diversity and freedom of choice – so why is it experienced by so many people as a constriction, an oppression and a loss of freedom? In a brilliant and subtle book*, a Harvard graduate student has solved this mystery – even if he has not solved the problem. David Singh Grewal believes the answer lies in something called “network power”. Networks are the means by which globalisation proceeds. All networks have standards embedded in them. In theory we can choose among the standards and become more free. In practice, Mr Grewal shows, our choices tend to narrow over time, so that standards are imposed on us.

Here is how it works. Networks tend to grow. As time passes, one of the most attractive things about a network will be simply that a large number of people have already chosen it. This is network power. Once a network reaches “critical mass”, Mr Grewal says, the incentives to join it can become irresistible. Certainly some standards are intrinsically better than others. “But as the network power of a standard grows,” Mr Grewal writes, “the intrinsic reasons why it should be adopted become less important relative to the extrinsic benefits of co-ordination that the standard can provide.” People defect from alternative networks. Eventually those alternatives disappear altogether. The choice of networks becomes a Hobson’s choice. You remain free to choose your network, but the distinction between choosing to join a network and being forced to join one is less evident.

Mr Grewal sees such a “merger of reason and force” in many areas, economic and non-economic – from the Windows operating system to the ISO 9000 standard of industrial control to Britain’s adoption of the metric system. Since English has become the first global lingua franca, many non-native speakers have freely chosen to speak it. But, for someone who wants to participate in the global economy – which is to say, the economy – to what extent is this really a choice?

Networks, Mr Grewal believes, can impinge on our political autonomy, channelling it into situations where dissent is possible but pointless. Although people enter them freely, networks, like political systems, can bias outcomes. A new order can be camouflaged as a broadening of options. Networks vary along three dimensions, Mr Grewal thinks: “compatibility” (with other networks); “availability” (openness); and “malleability”. They tend to be open and compatible in the early stages, and open and incompatible in the later ones.

Hmm… Just tried to order it from Amazon.co.uk, but they’re claiming the book hasn’t been published yet in the UK.

Some people escape credit crunch

From today’s Telegraph

A Telegraph analysis of government figures shows how bonuses for City workers and other financial services professionals have continued to soar, exceeding previous records by more than £500 million.

The recent annual awards were mostly triggered by large profits made early in 2007, before the credit crunch hit, but will fuel a growing row over whether bankers are encouraged to take excessive risks with investors’ money.

The £12.6 billion sum would almost match the £15 billion hole that has emerged in the accounts of British banks as much of their profitability proved temporary…

Comment would be superfluous.

The Homburg factor (contd)

Today’s papers are full of absurdly feeble stories about the ‘crisis’ now afflicting the government. Nobody really knows anything — so there are lots of ‘analysis’ pieces which simply string together every factoid and unattributable quote that the hacks have managed to garner.

Yesterday, Martin Kettle wrote this:

So far, very few MPs have gone public about their lack of confidence in Brown. But, make no mistake, such views are now the norm among increasingly large numbers of consenting backbenchers in private. These backbenchers have finally been pummelled out of their comfort zone by the events of this spring. They now fear Labour cannot win the next general election under Brown’s leadership. They say and believe that he has to go. They do not believe either that Brown will change or that – even if he did – voters would any longer pay attention to it. The question that now consumes these MPs is not whether Gordon Brown will step down – but how and when…

What this conveniently overlooks is that these are the same Labour MPs who lacked the bottle to challenge Brown’s appropriation of the leadership less than 12 months ago. In that sense they’re all complicit in the unfolding disaster. Although Martin Kettle still thinks it unlikely, it’s possible that they will eventually find the nerve to unhorse Brown. But that won’t make any difference. The game’s over. The electorate is bored with them. And besides the British system only works by alternating power between elected dictatorships.

Footnote: Puzzled by the Homburg reference? See here. And, while we’re on the subject, it’s interesting that in his memoirs Lord Levy, Tony Blair’s bagman, quotes Blair as telling him that Brown lacked the political qualities needed to defeat David Cameron.

Chatter in Cyberspace

This morning’s Observer column

Q: WHAT DO Cyberspace and Cranford have in common? A: Both are places capable of being driven wild by rumour. Viewers of the landmark BBC1 series will recall how the most trivial aside could instantly be transformed into an incontrovertible fact. When it was rumoured that the railway would be coming to Cranford, for example, Eileen Atkins exclaimed with horror that this meant that the Irish were coming, and promptly expired at the prospect.

I was reminded of this while listening to the chatter of the blogosphere on Thursday night…