The dangers of politicians being "too online" - or not online enough

In early 2015, a movement of young, mostly female voters known as the Milifandom began sharing romanticised images of Labour leader Ed Miliband on Twitter to protest against his distorted media portrayal. The hashtag #Milifandom trended, but as Labour lost the 2015 election, Miliband's online presence didn't translate to electoral success. This prompted then-Prime Minister David Cameron to boast, "Britain and Twitter are not the same thing."

More than a decade later, social media continues to play a significant role in political campaigns. Andy Burnham, a Labour leader, is leveraging platforms like Instagram and TikTok to connect with voters and showcase his communication strengths. Strategists believe these platforms can amplify Burnham's sense of humour and authenticity. Meanwhile, other political parties are also actively engaging on social media, with the Conservative Party's Kemi Badenoch and Reform UK's Nigel Farage leading the pack in online influence.

However, striking a balance between being accessible and authentic on social media without appearing cringeworthy is challenging. Theresa May, Cameron's successor, was sceptical about social media's impact, preferring formal announcements in press statements. In contrast, this summer, Burnham's two-person social media team proved effective in capturing the appearance of new ministers during his first reshuffle.

While social media can boost a politician's popularity, it's unclear whether it directly influences election outcomes. Former press secretary Bea Timpson warns against over-reliance on social media, noting the potential for cynicism from voters who perceive politicians as using it merely as a communication tool. Ultimately, the key lies in finding the right balance between leveraging social media's reach and maintaining credibility through traditional media channels.