Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Kent Academic RepositoryFull text document (pdf)
Copyright & reuse
Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all
content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions
for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder.
Versions of research
The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version.
Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the
published version of record.
Enquiries
For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact:
If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down
information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html
Citation for published version
Cowan, Dave and Carr, Helen (2016) What’s the use of a hashtag? A case study. Journal ofLaw and Society, 43 (3). pp. 416-443. ISSN 0263-323X.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2016.00761.x
Link to record in KAR
http://kar.kent.ac.uk/56098/
Document Version
Author's Accepted Manuscript
1
What’s the use of a hashtag? A case study
Whatcanastudyofsocialmediaoffersocio-legalstudies?Althoughtherearenowsophisticated
techniquesfortheanalysisofsocialmedia,socio-legalstudieshasyettodrawonthemfully.Inthis
paper,wedemonstratehowTwittercanproduceinsightsaboutprotest,lawandlegality.Wedoso
throughacasestudymethod,usingtheso-calledbedroomtax.Welookattwodifferentwaysin
whichprotestagainstthebedroomtaxhasbeenmobilised.Thefirstmethodinvolvedchallenginga
policyinthecourtsusingatestcaseorcases.Wediscussthelitigationstrategiesandmessthatthey
created.Wecounterposethosestrategiesagainstthoseoffourprolific‘tweeps’who,usinga
traditionalinterviewmethod,participatedinourstudy.Wearguethat,despitethesmallnumberof
participants,eachofthesepeoplehasintheirownwaybeenenormouslyinfluentialandmadethings
happen.Ourpositionisnotanevaluativeone–ofthedifferentstrategies(which,inanyevent,
overlap)–butthatlegalityismobilisedindifferentways,differentpurposes,andourtweepsmay
wellhavebeen,inthiscasestudy,rathermoresuccessfulintheirchallengesthanthelawyers.
Keywords:bedroomtax;socialmedia;lawandlegality
.
2
Empiricalresearchersnowhaveanenormousvarietyofmethodsandtextsfortheirstudy.However,
thecoreargumentinthispaperisthatsocialmediaoffersasetoftextualresources,whichhave
beenlargelyneglectedbysocio-legalscholarsbutwhichhavesignificantpurchaseinthinkingabout
thetranslationsoflegalityineverydaylife.Ifwesocio-legalscholarsclaimtobeinterestedinthe
mundane,theeveryday,andinthedifferentmechanismsthroughwhichprotestisvoicedandpower
comestobeexercisedhorizontally,thenourargumentisthatwemusttakesocialmediaseriously.
Toputitanotherway,thesimplehashtagcanbecomeapowerfultoolinthesensethatitgetsthings
moving,oftenoperatingattheintersticesbetweenatacticandastrategy.1Thatis,perhapsnothing
isintendedbya‘post’ofa‘microblog’butitreachesapotentiallyhugeanddiverseaudiencewho
mightthemselvesmakethingsmove.2Inthissense,hand-heldso-calledsmarttelephonesenable
socialmediatobecomeapowerfulintermediaryamongothertools.3
Toexemplifythisargument,weuseacasestudyofthebedroomtax,4whichwediscussinthefirst
section.Welookattwodifferentwaysinwhichprotestagainstthebedroomtaxhasbeenmobilised
inthefollowingtwosections.Thefirstmethodisthenowtraditionalmethodofchallengingapolicy
inthecourtsusingatestcaseorcases.5Wediscussthelitigationstrategiesandmessthatthey
created.Thesecondmethodisthroughsocialmedia.Oursocialmediaofchoiceforthisstudyis
Twitter.6But,aswemakeclear,oursisastudyoflegality.Social media offers not only a seemingly
passive dataset, but it also has significant purchase in thinking about the translations of legality in
everyday life. It may also provide textual resources to resist a narrative which ‘reinforces the image
of there being a clear-cut divide between two sets of values – those of private, individualistic self-
interest on the one hand, and those of public, collective interests on the other’.7
Whilesomeusethewords‘law’and‘legality’interchangeably,orasexplanationsofeachother,8we
adoptthedistinctiondrawnbyEwickandSilbey.Ontheonehand,wehaveformallaw,whichhas
1IndeCerteau’sterms:ThePracticeofEverydayLife(1980),36-7.
2Ifweareseriousabout‘reassemblingthesocial’,then,likeLatourandothers,weshouldbeusingandtaking
socialmediaseriously:http://www.bruno-latour.fr/mixed_media3Sothat‘whenyouhookupwiththiscirculatingentity,youarepartiallyprovidedwithconsciousness,
subjectivity,actorialityetc’:B.Latour,‘OnrecallingANT’,inJ.LawandJ.Hassard(eds),ActorNetworkTheory
andAfter(1999),18.4Wediscussthelabel‘bedroomtax’below–ourchoiceofthisphrasetodescribetheruleisbothpoliticaland
because,asaresultofthephenomenaweareseekingtoexplaininthispaper,namelysocialmedia,ithas
becomeinstantlyrecognisable.5H.Hodge,‘Atestcasestrategy’,inM.Partington&J.Jowell(eds),WelfareLawandPolicy(1979);T.Prosser,
TestCasesforthePoor:LegalTechniquesinthePoliticsofSocialWelfare(1983);C.Harlow&R.Rawlings,
PressurethroughLaw(1992).Weretainthescepticismthat,whenlawyersbecomeinvolved,theytendto‘…
setaboutdefiningthe“publicinterest”–andthenthinkofthebestwaytheycan“satisfy”it.Inotherwords,
thelimitsoftheso-called“publicinterest”cometocorrespondmysteriouslywiththeabilityoftheprofession
to“serve”this“interest”’:Z.Bankowski&G.Mungham,ImagesofLaw(1976),53.6WecouldjustaseasilyhavechosenFacebook,throughwhichmuchofthepopularprotestwas(and
continuestobe)organised.However,thefast-moving,short-formofTwitterprovidesaprincipalmethodof
publicpopularprotestagainstthebedroomtaxaswediscussbelow.7C.Barnett,‘Publicsandmarkets:What’swrongwithneoliberalism?’,inS.Smith,R.Pain,S.MarstonandJ.
JonesIII(eds),TheSageHandbookofSocialGeographies(2010)p271.8P.Bourdieu,‘Theforceoflaw’(1987)HastingsLawJournal813,wherethedistinctionisdrawnbetweenlaw
andthejuridicalfield;L.FoxO’Mahony,‘Propertyoutsidersandthehiddenpoliticsofdoctrinalism’,(2014)
3
itscouplingwithlegalinstitutions;ontheotherhand,wehavelegality(or,rather,legalities),which
‘…refertothemeanings,sourcesofauthority,andculturalpracticesthatarecommonlyrecognised
aslegal,regardlessofwhoemploysthemorforwhatends.Inthisrendering,peoplemayinvokeand
enactlegalityinwaysneitherapprovednoracknowledgedbythelaw.’9Wetakethisextension
becausetheexpandedversionoflegalityallowswhatisscreenedoutbythelawtobecomevisible;
thelawbottlenecksfactsthroughitsnarrowhead;but,whenwestarttothinkaboutlegality(or
legalities),otherpossibilitiesandstrategiesofresistancebecomepossible.
Therearenowsophisticatedqualitativeandquantitativemethodsavailabletousforanalysing
tweets.10However,wedrawonasetoffourqualitativeinterviewsconductedwiththepeople
behindthetweets,inwhichweaskedabouttheirpurposesandprogrammesforaction.This
methodmirrorsthatusedbyGerbaudoinastudyoftheuseofsocialmediainthe2011Egyptian
revolution,theindignadosmovementinSpain,andOccupyWallStreet.11Gerbaudo’spurposewas
toprovideacountertothe“unboundedtechno-optimismof[some]socialmediatheorists”,onthe
onehand,aswellasthetechno-pessimismofothercommentatorsthroughinterviewswithactivists
andobservationsofpublicgatherings.Wediscussthisliteraturearoundtheuseofsocialmediafor
protestactivity,developedinanthropologicalandcommunicationsstudies,inthethirdsubstantive
sectionofthisarticle,beforedrillingdowntoourspecificcasestudyandnotingitsdistinctiveness.
Ourdataoffersasmallsample,butitisasampleofthemostprolificandpoliticaltweeterswhowere
tweetingatthattime(Summer,2013)eithersolelyorpartlyaboutthebedroomtax.Ourpoint
aboutthissample,though,isthatdespiteitssize,eachofthesepeoplehasintheirownwaybeen
influential,aswediscussinthethirdsection.Ifpowerisamodethroughwhichanactor–athing–
getsanotheractor–anotherthing-toactoromittoact,thentheseactors(thecombinationof
humanandsocialmedia)arepotentiallygettingotherstoact.12Itisnotourintentiontoofferan
evaluationorcomparisonofthesemethodsofmobilisation.Oursuggestionisthatweareableto
drawattentiontoaseriesofnarrativesdocumentinghowsocialmediamayoccupyalacunacreated
bytheimpossibilityorimplausibilityofformallegalchallengetothereasonablenessofcentral
governmentpolicythathasbeenthesubjectofParliamentarydebate.Thosenarrativessuggestthat
socialmediaprovedcapableofsupportingandperhapsevensupplantingthiscourt-based
endeavour.
CurrentLegalProblems;B.Latour,AnInquiryintoModesofExistence:AnAnthropologyoftheModerns(2013),
359.9P.EwickandS.Silbey,TheCommonPlaceofLaw:StoriesfromEverydayLife(1998),22.Thisextended
versionoflegalityshouldbedistinguishedfromtheelisionsoughtbyAlanHuntinhisrevisionofhisFoucault
andtheexpulsionoflawthesis:A.Hunt,‘Encounterswithjuridicalassemblages:ReflectionsonFoucault,law,
andthejuridical’,inB.Golder(ed),Re-readingFoucault:OnLaw,PowerandRights(2012).Huntargues,atp
78,thatthe‘”legal”ischaracterizedbyitsprimaryorientationtothemakingof,thecontentof,the
interpretationandapplicationof,and,ingeneral,thepriorityaccordedto,substantiverules’.10Fordiscussion,seeS.Jeffares,InterpretingHashtagPolitics:PolicyIdeasinanEraofSocialMedia(2014),ch
4;A.Wilkie,M.MichaelandM.Plummer-Fernandez,‘Speculativemethodandtwitter:Bots,energyandthree
conceptualcharacters’(2014)63SociologicalReview79;E.YardleyandD.Wilson,‘Makingsenseof“Facebook
murder”?Socialnetworkingsitesandcontemporaryhomicide’,(2015)54(2)HowardJournalofCriminal
Justice109;T.Palmer,‘Talkingthe(slut)talk,walkingthe(slut)walk:Negotiatingaglobalmovementinalocal
context’,unpublishedpaperonfilewiththeauthor.11P.Gerbaudo,TweetsandtheStreets:SocialMediaandContemporaryActivism(2012).
12Seeforexample,M.Foucault,‘Afterword:ThesubjectandPower’,inH.DreyfussandP.Rabinow¸Michel
Foucault:BeyondStructuralismandHermeneutics(1983);B.Latour,ReassemblingtheSocial(1996);E.Cloatre,
PillsforthePoorest(2012).
4
The bedroom tax Thebedroomtaxformspartofasuiteofsocialsecurityreductionsbroughtintoeffectduringthe
Coalitiongovernment’sausterityturn.13Itisabrightlinerulewhichprescribesapercentage
reductioninhousingbenefitfortheunder-occupationofapropertyinthesocialsector.14Ifa
propertyisunder-occupiedbyonebedroom,housingbenefitisreducedby14percent;ifitisunder-
occupiedbytwoormorebedrooms,thenhousingbenefitisreducedby25percent.Theregulations
donotdefinebedroom,15althoughtheydodefinewhoisentitledtoabedroom.
16Theregulations
mirrorthoseaffectingtheprivaterentedsector,17withonesignificantdifference:theycameinto
effectimmediately.18Whereastheprivaterentedregulationsonlycameintoeffectonanewclaim
tohousingbenefit,thesocialsectorregulationscameintoeffectimmediately(althoughtherewasa
periodbetweenitsannouncementandcomingintoeffect).19
Thatwas(andis)theformallaw–thebrightlineruleinscribedbyStatutoryInstrument–butitwas
encrustedwithjustificationswhich,superficially,appearedplausible.Aswediscussbelow,appeals
tofairnessprovidethebasisfortheDepartmentforWorkandPensions’culturalschemaaboutthe
bedroomtax.Asimplisticbinary(fair/unfair)providedthevehiclethroughwhichthepolicywas
conveyedtothepublic.
Tworationaleswereprovidedforthepolicy.20First,toomanyhouseholdswereunder-occupying
socialhousingsothatbestusewasnotbeingmadeofthestock.Thepurposethenwastoprovidea
financialincentivetomove–although,that‘incentive’waseffectivecoercionbecauseofthe
inevitablerentarrears(andprobablyundefendablepossessionproceedings)thatwouldfollowfrom
thereduction.AsGibbnotes,thisrationale‘stretchescredibilitycomparedwiththesimplesense
thatitisaboutcutting[housingbenefit]’because‘…itisaremarkablypoorlytargetedunder-
occupationpolicyandthatcriticallybehaviouralassumptionthatpeoplewilldown-size…arenot
13Othersincludedthebenefitcap,cutstocounciltaxallowance,andrisesbyCPIasopposedtoRPI–see,
further,K.Gibb,‘ThemultiplepolicyfailuresoftheUKbedroomtax’(2015)InternationalJournalofHousing
Policyforthcoming.Foracritique,see‘Socialpolicyinanageofausterity’(2012)32CriticalSocialPolicy
SpecialIssue.14ItiscontainedintheHousingBenefit(Amendment)Regulations2012,SI2012/3040Reg5;whichinserted
twonewregulationsintotheHousingBenefitRegulations200614-RegA13andRegB13.
15ThiscamelaterinaDWPCircularHB/U62013,whichsuggestedthat‘…theonlyconsiderationshouldbethe
compositionofthehouseholdandthenumberofbedroomsasdesignatedbythelandlord,butnotby
measuringrooms’,para4.Providedaroomwaslargeenoughtoaccommodateasinglebed,itwastobe
regardedasabedroom(para5);seealsoCircularHB/U62014,andthecritique:
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/12/not-quite-minister/.16RegB13(5).Thiswasamendedtoincludelimitedprovisionforfostercarers(butnotprospectiveadopter
parents),membersofthearmedforcesonoperations,andachildwhocouldnotshareabedroomformedical
reasons:HousingBenefit(Amendment)Regulations2013SI2013/665;HousingBenefitandUniversalCredit
(SizeCriteria)(MiscellaneousAmendments)Regulations,SI2013/2828.17HousingBenefitRegulations2006,Reg13D
18Therewas,however,one(further)elementoffarcetotheseregulations.Itbecameapparentthatthose
householdswhohadbeeninconsistentreceiptofhousingbenefitfrom1996orearlierwerenotaffectedby
thebedroomtax.WhenthisbecameknowntotheDWP,theycloseddownthis‘loophole.Thefullstorycan
befoundathttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/01/bedroom-tax-pre-1996-claims-exemption/;
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/01/bedroom-tax-the-effect-of-the-pre-1996-claim-exemption/.19ThepolicywasannouncedinJune2010andcameintoforceinApril2013.
20Thesewereprovidedininterviewstothemedia,forexampleon1
stApril2013,whenthebedroomtaxcame
intoforce:BBCNews,“IainDuncanSmith:Reforms‘makeworkpay’”,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
21993453.
5
borneout.Indeedsmallerpropertiesinthemarketsectormayinducehigher[housingbenefit]costs
thanlargersocialrentedproperties’.21
Secondly,itwassaidtobeunfairthatpeopleintheprivaterentedsectorwereunabletounder-
occupy,whereaspeopleinthesocialsectorcoulddoso(althoughnothingwassaidaboutowner-
occupierswhounder-occupy).Thisprovidesasuperficiallycompellingexampleofthecurrent
politicsofausterity,whichasClarkeandNewmandescribe,‘combinesaneconomiclogicwitha
particularmoralappeal(tosharedsacrificeandsuffering,tofairnessandfreedom,toasenseof
collectiveobligation)’.22Thisrationalesuggestssomethingthatprivatelandlordshavebeenarguing
forsometime–alevelplayingfieldbetweensocialandprivaterenting.Indeed,thepolicycould
plausiblybepresentedasacoercedexit,atypeofquasi-privatisation,inthesensethathouseholds,
facedwithunaffordablesocialhousingandnowheretomovewithinthatsector,wouldseethe
privaterentedsectorastheonlyalternative.23
Inanyevent,perhapstherealmotivatingfactorwastheneedtofindsavingsinthehugehousing
benefitblackhole.WhentheCoalitioncametopower,thehousingbenefitbillwasaround£21
billion.Therewaslimitedslacklefttoreducethebillintheprivaterentedsector–aconsequenceof
thepolicyshifttomarketrentfrom1989–and,inanyevent,itwaswell-knownthatoccupierswith
somedegreeofrelianceonhousingbenefitarediscriminatedagainstbyprivatelandlords.The
socialsectorwasatarget,inparticularbecauseahighproportionofoccupierswererelianton
housingbenefit.24Further,theCoalition,inaquiteremarkablevoltefaceweremakingsweeping
changestowhattheyreferredtoas‘lifetimetenancies’,inparttosecuremobilitywithinthesocial
sectorandbetweensocialandprivatesectors.25Againstthe£21billionhousingbenefitbill,the
bedroomtaxwasthoughtoriginallytosavearound£480millionandaround£930millionovertwo
financialyears.26ProfessorBeckyTunstallobtainedtheDWP’smodellingthroughafreedomof
informationrequest(althoughthesecontainednoformulae)andfoundthat,usingrealdata
providedbyfourlargehousingassociations,theprojectedsavingswereunlikelytobeachieved.27
Further,therewassomeevidencethatthepolicyactedtoshuntcostsfromtheDWPtolocal
authoritiesandotherhousingproviders.28
21K.Gibb,‘ThemultiplepolicyfailuresoftheUKbedroomtax’(2015)InternationalJournalofHousingPolicy
forthcoming,14.22J.Clarke&J.Newman,‘Thealchemyofausterity’(2012)32CriticalSocialPolicy299,309.
23ThedatafromtheDWP’sstudysuggeststhat,wherestatisticswereavailable,onlyasmallproportionof
affectedhouseholdsdidmovetotheprivaterentedsector(DWP,EvaluationofRemovaloftheSpareRoom
Subsidy,(2015),p53)–butourpointisthatitprovidedapush-factor,notthatitsucceededinsopushing.24Theimpactassessmentassumedafigureofaround63percent,takenfromtheEnglishHousingSurvey.
25DCLG,LocalDecisions:AFairerFutureforSocialHousing,Consultation(2010);LocalismAct2011;fora
critique,seeH.Carr,D.Cowan,&C.Hunter,TenureRightsandResponsibilities(2010)
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/tenure-rights-responsibilities-full.pdf26DWP,HousingBenefit:SizeCriteriaforPeopleRentingintheSocialSector(2012);cfS.Wilcox&J.Perry,UK
Housingreview2014(2014),wherethesavingisreducedto£330million.Duncan-Smith,however,suggested
thatthebedroomtaxhadsaved£1billion:R.Prince,‘IainDuncanSmith:government’scontroversialbedroom
taxhassavedtaxpayers£1billion’DailyTelegraph,21March2105.Theofficialstatisticscanbefoundat
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/number-of-housing-benefit-claimants-and-average-weekly-spare-
room-subsidy-amount-withdrawal.27ThiswasbecausetheDWPmodellingwasbasedonunderestimatesoftenantactivityinresponsetothe
bedroomtax:B.Tunstall,TestingDWP’sAssessmentoftheImpactoftheSocialRentedSectorSizeCriterionon
HousingBenefitCostsandotherFactors(2013).28HouseofCommonsWorkandPensionsCommittee,SupportforHousingCostsintheReformedWelfare
System,FourthreportofSession2013-4,HC720(2014),paras84-8.
6
Theiniquityinthepolicyreflectedthefactthatitaffectedhouseholdswhichwereallocatedalong-
termsocialtenancyofasocialpropertyfromwhichtheywouldhavetomoveonthebasisthatthey
nowcouldnotaffordit.Manyallocationschemeshadpreviouslyactivelyencouragedunder-
occupationsothathouseholdscouldgrowintoaproperty,particularlyinhard-to-letareas.29The
balanceofhousingsupplyinmanyareasaffected,however,meantthattheywereunabletomove
(eveniftheyhadwantedtodoso).30Secondly,theimpactassessmentoriginallysuggestedthat
660,000householdswouldbeaffected(about31percentofallworkingagehousingbenefit
claimantslivinginsocialhousing).31Ofthattotalfigure,itwasestimatedthat420,000hadsome
formofadisability,sothatthepolicyclearlytargetedsuchhouseholds.
Whatbecameapparentquicklywasthatthenotionofa‘spare’bedroomforaconsiderable
proportionofsuchhouseholdswasacompletenonsense–suchroomswerebeingusedtostore
vitalequipment,orwherepartnerswereunabletosleeptogether,ortheroomwassimplytoosmall.
Thirdly,itwasalwaysacceptedthatthepolicywouldhaveregionaleffects–thehighestaffected
householdslivedinWelshsocialhousing(46percent)andthelowestinSouthWestEnglandsocial
housing(20percent)–andthoseeffectswouldbesensitivetosupply:demandofsocialhousing,so
thatruralareaswouldbeparticularlyaffected.32Fourthly,itwassaidthatthoseaffected,including
householdswithadisabledperson,wouldbeentitledtomakeaclaimforadiscretionaryhousing
payment,33butthesepaymentswere(atleastatonetime)thoughttobeshort-termand,inany
event,werediscretionaryandpayablefromalocallyadministeredcappedfund(so,oncethefund
wasexhausted,therecouldbenomorepayments).34Thegovernmentallocatedanincreasing
amountofmoneytosuchpayments(£165millionin2014-5),35andsomelocalauthoritiesaddedto
itfromtheirhousingrevenueaccounts,36althoughitisnowreducing.
Whenthegovernmentfinallypublishedtheinterimreportoftheevaluationofthepolicy,itwasnot
surprisingthatjust4.5percentofaffectedhouseholdshaddownsizedwithinthesocialsectorand
1.5percenthadmovedtotheprivaterentedsector;59percentofaffectedhouseholdswereinrent
arrearsandtherewaswidespreadconcernthathouseholdswerebeingforcedtomakecutsto
householdessentials(food,heating,etc)andincurringotherdebtstopaytherent.Becausethe
bedroomeligibilityrelatedtochildren’sages,somehouseholdsweresimplywaitingfortheirchildto
reachthenextageup.37Thefinalreport,
38slippedoutjustbeforetheseasonalholidayattheendof
29See,forexample,thediscussioninA.Marshetal,PilotingChoice-BasedLettings:AnEvaluation(2003).
30Forexample,itwassuggestedthatitwouldtakebetweenthreeandtenyearsforunder-occupying
householdstodown-size:K.Gibb,TheBedroomTaxinScotland(2013).31DWP,HousingBenefit:SizeCriteriaforPeopleRentingintheSocialSector(2012),para22.Thefigurewas
subsequentlydown-sizeditselfto547,342andthen522,342.Ithasbeennotedthattheproblemwiththis
impactassessmentwasthat‘…analysisisunavoidablystaticandcannottakeaccountofwidereconomic
change.Further,availableanalysistendstofocusonthebigpicture–rarelydoesitconsidervarietyinlocal
housingmarketcontexts’:K.Gibb,C.Leishman,G.Young&A.O’Sullivan,TheImpactoftheHousingBenefit
ReformsontheSocialrentedSector:AStudyfortheNorthernIrelandHousingExecutive(2013).32Id,para34.
33DiscretionaryFinancialAssistanceRegulations2001/�1167;DWP,DiscretionaryHousingPaymentsManual,
April2013(2013).34TheseproblemswiththediscretionaryhousingpaymentssystemwerewhatpersuadedtheCourtofAppeal,
inpart,toholdthattheprivaterentedregulationswereunlawful:BurnipvBirminghamCC,TrengovevWalsall
MBC,andGorryvWiltshireCC[2012]EWCACiv629,[45]-[47].35HousingBenefitCircularS1/2013,CircularS1/2014.
36W.Wilson,HousingBenefit:DiscretionaryHousingPayments,HouseofCommonsLibrarySN/SP6899(2014),
3.37CCHPR,EvaluationofRemovaloftheSpareRoomSubsidy,ResearchReportNo882,InterimReport(2014).
38DWP,EvaluationofRemovaloftheSpareRoomSubsidy(2015).
7
2015alongwithanumberofotherannouncementsandreportsprejudicialtothegovernment’s
variouspositions,39generallyconfirmedtheseinterimfindings,addingthatmanyaffected
householdswerecuttingbackonhouseholdessentials(food,clothingandenergy/utilitybills)and
non-essentials;and,further,thequantitativeevidenceofthoseaffectedsuggestedthatupto80per
centranoutofmoneybeforetheendoftheweek/month.40
Inanepiloguetothereprintededitionoftheirbook,TheBlundersofourGovernments,Kingand
Crewesuggestthatthebedroomtaxwasablunder,astheydefineit:‘Onthefaceofit,itwould
seemtobeastraightforwardcaseofculturaldisconnect,withministersandofficialshavinglittleor
noideawhatpracticaleffectstheirmeasurewouldhaveonthoseaffectedbyit’.41ForGibb,there
aremultiplepolicyfailures.Whatbindsthetwoanalysestogetherisarealisationthattheprojected
savingstohousingbenefitwereunlikelytomaterialise.42
Thesesoberanalyses,however,donotreflectthedegreeofhardshipsufferedbyhouseholdsasa
resultofthebedroomtax.Suicideattemptsinhousingandjobcentreofficeswerereported.43
Sociallandlords’businessplanningwasaffected.Indeed,somesociallandlordssoughttousethe
inherentflexibilityintheregulationaroundthedefinitionof‘bedroom’byre-definingthenumberof
bedroomsintheirpropertiessoastoassisttheiroccupiers.44Therewasanepisodeinwhichthe
UN’sofficialrapporteuronadequatehousing,RaquelRolnick,recommendedthatthebedroomtax
besuspendedimmediatelyandfullyre-evaluated.Herreportcontainedthefollowingcomment
aboutthebedroomtax:
Inonlyafewmonthsofitsimplementationtheseriousimpactsonveryvulnerablepeople
havealreadybeenfeltandthefearoffutureimpactsareasourceofgreatstressand
anxiety.
OfthemanytestimoniesIhaveheard,letmesaythatIhavebeendeeplytouchedby
personswithphysicalandmentaldisabilitieswhohavefelttargetedinsteadofprotected;of
thegrandmotherswhoarecarersoftheirchildrenandgrandchildrenbutarenowfeeling
theyareforcedtomoveawayfromtheirlife-longhomesduetoasparebedroomortorun
theriskoffacingarrears;ofthesingleparentswhowillnothavespacefortheirchildren
whentheycometovisit;ofthemanypeoplewhoareincreasinglyhavingtochoosebetween
foodandpayingthepenalty.Thosewhoareimpactedbythispolicywerenotnecessarilythe
39A.Sparrow,‘Takingoutthetrash:Howspindoctorswranglethenews’,TheGuardian,17
thDecember2015,
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/17/taking-out-the-trash-how-spin-doctors-wrangle-the-news.40LeadingBaronessListertorespondtoLordFreudthat‘Ithinkwereaddifferentreports’,intheHouseof
Lordsdebateonthefinalreport.41A.King&I.Crewe,TheBlundersofourGovernments,Reprinted(2014),427.
42Seenotes21and37above.
43L.Clark,‘Horrorat“bedroomtax”suicidebid’,theCourier.co.uk,30
thAugust2013,
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/horror-at-bedroom-tax-suicide-bid-1.125447;O.Clay,‘Mancuts
throatwithknifeinbedroomtaxprotest’,LiverpoolEcho,26thJuly2013,
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/man-cuts-throat-knife-runcorn-5327123;K.Mudie&N.
Nelson,‘Bedroomtaxvictimcommitssuicide:GrandmotherStephanieBottrillblamesgovernmentintragic
note’,DailyMirror,12thMay2013,http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/suicide-bedroom-tax-victim-
stephanie-1883600#.UY88S_pPnNM.twitter44LordFreud,thewelfareminister,however,causedthedeath-knellofthisattempttocircumventthepolicyin
alettertosociallandlords.Hewrote:‘…wewouldexpectthedesignationofapropertytobeconsistentfor
bothHousingBenefitandrentpurposes.Blanketredesignationswithoutaclearandjustifiablereason,and
withoutreductionsinrent,areinappropriateanddonotfallwithinthespiritofthepolicy’.Further,‘Whereit
isfoundthatalocalauthorityhasre-designatedpropertieswithoutreasonablegroundsandwithoutreducing
rents,myDepartmentwouldconsidereitherrestrictingornotpayingtheirHousingBenefitsubsidy’.
8
mostvulnerableafewmonthsago,buttheywereonthemargins,facingfragilityand
housingstress,withlittleextraincometorespondtothissituationandalreadybarelycoping
withtheirexpenses.45
TheTories,ofcourse,pilloriedher(anditissignificantthatRolnickisa‘her’:‘awomanfromBrazil’,
asShappsdescribedher,46andcomplainedofherbiasandthatherreportwasan‘absolutedisgrace’
inalettertotheUN47);andtheTorypressaddedtheepithet‘loony’and‘loopy’,evenstoopingto
describeherasa‘dabblerinwitchcraftwhoofferedananimalsacrificetoMarx’.48
Legal challenge Therearetwoelementstothissection.Thefirstrelatestothejudicialreviewsofthebedroomtax.
Thesecondrelatestothe‘jurisprudence’asitdevelopedintheFirstTierTribunal.Here,theoddest
thingsoccurredandoutcomesvariedwidely.Here,untilrecently,weenteredintothelandof
Brobdingnag.49Whatbindsthesetogetherinouranalysis,though,isthat–whethertheylikeitor
not-theyareboundbythelaw.Whethertheybecauselawyers,politicallyactiveorotherwise,
judgesoradvocates,theargumentsdiscussedinthissectionareforcedintothelawbottleneck;
theycannotbeoutsidethelaw.Theymayseethemselvesasbeingupagainstthelawbutthelaw
engulfsthemand,winorlose,triumphs(toadaptthewell-knownexpression‘Ifoughtthelawand
thelawwon’).50
Judicial reviews51 Asregardsthesechallenges,whichhavehithertobeenlargelyunsuccessful,ourargument(whichis
hardlynoveltosocio-legalscholars)isthatjudicialreviewhastheeffectofbottleneckingthestories
oftheapplicantsandmakingthemirrelevant.52Thus,intheleadingcaseonthesocialsector
bedroomtax,MAvSecretaryofStateforWorkandPensions,thefactsofthe10casesarerelegated
toanAppendixtothejudgment,whichismuchmoreconcernedwiththepolicyprocessonwhich
thereisasplurgeofinformation.53Inallbutonecase,theclaimantscontendedthattheyneededan
extrabedroombecauseanothermemberofthehousehold(child,adultchildorpartner)was
disabled.Intheothercase,theclaimantsufferedfromobsessivecompulsivedisorder;hehadfilled
tworoomswithpapersandcontendedthathecouldnotmovetosmalleraccommodation.Theonly
timethesefactsgetprayedinaidofthejudgmentistodemonstratethattheregulationsplainly
45http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13706&LangID=E.
46https://redbrickblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/a-woman-from-brazil/.
47http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24046094.
48http://www.channel4.com/news/bedroom-tax-un-grant-shapps-brazil-row;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2418204/Raquel-Rolnik-A-dabbler-witchcraft-offered-animal-
sacrifice-Marx.html.49Thatis,anenormousspacebutthemapstogettherearecontradictory.
50Bourdieu,opcitn9;Bankowski&Mungham,opcitn6.
51ThesecaseshavelargelybeendealtwithinanexcellentwaybyNevilleHarris,inhisexcellent‘Welfare
reformandtheshiftingthresholdofsupportfordisabledpeople’,(2014)77ModernLawReview888,920-5.
Thissectionisdesignedsimplytoaddfurtherobservations.52Inarelatedcontext,LordNeubergersaid,‘…saveinthemostexceptionalcircumstances,itwouldbewrong
inprincipletohaveanyregardtothehousingcircumstancesandrequirementsofanindividualapplicantwhen
consideringthevalidityofahousingallocationschemeunderPart6ofthe1996Act;R(Ahmad)NewhamLBC
[2009]UKHL14,[60].53CfBurnipvBirminghamCC,TrengovevWalsallMBC,andGorryvWiltshireCC[2012]EWCACiv629.
9
discriminateagainsttheclaimantsunderArticle14,Schedule1,HumanRightsAct1998.54Butthatis
athrowawaypointbecauseitissoclear(despitetheSecretaryofState’sargumenttothecontrary).
Similarlyinthecaseofwhetheraclaimantoccupyingathreebedroomproperty,onebedroomof
whichwasasanctuarybecauseofdomesticviolence,itwasputasfollows:
AsIhaveobserved,theSanctuarySchemeisobviouslyagoodthing,bothinthecaseofA
andinthecaseofotherswhohaveendureddomesticviolence.TheevidenceIhaveabout
thisapplicantsuggeststhatsheisadeservingrecipientofthebenefitsthatschemecan
bring,andcommonsensesuggeststhatitwouldbebestforeveryoneifshewereableto
stayinhercurrentproperty.Ithasbeenherhomefor25years,andhasbeenadaptedto
provideherwiththesecurityshedeserves.Therearealsothepointswhichcanbemade
abouttheuncertaintyoffuturefundingandtheeffectofthatonsomeoneinthepositionof
A.Idonotunderestimatethatmatter.AsIsay,itseemstomethatthebenefitsofa
SanctuarySchemegowellbeyondthephysicalsecurityofferedbyadaptingaproperty.ForA
ithasbroughtthesecurityofknowingthatshecanstaywheresheis,withhersupport
networkaroundher.Thelossofthatcertaintyisnotagoodthing.
ButwhilstthesefactorsandthehumaneffectofallthisonAandthoselikeherweighsinthe
balance,thequestionIhavetodetermineisnotsimplywhetheritwouldbeagoodideato
putA'shomeinjeopardy.ItiswhethertheDefendant'sdecisiontoadoptthispolicy(orto
implementitinthisway)ismanifestlywithoutreasonablefoundation.55
Oursupplementaryargumentisthatgovernmentisalearningorganisation.Itlearntfromits
unsuccessfuldefencetotheprivaterentedsectorregulations,and,withthesecases,itprovidedthe
courtwithawelterofinformationaboutthepolicyprocess.Welearn,forexample,howthe
governmentconsideredmakinganexceptionfordisabledpersonslivinginadaptedaccommodation,
butdecidedagainstdoingso.
FromAugust2011onwards,therewasaconsistentviewwithinGovernmentthatthemost
workablesolutiontothedifficultiesforthedisabledthatwouldresultfromtheintroduction
ofthebedroomcriteriawastoincreasewhatcouldbemadeavailablethroughDHPs.Ina
paperdated2September,theofficialsprovidedmoreinformationontheexpectedresponse
toanincreaseintheDHPpackageasthebestmeansofmitigatingtheeffectoftheunder-
occupationmeasurefor‘hardcases’suchaspeoplelivinginadaptedaccommodation.Para4
ofthepaperstatedthatthoselivinginadaptedaccommodationhadbeensingledoutbythe
‘lobby’asagroupthatshouldbeexemptedfromthemeasure(mostly)oncostgrounds.The
officialsstatedthattheyhadexploredthepossibilityofanexemptionforthisgroupand
othertypesof‘hardcases’whichhadbeenflaggedupbystakeholders.Theyhadconcluded
thattryingtodefine‘significantlyadaptedaccommodation’forexemptionpurposeswould
notbeworkable.Suchanexemptionwouldbedifficultandexpensivetodelivereffectively,
especiallywhenUniversalCreditwasintroduced.Itwouldeitherbetoobroadbrushorleave
outmanyotherequallydeservinghardcases.56
54[39].
55[2015]EWHC159(Admin),[62]-[63].
56MA,[11].
10
TheCourtofAppealfoundthatitwasopentotheSecretaryofStatenottolegislateforanimprecise
classofpersonstowhomthecriteriawouldnotapply.Inessence,thiswouldproducetoomuch
uncertaintyandcomplexityinthesystem.57
Giventhatthequestionwaswhetherornottheregulationswere‘manifestlywithoutreasonable
foundation’,58theDWPwasalwaysgoingtogetoverthislowobstaclewiththatextrainformation.
Meredisagreementisnotsufficienttomeetthethreshold;norarereasonablegroundsforcriticism;
northatthelinehasbeendrawnimperfectly.59Addedintothemixthattheregulationshadbeen
discussedbyParliament,and,inparticular,‘someoftheallegedshortcomingsintheschemethat
havebeencanvassedbeforeusweredebatedinParliament’,theCourtwasevenlesslikelytofind
themunlawfulonthegroundsofdiscrimination.60
However,allofthislefttheDWPwithanotherproblem.Thereasonwhytheyweresuccessfulinthe
mainhasbeentheexistenceofthediscretionaryhousingpaymentsscheme.Thisunderlinedtheir
successinMAandthesubsequentcases,RutherfordvSecretaryofStateforWorkandPensionsand
ARvSecretaryofStateforWorkandPensions.61InMA,LordDysonMRsaid,‘Incombination,
[DuncanSmith’s]reasonsarefarfromirrational.Centraltohisthinkingistheideathatthereare
certaingroupsofpersonswhoseneedsforassistancewithpaymentoftheirrentarebetterdealt
withbyDHPsthanHB’.62
MuchofthediscussionatfirstinstanceinRutherfordconcernedessentiallytheacademicnatureof
thequestion.Thatis,theRutherfordshadbeenguaranteedDHPfromthecommencementdate
throughtoApril2015.Thechildwastoturn16inOctober2015.Pembrokeshirehadeffectively
undertakentoconsiderwhethertoextendtheDHPinthiscaseandStuart-SmithJsuggestedthat‘it
wouldappearperverseforPembrokeshiretoreachacontrarydecisioninthefutureifthescheme
andtheClaimants’circumstancesremainunchanged’.63TheDHPawardhad‘pluggedthegap’,and,
althoughDHPswerediscretionary,thelocalauthoritywasobligedtoexerciseitsdiscretionin
accordancewithpubliclawprinciplesandhumanrightslegislation.Oneconsequenceofthisisthat
thelegalchallengeshavenowmorphedintochallengesagainstlocalauthoritydiscretionaryhousing
paymentspolicies.64
57TheCourtwasabletodistinguishBurnipbecause(at[64])Burnipwasconcernedwithadifferentscheme;
DHPhadchangedandbeenincreased;theevolutionofthepolicymanynothavebeenbeforethecourtin
Burnip;andtheRegulationsthatwerebeingconsideredinBurnipwerenotmadeundertheshadowofthe
financialcrisisandtheneedtoreducepublicspendingwhichtheCoalitionGovernmentwaselectedin2010to
bringabout.58Thiswasbecausethediscriminationwasindirect,intheThlimennossense;althoughitwassaidthatthetest
wasthesamewhateverthediscriminationinthecontextofbenefits:HumphreysvRevenueandCustoms
Commissioners[2012]UKSC18,[2012]1WLR1545,BaronessHale(whichappearedafterBurnipandpossiblyis
onereasonwhytheoutcomesbetweenthecasesweredifferent).59R(RJM)vSecretaryofStateforWorkandPensions[2009]AC311,[57],LordNeuberger.AsLordDysonMR
putitinMA,at[80],‘Thestringentnatureofthetestrequiresthecourttobesatisfiedthatthereisaserious
flawintheschemewhichproducesanunreasonablediscriminatoryeffect’.60BankMellatvHMTreasury[2013]3WLR179,[44],LordSumption;BlackvWilkinson[2013]EWCACiv820,
[2013]1WLR2490,[46]-[49].61Respectively[2014]EWHC1613(Admin);[2015]EWHC159.
62[82].
63[53];thuseffectivelybindingthecounciltopayDHPuntilthattime.
64See,forexample,R(Gargett)vLambethLBC[2008]EWCACiv1450;R(Winder)vSandwellMBC[2014]EWHC
2617(Admin);R(Hardy)vSandwellMBC[2015]EWHC890.
11
WhenthecasesreachedtheCourtofAppeal,bothRutherfordandAweresuccessful.65 TheCourt
distinguishedMAonthebasisthatthesetwocasesraisedspecific,discernibleandcertaincategories
with limitednumbers (particularly sanctuary schemes).66 Theactual factsof thecaseswereagain
irrelevant–therealissuewaswhetherDHPssavedtheschemeandwhetherMAwasdistinguishable
on the facts. Itwasheld that theydidnot in these limitedcases. InRutherford, theSecretaryof
Statehad got himself in a twist effectively. He argued that anextrabedroom is required for the
carerofadisabledadultbutnotforthecarerofadisabledchildbecausethelatterwouldbecared
forbyfamilymembers.ThatdidnotwashwiththeCourt,whichexposedtheproblematicreasoning
inthefollowingway:
[T]heSecretaryofStatedidnotaddresshowthedistinctioncouldbejustifiedbyreference
to the best interests of a child as a primary consideration. He justified the distinction
betweenmakingprovisionforabedroomfordisabledchildrenbutnotfordisabledadultsby
reference to thebest interests of the child and explained thedifferent treatment on that
basis.On that basis, it seems to us very difficult to justify the treatmentwithin the same
regulationofcarersfordisabledchildrenanddisabledadults,wherepreciselytheopposite
result is achieved; provision for the carers of disabled adults but not for the carers of
disabled children. In this context, moreover, the argument based on the promotion of
independentlivingforadults,whereaschildrencanbecaredforwithinthefamily,haslittle
purchase.
TheoutcomeofthisCourtofAppealdecision,then,canbepresentedasatriumphofliberallawand
reason. Liberal law, in its objectivity and technical garb, has beaten theDWP.67 However, it can
equallybeseenasanextremelylimitedbreakonthepolicyand,ofcourse,thebedroomtaxremains
forthesignificantmajorityofthoseothersaffected.Thelimitsoflawheremustbeacknowledged,
particularlyasregardsbenefits–courtreversesofpolicyareregularlysimplyoverturnedbyfurther
regulations ina“catandmouse”game.68 Further, thedistinctionbetweenthesecasesandMA is
ratherhardertofathom.Simplybecausethesecaseswerespecificandsmall innumbermadethe
challenges successful, so that the broader bedroom tax policy wasn’t threatened; becauseMA
involvedamoregenericchallengetothepolicy,itwasunsuccessful.Suchdistinctionsarewhatgive
liberallawitslifebloodbutlooklikeamethodofavoidingthesignificantquestionsabouttheeffects
ofthebedroomtaxonhouseholds–aluxuryenjoyedbytheseniorcourts.
Into Brobdingnag69 TwothemesemergedinthebedroomtaxdecisionsbeforetheFirstTiertribunal(‘FTT’):(a)whatisa
‘bedroom’?and(b)whencanMAbedistinguished?
Asregardsthefirstquestion,somewildandwackyargumentswereputto(andacceptedby)theFTT
whichsuggeststhatthepropertestcanbederivedfromtheovercrowdingprovisionsintheHousing
Act1985(specificallysections324-6),theHousingHealthandSafetyRatingSystemintheHousing
65[2016]EWCACiv29.
66“MAmakesacleardistinctionbetweenabroadclassforwhichDHPsareappropriate,andanarrowclassfor
whichDHPsarenotappropriate.ThecaseofAiswithinthenarrowclasscoveredbythedecisioninBurnip”,
[53].67See,forexample,P.Butler,“Appealcourtrulesbedroomtaxdiscriminatoryintwocases”,TheGuardian,27
th
January2016.68D.Cowan,HousingLawandPolicy(2011),ch8.
69Ordinarily,ofcourse,thedecisionsdiscussedinthissectionwouldnotbeavailable.However,theycanbe
foundathttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/bedroom-tax-ftt-decisions/.
12
Act2004,and,perhapsmostinteresting,drawingondictaofLordBinghaminUratempVenturesv
Collins.70
InSC231/13/01993andSC236/13/0942,JudgeMoss’positionwasthatthoseargumentswere
essentiallyaddressingotherissuesandwereoutsidethecontextofthebedroomtax.Thelatterwas
aquestionoffact,notlaw.ItisanordinaryEnglishword.Thequestionwasoneofbothobjective
andsubjectivecriteria,ofcoursedecidedatthedateofthedecision(buttheactualroomuseatthe
dateofthedecisionisnotdeterminative–herpointwasthatthisisnotaonceandforalldecisionas
individualcircumstanceschange).Objectively,wouldthatroomnormallybeclassedasabedroom?
Subjectively,arethereanyparticularlycircumstanceswhichwouldsuggestthataroomnormally
consideredabedroomshouldnotbeone?Further,abedroomhadtobeconsideredinthelightof
‘home’(inrespectofwhichbenefitispayable71).Homeconnotedadegreeofprivacyandsanctuary,
personalspaceaswellasbeingsomewheretosleep.
Thus,inSC236/13/0942,itbecameapparentafterahomevisitthattheroomclassedasabedroom
actuallyhadaliftgoingintoitandrequiredsufficientspaceforawheelchairetc.Abedcouldjust
abouthavebeensqueezedintotheroombuttherewouldhavebeennoprivacyorsanctuary:‘Itis
theneedfortheuseoftheliftwhichtakesthisroomoutofthedefinitionofabedroominahome’.
MuchofthenonsensehasbeenputtorestbytheUpperTribunaldecisioninSSWPvNelsonandFife
Council.72Thisdrawsattentionto‘…anumberofcasesensitivefactorswillneedtobeconsidered
including(a)size,configurationandoveralldimensions,(b)access,(c)naturalandelectriclighting,
(d)ventilation,and(e)privacy’.73Roomsizesforovercrowdingrulesareirrelevant,however.
Onthesecondquestion,distinguishingMAandRutherford,perhapsthemostremarkableFTT
decisionwasinthecaseofCarmichael.MrandMrsCarmichael’scasehadbeenconsidered
explicitlyinMA,inwhichtheCourtofAppealmadeclearthattheircasewascaughtbythe
regulations.However,whenthecasewasremittedtotheFTT,itfoundinfavouroftheCarmichaels
onthegroundthattheywerediscriminatedagainst.74Thebasisforthisdecisionwasthat,whileMA
wasajudicialreviewofthescheme,thiswasastatutoryappealofanindividualdecision.Oddly,
JudgeWatsonsaidthathedidnotfindMA‘…particularlyhelpfulindealingwiththecase’.75Inother
cases,theFTThasdistinguishedMAandRutherfordwhereDHPhasnot‘pluggedthegap’,aposition
whichseemsthelogicaloutcomeoftheDWP’sposition.76
Bedroom tax and the uses of twitter Inthissection,ourdiscussionisprecededbyareviewoftheliteratureonsocialmedia,social
movements,andprotest.Wethenprovideashortdescriptionoftwitterfortheuninitiated,
followingwhichwemovetoourcasestudy.Wedrawattentiontothedevelopmentofthelabel
‘bedroomtax’,andarguethatTwitterwasthespacewherethelabelbecamesolidified,orperhaps
70[2001]UKHL43,inwhichLordBinghamsaidthattheuseoftheroomwastobejudgedatthedateonwhich
thedecisionwasmade.71S.130SSCBA1992.
72[2014]UKUT525(AAC)
73[31]
74SC068/13/12054,TribunalJudgeWatson;seealsothedecisionofJudgeMcMahoninSC068/14/01608.
75Para15.
76MrGresham’scase,SC008/13/08128,inwhichthecourtexpressedscepticismaboutthelawfulnessofthe
localauthority’sDHPpolicy.
13
better‘stablilised’,77asrepresentingthebenefitreduction,despiteotherattempts(onTwitterand
otherspaces)toproducedifferentlabels.Wethendrawattentiontoourfourinterview
participants’involvement.Toprotecttheiranonymity,wehaveusedsobriquetsasdescriptors:‘the
smilingassassin’;‘theunderstater’;‘thelegalconduit’;‘thesocialmediapolymath’(whowasalso
involvedinabedroomtaxchallenge).
During2014,weconductedtelephoneinterviewswiththem,decidingonthatmethodsothattheir
anonymitycouldbeprotected(inthreecases,thetwitternamewasnottherealnameofthe
researchparticipant–however,intwosuchcases,therearelinkstotheirblogswhichcontaindetails
aboutthem).Onlyoneoftheparticipantswasknowntouspriortothestudy.Betweenthefourof
them,theyhadover16,000followersandhadtweetedover85,000times.78Theinterviewslasted
between40minutestoanhourandahalf.Obviously,thisisanexploratorystudyandwecandono
morethandrawsomebasic,limitedmessagesfromourdata.
Thekeypointisthat,despiteonlyalimitedsample,Twitterhasthepotentialtoworkalongside
otherstrategiesandtacticstoflattenstructuresofpowersothatfour,relativelyordinaryindividuals,
whofeelpassionatelyaboutthebedroomtax,canaffectourunderstandingsaswellasgetpeopleto
dothings;79ortoputitanotherway,theyopenupfieldsofknowledgeandaction.
80Wearenot
suggestinginanysensethatthesefourhavesomehowchangedtheworldofthebedroomtax,which
remainsinplaceinanyevent,butasfourordinarypeoplewithasocialmediacomputerprogramme
ontheirsmartphones,theyhaveconsiderablepower.Itisfairandrighttosaythattheyareallmale,
sothatthisflatteningofpowerinthiscasestudyisonlypartial.81
Wearealsointerestedinthewaysinwhichlegalityisenfoldedintotheiractions.Astheytweet,we
arguethattheyare(consciouslyand/orunconsciously)producinglegality.Thenameswehavegiven
them(whicharenotartificiallyconstructedlabels,butphrasestheyusedintheirinterviews,and
havebeenagreedwiththem)andtheirpracticesareimbuedwithlegalism,aswediscussbelow.
Social media, social movements and protest
Thereislittledoubtthat,since2009atthelatest,socialmediahasbecomeintertwinedwithsocial
movementsandprotest.In2009,itwasreportedthat‘Theremayhavebeenfewthingsthat
protesters,politiciansandactivistsshare,butduringtheG20meeting,theywereunitedbytheiruse
ofTwitter’.82Oneofthekeyquestionsnowaddressedintheliteratureisnotwhethersocialmediais
77SeeE.Cloatre,PillsforthePoorest(2013),14:‘the“translation”ofmultipleconnectionsintoanewactor
withasenseorappearanceofstabilityisatthecoreofmuch[ANT]research’.78Asat13
thApril2015.
79Cfthecritiqueofthe#bringbackourgirlsashashtagpolitics:http://jeffar.es/2014/05/11/subterranean-
hashtag-blues/80M.Foucault,‘Afterword:Thesubjectandpower’,inH.Dreyfuss&P.Rabinow,MichelFoucault:Beyond
StructuralismandHermeneutics(1982),221.Asheputsitearlier,indiscussingantiauthorityoppositions,
‘Theyareanoppositiontotheeffectsofpowerwhicharelinkedwithknowledge,competence,and
qualification:strugglesagainsttheprivilegesofknowledge.Buttheyarealsoanoppositionagainstsecrecy,
deformation,andmystifyingrepresentationsimposedonpeople’.81Itisimportanttomakethispointinthecontextofthemoregeneralissueaboutthe‘trolling’offemale
tweeps.82M.Ward,‘Twitteronthefrontline’,BBCNews,2
ndApril2009:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7979378.stm
14
relatedtosocialmovementsandprotestaction,buthowitdoessoandunderwhatconditionsit
relatestothem.83
Ontheonehand,therearethosewhoregardthecapacitiesofsocialmedia,particularlytwitter,to
producenetworkedpopulations,withdecentralisedandhorizontalpowerstructures,which
facilitatedthedevelopmentofnewformsofactivism.84Theso-called‘ArabSpring’uprisingsand
Occupymovementsareoftenheldupasexamplesofthistechnologicaldevelopment.85Onthe
otherhand,therearethosewhohaveexpressedconcernsatthedevelopmentofnewmethodsof
controllingdissentingpopulations,but,morepertinenttothisarticle,thatitdevelopswhathas
becomeknownas‘slacktivism’–activismwithminimalpersonaleffort(suchasclicking‘like’toa
post)thathasnosocialorpoliticalimpact.86
Thesepolarisedpositionshavegivenrisetoathirdsetofliteratures,whichhaveprovidedmore
nuancedpositions.Juris,forexample,astudentofCastells(thedoyenofthenetworkanalysis),has
arguedthatthewidespreaduseofsocialmediabyactivistshascreateda‘”logicofaggregation,”
whichinvolvestheassemblingofmassesofindividualsfromdiversebackgroundswithinphysical
spaces’;further,itoffers‘analternativeculturalframeworkthatisshapedbyourinteractionswith
socialmediaandgeneratesparticularpatternsofsocialandpoliticalinteractionthatinvolvetheviral
flowofinformationandsubsequentaggregationsoflargenumbersofindividualsinconcrete
physicalspaces’.87Gerbaudo’sanalysisalsofitsintothismorepatchworktheoreticalframework.His
useofthetermchoreography,asawritingofmovementoraction,particularlyresonateswiththis
study;buthisstudyalsostressesthesignificanceofparticipants’emotionalinvestmentinprotest,
whichpotentiallybreaksdown,orworkswith,theindividualisationinherentintheconsumptionof
socialmedia.88
Whatbindsthesestudiesofsocialmovementstogetheristheirrelationshipwithformsofprotest
thatarecombinedwithsomephysicalco-locationofpopulations.Hence,thesestudiesemphasise
thewaysinwhichphysicalspacebecomesentangledwithvirtualspace.Whatisdistinctiveabout
ourstudyisitsengagementwithmodernformsoflegality,itselfanindividualisingsetofnarratives
whichdoesnotrequirephysicalspacesperse.89Nevertheless,thekindsofdiscussionsabove
promptus(again)thatweshouldnotover-claimfortheuseoftwitteraswellasprovidingauseful
vocabularyfordiscussingprotest.
Twitter: A note for the uninitiated
83See,forexample,S.Valenzuela,‘Unpackingtheuseofsocialmediaforprotestbehaviour:Therolesof
information,opinionexpression,andactivism’,(2013)57(2)AmericanBehavioralScientist920,921.84MostnotablyhereisthenetworkanalysisdevelopedbyManuelCastellsinhistrilogy,thelastofwhich,
NetworksofOutrageandHope:SocialMovementsintheInternetAge(2012).85CfM.Lim,‘Clicks,cabs,andcoffeehouses:SocialmediaandoppositionalmovementsinEgypt,2004-11’
(2012)62(2)JournalofCommunication231,whichprovidesacorrectivetothisanalysis,arguingthat,seen
overalongertimeframeaswellasactiviststrategies.Theargumentthereisthat‘socialmediarepresenttools
andspacesinwhichvariouscommunicationnetworksthatmakeupsocialmovementemerge,connect,
collapse,andexpand’(atp234).86ThetermderivesfromE.Morozov,TheNetDelusion:TheDarkSideofInternetFreedom(2011).
87J.Juris,‘Reflectionson#OccupyEverywhere:Socialmedia,publicspace,andemerginglogicsofaggregation’,
(2011)39(2)AmericanEthnologist259,260and266;itisimportanttoJuris’positionthattheselogicsof
aggregationexistalongsidethenetworkinglogics–thus,hereferstothegenerationof‘crowdsofindividuals’.88Gerbaudo,opcitn12,ch2.
89CfthekindsofhousingprotestsdiscussedbyD.CowanandS.Wheeler,‘Thereachofhumanrights’,inT.Xu
andJ.Allain(eds),PropertyandHumanRightsinaGlobalContext(2015).
15
Atweetisaformofmicro-blogpostedonthehostsite,Twitter.Itismadeupof140characters
(includingspacesetc),andsometimesknownasa‘microblog’(aparticularlyusefullabel,asatweet
mightlinktoothersocialmediaoutlets,suchasblogs).Itispostedbyanindividualororganisation
(sometimesknownasa‘tweep’)[email protected]’s‘followers’(ie
thosepeoplewhopressabuttononTwittertofollowyou)thenreceivethemicro-blog.Inturn,
thosefollowersmay‘retweet’or‘modifyandretweet’,90sothatamicro-bloghasthepotentialto
reachanunlimitednumberoffollowers.Similarly,onecanreplytoatweet(althoughaquirkof
Twitteristhatareplycanonlybeseenbythosewhofollowbothpartiesifafullstoporsomething
elseisputatthestartofthereply)and‘favourite’atweet(whichessentiallyjustsavesittoyour
account).
Tweetsrangefromthemundane(food,trainjourneysetc)tothecommercial(advertising)tothe
politicaltotheabusive(knownas‘trolls’).Theyprovideavaluable,ifoccasionallylimited,sourceof
informationaboutspecialistsubjectareas.Thehashtagisusedinatweettodenoteasubject-
matter,anevent(suchasaconference),orsometimessimplyforamusement.Itenablespeople,
notjustone’sfollowers,tofollowathemewhichcanbesearchedandsaved.So,forexample,the
hashtag#UKhousingmightbeusedbyatweeptofollowand/orjoinadebateonthatsubject.
Keytoitssignificanceisthatthetwitterprogrammeisavailablenotjustonadesktopcomputerbut
loaded(oftenpreloaded)ontosmartphonesandtablets,withanemailalertwhenapersontweets
atyou,retweetsorrepliestoyouorfavouritesatweetyouhavewritten.Itisaneasy-access,readily
availableprogrammeonwhichrandomthoughtsandconsideredopinionsareposted.Apparently,
thereare974millionexistingtwitteraccounts,althoughaconsiderableproportionareinactive.91
Celebritieshavemillionsoffollowersand,nodoubt,armiesoftweetersontheirbehalf.92Grant
Shapps,thecurrentConservativePartyChairman,whoplaysacentralrole(asHousingMinister)in
thecasestudyinthispaper,wassaidtohavefoundawaytoincreasehisfollowerstoover55,000.93
AsJeffaresasksrhetorically,‘whatproportionofthinktanks,columnists,politicians,seniorcivil
servants,journalists,newspapers,mediaorganisations,socialscientists,bloggers,researchers,
lobbyistsandconsultantsarenotontwitter?’.94
Labelling Thebattleofthebedroomtaxwasasmuchabattleofthelabelasitwasoverpolicy.
95In
Gerbaudo’sterms,therewereamultiplicityofchoreographersinitiatingandguidingthelabel,but
itsproductionasthe‘bedroomtax’allowedfor‘thesymboliccondensationofpeoplearounda
commonidentityandtheirmaterialprecipitationinpublicspace’.96
90Thispracticeiscommonlyprecededby‘RT’and‘MT’.
91E.Sherman,‘Manytwitterusersdon’ttweet,findsreport’,CBSMoneywatch,14April2014,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-twitter-users-dont-tweet-finds-report/92See,forexample,http://twopcharts.com/twoplist.Oneofus,aftertweetingthattheyhadbeenoutona
#JLSdinner,foundthattheywerefollowed(andthenunfollowed)bynumerousfansofthepopgroup,JLS.93P.Wintour,‘TheriseandfallofGrantShapps’twitterfollowers’,TheGuardian,7
thSeptember2012,
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/07/grant-shapps-twitter-followers-analysis.Shapps’activities
onTwitterhavebeen‘storified’–aprogrammewhichpullstogethervarioustweetscommonlywithahashtag
–athttps://storify.com/anyapalmer/grant-shapps.Shappscurrentlyhas84.4thousandfollowers.94SeeS.Jeffares,InterpretingHashtagPolitics:PolicyIdeasinanEraofSocialMedia(2014),p6.
95A.Marsh,‘Thebattleoverthe“bedroomtax”:Politics,rationalityanddiscourse’,paperpresentedtothe
EuropeanNetworkofHousingResearchConference,2014.96Opcitn11,44.
16
Theregulations,themselves,describetherulesasthe‘Maximumrent(SocialSector)’.Originally,the
DWPtermedthemfairlyneutrallyasthe‘socialsectorsizecriteria’,butthisquicklymorphedinto
‘under-occupationofsocialhousing’.97Thathadprovidedoneoftherationalesforthepolicyinthe
labelandeffectivelyadvancedthefairnessrationale.The‘bedroomtax’labelappearstohavebegun
inaspeechgivenbythecrossbenchpeer,98LordBest,whohasbeenawell-knownfigureinUK
housingfornearly50years.Fromhispointofview,itwasataxbecauseoccupiershadnowhereto
movetoandtheyhadtopayalevytotheExchequer.Hispointwasthateverybodywassuffering–
tenantsandhousingproviders–andthiswasfundamentallyunfair.AsMarshacknowledges,the
‘tax’label‘isafairlyfamiliartacticinBritishpoliticaldebate,becauseweknowitcanworkto
undermineapolicy’,viz.thepolltax,pastytax,caravantax;althoughthebedroomtaxisnotataxin
andofitself,butareductioninpersonalsubsidy.99And,ofcourse,thetaxlabelhasparticular
emotionalconnotations,providinganimpetusduringaperiodofinitiationofprotestandan
attractiontogatheringsduringthephaseofsustainment.100
TheDWPhasreferredtothepolicyasthe‘spareroomsubsidy’.Itsreasonsforsodoingareclear,in
thatitseekstoneutralisetheunfairnessofataxonbedroomsbyreferencetotheideaofasubsidy
forspareroomsasanappealtoacommonsensepropositionabouttheunfairnessofthatspare
room/s(inthesocialsector,atanyrate).Indeed,alldocumentationaboutthebedroomtax
producedbytheDWPnowusesthislabelandhasdonesince27thFebruary2013.
101Infact,Grant
Shappsappearstohavebeentheprogenitorofthislabel,havingtweetedthathewouldbe
appearingonaRadio4programmetodebatethe‘spareroomsubsidy’.102But,bythisstage,the
bedroomtaxlabelhadstuck.103Indeed,inamemorablemomentofParliamentaryironyon24
th
October2013,LordFreud,thewelfareminister,criticisedthe‘bedroomtax’label,butthenwenton
touseithimself.104
WhetherornottheLabourpartyhadadoptedthe‘bedroomtax’label,commonusagewasclearly
establishedbyearly2013.Jeffaresconductedananalysisoftweetspostedover72hoursbetween
8-11thApril2013wherethetermsbedroomtax,#bedroomtax,spareroomsubsidyand
#spareroomsubsidywereused.Ofatotalof8,155tweets,whichheestimatedasbeing
approximately80percentofTwittertraffic,7,936usedeither‘bedroomtax’or#bedroomtax(this
97Exemplifiedintheimpactassessmenttitle.
98This,inturn,echoedtheNationalHousingFederation’sposition(ofwhichBestwasalong-timechair):
Jeffares,2014,129.99Weare,ofcourse,indangerofdancingontheheadofapinhere.Ifoneconsidersthehousingbenefitpart
ofaclaimant’sproperty,asthenewpropertythesismightdo,thenareductioninamountoperatesasatax.
Thereisalsoapragmaticreasonforthe‘tax’label–itsimplyusesfeweroftheavailable140charactersina
tweet.100
Gerbaudo,opcitn12,44.101
PaulLewisMoney,‘DWPFOIonfirstuseofphrase“spareroomsubsidy”’,
http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/foi-response-on-use-of-phrase-spare.html.Thistermsappears
tohavesupersededthelabel‘under-occupationpenalty’.102
Tweet,17thFebruary2013;seeJulesBirch,‘Welfare,thebedroomtaxandthebattleoflanguage’,
https://julesbirch.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/welfare-the-bedroom-tax-and-the-battle-of-language/.103
Indeed,Duncan-SmithmadeaformalcomplaintagainsttheBBCofbiasbecauseoftheiruseofthe
‘bedroomtax’label:A.Glennie,‘DuncanSmithblastsBBCfor“bedroomtax”bias;WorkandPensions
SecretaryaccusescorporationofpromotingLabour’sviewsinfuriousletter’,DailyMail,28thOctober2013.
104N.Nelson,‘LordFreudsaysbedroomtaxtermismisleading…thenreferstoitasbedroomtaxhimself’,
SundayPeople,27thOctober2013.
17
includedre-tweetsorquotedtweets).105Thissuggestsaparticularmomentwhentheharnessingof
socialmedia(alongsideothersources)producedthelabel.
Strategising social media: Protest and legality Incombination,ourfourresearchparticipants,usingdifferentstrategiesofeverydaylife,havehad
considerableeffectsinstructuringthefieldsofaction.However,forthepurposesofthisanalysiswe
groupthemintotwopredominantstrategies.Thefirstaretwoinformationproviders(the
UnderstaterandtheLegalConduit);thesecondarechallengers(theSmilingAssassinandtheSocial
MediaPolymath).Bothsetsofstrategiesusedtwitterforlegaleffects.Thisisparticularlythecasein
respectofthechallengers,whowerethemostvocalformsoflegalprotester(albeitindifferent
ways),seekingtooperateagainstthelaw.Thatis,theysoughttousetheformallawagainstitself,
andtwitterwasusedtodistributea‘howto’setofknowledges.However,theinformationproviders
mobilisedtheirinformationtactically,providingexplicitorimplicitinstructionstootherstochallenge
thepolicy.106Wemightseethemasgamingthelaw,showingitsfissuresandcracks.However,itis
importantthatourorganisingtropehereisnomoreandnolessthanthat,ieamethodoforganising
ourdata.AsEwickandSilbeythemselvessuggest,‘…apersonmayexpress,throughwordsor
actions,amultifacetedandpossiblycontradictoryconsciousness’.107Further,theythemselvesare
simplylabels,conveyancesofmeaning(likethebedroomtaxlabelitself),whichareoverlysimplistic,
andoverlystructured,sowemustrecognisethatourparticipants’narrativesdonoteasilyshoehorn
intothesecategories.
The information providers
Intwocases,theUnderstaterandthelegalconduit,theprovisionofinformationwasessentiallythe
anti-authoritychallenge.Apparentlyneutralinformationcouldbetweetedtosignificanteffect;
knowledgecouldbeusedtochallengeapparentlyauthoritativeaccountsofthebedroomtaxbya
singletweet.TheUnderstater108tweetedaboutwelfarereformgenerallyandfocusedmostlyonthe
provisionofformalmediareportswhichhetrawled(‘ithasbecomepartofmyjob’).Hebecame
involvedinTwitter‘…asanopportunitytotrytoeffectchangeandtopushoutthemessagethatI
wantedtogetoutthere.Forthisspecificpurpose,myfrustrationwasthatcentralgovernment
rhetoricaboutwelfarerecipientsandnegativestereotypingdidnotcorrespondwithmyday-to-day
experience’.109Hispassionwassocialjusticeandhecommunicatedthatemotionthroughthe
understatementoftweets–sometimesjustwithaheadlineandaweblinktoalocalnewspaper
(‘grabbed’byaweb-basedsortingagent),addinginthelocalMP’stwitteraddresssothattheMP
sawit.Hesoughttobebalancedaboutthebedroomtaxinhistweets,suggestingthat‘some
campaignersaretheirownworstenemy’.HehadwrittenapieceonFacebookaboutthebedroom
taxwhichhad80,000‘shares’.Hisstrategywastogiveatweetavisuallook,throughtheuseof
returns,includespecificMPsinhislocaltweets,andamplifyaheadlineinatweet.Hetoldusthat
hewas‘compelledtodoit;it’swithinme;ifIdon’tpushbackonwhatIseeasanti-evidentialwords
andphrasescomingoutofcentralgovernmentthenIcan’tstopmyself.SomethingscomeoutandI
grabmyphonetotweetsomethingaboutit’.Asheputit,‘retweetingisalwaysnicewhenitgoesa
bitcrazy’.
TheLegalConduitcametothebedroomtaxinpartinresponsetohisfollowersand,inpart,because
peoplebegantosendhimtheirFTTjudgments.Recognisingthatthesewerenotreadilyavailable(as
105
129-30.106
SeeJ.Lemert,DoesMassCommunicationChangePublicOpinionafterall?(1981);Valenzuela,opcitn89.107
Atp.50.108
So-calledbecause,ashesaid,‘understatementisthemostpowerfulthingontwitter’.109
Theunderstaterisahousingprofessional.
18
theyareunpublished)butthattheymightbeusefulasalegalresourceforothers,includingbutnot
limitedtohisfollowers,hebloggedaboutthemandtweetedtheblog.Twitterwas,inthissense,a
waytopublicisehisblog(whichisreadover35,000timespermonth)110andthejudgments(‘Iwasn’t
expectingthemtobequitethatbarking…Youexpectacertaindegreeofreasoningfroma[FTT]but
Iwasn’texpectingthedisparity,possiblyonsomeissues,butnotonthegenerality’).However,he
alsosawhimselfasbeingthe‘pessimisticvoiceoflegalreason’againstotherapparently
authoritative,positivetweepvoices.TheLegalConduitisveryawarethathisblogandTwitter
accountarefollowedbyjudgesandtheDWP(whichapparentlywascirculatinghisnotes).
AlthoughitmayseemeasiertosaythattheLegalConduit’sapproachwas‘legal’–indeed,likethe
lawyersstrivingtobeatlawthroughlaw,hewassimplyprovidinginformationaboutlaw-butwelike
tothinkthathiswasarathermoresubversiveuseoflegalitythanasimplisticandsuperficiallabel
conveys.Herecognised(andwastheoreticallyadeptenoughtorecognise)thatinformationabout
lawcanmakethingshappen.Hewasnotlookingforclients,butofferingaservice,demonstrating
wherethepotentialfaultlinesinlawlay.Hewasbothinsideandoutsidelawinthatsense.The
Understater,though,wasalsoagitatingforlegalchange.Hisapparentlyneutralapproachbelieda
clearpolitical(inanarrowsense)goal-ahopethatthroughtheprovisionofinformation,politicians
wouldseesense–andheadoptedan‘effectsofthelaw’approachtoobtainthatlegalchange.
Neitherofthesetweepscouldberegardedas‘slacktivists’(althougharetweetcouldberegardedas
anexampleofslacktivism).Theywereprofessionalswithasignificantfollowing,whose
disseminationofmobilisinginformationtothatfollowingwasarecognitionofthevaluesandusesof
informationinbothonlineandofflineparticipation.111Theywerebothinformal‘leaders’(although
neitherwouldstylethemselveslikethat),usingtwittertoopendifferentwindowsontheprotest
space;ortouseadifferentmetaphor,choreographingdifferentspaces.112Certainly,theLegal
Conduitwasseekingtoprovideanalternativeperspectiveabouttheprospectsofsuccessof
challengingabedroomtaxdeterminationthroughparticularsetsofarguments,andpublicisingthe
judgmentsoftheFTTsupportingordismissingthosearguments.TheUnderstaterwasseekingto
changepoliticalthought,oratleasttheimageoftherecipientofstatesupportforhousing,his
tweetspredominantlyreflectinghispassionatebeliefinsocialjusticeandtheappallingpresentation
ofsuchrecipientsbysomepoliticiansandrightwingprintandothermedia(includingtweeps).
The challengers
Thechallengerswerebothactive,albeitindifferentways,inchallengingthebedroomtax.The
SmilingAssassin’sstrategywastodestroythebedroomtaxfromwithin,principallybyusing
techniquesofadministrativejustice,113andcreatingamodelletterrequestingextensivefurther
informationofthehousingbenefitauthority,suchasforpoliciesregardingthedefinitionofa
‘bedroom’.Thepurposeofthatletterwasasmuchtohighlighttheinadequaciesofthelaw’sfailure
110
Hetoldusthatasingletweetleadstoover200newvisitstohisblog.111
Valenzuela,opcitn89,925.112
AsSegerbergandBennettputit,‘Twitterisinterestingasanorganizingmechanismwithinthespecific
protestecology.Aswellastransmittinginformation,networkedprotestspacesconstitutenegotiatedspheres
ofindividualandcollectiveagency.Asdigitalandsocialmediabecomeincreasinglyprominent,theytoo
becomenetworkingagents…withintheprotestspace’:A.Segerberg&W.Bennett,‘Socialmediaandthe
organizationofcollectiveaction:Usingtwittertoexploretheecologiesoftwoclimatechangeprotests’,(2011)
14(3)TheCommunicationReview197,201.113
See,forexample,R.Thomas,‘Administrativejustice,betterdecisions,andorganisationallearning’,[2015]
PL111.
19
todefinewhatconstitutesa‘bedroom’inlawasitwastoputaspannerinthebureaucracy
administeringthebenefit.For,ratherthanlegalchallenges,theSmilingAssassinhadastrategy.It
wasto‘swamp’housingbenefitofficeswithreviewrequestsandappealsagainstbedroomtax
assessments;hehighlighteddreadfulpracticesofsociallandlordsandlocalhousingbenefitoffices;
hepraised‘good’practices(suchassomelandlordsdecisionstore-classifypropertiesashavingless
bedrooms,althoughthisnegativelyaffectedtheirincomestream).
Hedevelopedamodelhousingbenefitreviewletterwhichthoseaffectedcouldmodifyandsend
out.Thestrategywastodefeatthemoney-savinglogicofthebedroomtaxthroughreviewsand
appeals,withwhichhealsoassisted.Inthefirstthreeweeksofitappearing,theSmilingAssassin
toldusthathismodelletterhadbeendownloaded180,000times.Asheputit:
Ifeverytenantaffectedbythebedroomtaxdecisionappealedthenthesystemisbroughtto
itsknees.Thegovernmentexpectsjust3%toappealandestimatesanappealcoststhelocal
council£200.Itwon’tanditwillcostthecouncil£1500foreveryonethatappealsandabout
£18mto[X]Councilifall12,000appeal.
SuchwasthesignificanceofthisletterthattheCharteredInstituteofHousing,theprofessionalbody
ofhousingproviders,issuedstatementsdecryingthestrategy,whileatthesametimesayingthat
theywereworkingbehindthescenestodisrupttheiniquitoustax.TheSmilingAssassinwasclearly
interestedinlaw,inthesensethathewouldassistpeopleappearingintheFTT,but,asheputit,
‘courtsdon’tdispensejustice’.Hislegalstrategywas,inpart,thathe‘justneed[ed]onejudgetosay
it’sultraviresjusttoaccepttheviewoflandlords[iethelandlorddesignationofaroomasa
bedroom]withouttheauthoritychecking.Itwouldallbecomeunworkable’.Socialmedia,and
particularlythelinkbetweenTwitterandhisblog,becamehisdisseminationtoolsbecause‘social
mediamobilisestenantsbutalsothedisseminationofshite.LotsofwhatIdoisdispellingmyths,
pluspointsandnegativepoints’.
TheSocialMediaPolymathwasalittledifferentfromtheothersinthissample.Hewasasocial
tenantwhowasaffectedbythebedroomtaxandwhohadchallengedit.Hewasillandhispartner
disabled,sothattheir‘spareroom’wasfullofmedicaltreatmentequipment.Hewasalsoa
campaigner.Histweetinghad,inpart,openedhisprofileupandhehadbecomequiteprominent:
‘Twitterhasprovedtobeaverygoodwayofgettingourstoryoutasithasdeveloped.…Following
ourstorygoingouttherewasanavalanchealmostofotherpeopletweetingabouttheircase’.His
strategywassimple-‘togetpeopletothinkaboutthetruthratherthanrhetoric’.Hisstrategyhad
beensuccessful,andhispoliticalandmediaprofilewasdevelopingindiverse,almostuncontrollable
ways.Hedescribedhiscourtappearanceasasortof‘DWP,tory,IDSbullshitfestreally’.We
discussedwhethertheoutcomeofhiscasehadreflectedhowhehimselfhadfeltabouthisposition,
andwhether,ineffect,thelawhadrepresentedhim.Hisviewwasthathisbarrister,whowas
incrediblybusy,haddoneagoodjobbuthewishedthathecouldhavehadanhourtoexplainhis
casetothebarrister.Thus,thelegalprocesshadeffectivelysilencedhim,whereashisother
strategieswereenablinghimtotellhisstorypublicly.
AsEwickandSilbeyobserve,legalityispolyvocaland,althoughonecandistinguishdifferentstrands
oflegalityintheirdifferentapproaches,theyareenmeshedtogether.TheSmilingAssassinwas
seekingtosmashthesystemfromwithin,buthewasatthattimeequallywillingtobowbeforethe
lawinhisdesiretogetonejudgetosaythebedroomtaxwasultravires,eventhough(tohim)courts
don’tdispensethelaw.Thesametypeofcomplex,contradictorynarrativeappearsintheSocial
20
MediaPolymath’snarrative–heactivelyusedthelawforhisownindividualgainbutatthesame
timedecrieditsutility,preferringtofocusonapoliticalcampaign.114
Inthesestrategies,wecanseethewaysinwhichtwitterandothersocialmediaformedpartof
broaderchoreographednarratives,designedeithertosmashthesystemand/ortoforcepolitical
changethroughdrawingattentiontothegeneralandcasespecificiniquitiesofthetax.Likethe
LegalConduit,twitterwasusedaspartofabroadersocialandgeneralmediastrategybythe
challengers.TheyhaveaffinitieswithJuris’logicofaggregation,becausetheywereresponsiblefor
drawingtogetherprotestorsatdifferentpoints.Inourappreciation,suchalogicofaggregationcan
equallybethediffusionofthekeymessagestootherphysicalorvirtualspaces,andactants–the
aggregation,forexample,ofthereviewletters,andthephysicalappearanceofthecharactersat
protestralliesorpublicdebates.
Conclusions: The bedroom tax and Twitter ThedenigrationofthesocialsecuritystatebytheCoalitiongovernmenthasbeenoneofthedefining
featuresofausteritypolitics.Inmanyrespects,thebedroomtaxistheapotheosisofthat
denigration,producingstatesofinsecurityforpeoplewhocanill-affordthatinsecurity.Thefailure
ofthejudicialreviewsdid,ofcourse,produceoneconcession–thatwithoutdiscretionaryhousing
payments,thepolicypotentiallywouldhavebeenincontraventionofArticle14discrimination.
However,thisconcessionisentirelyinaccordancewithDWPpolicy.Itenablesthemtosaythatthe
bedroomtaxhasreducedhousingbenefitexpenditure,whileatthesametimerequiringthose
affectedtobereliantonthecash-limited,locallydistributed,discretionarypayment.Forawhile,the
FTToperatedassomesortofbreakonthepolicyinindividualcases,albeitforveryoddreasons.
However,thatnowappearsasanaberration,morethananythingelse.
Ourargumentinthispaper,however,isbothbroaderandsimple.Twitterisapotentiallyfantastic
resourceforsocio-legalresearchers.Ithasbeenunder-used.Becauseitissofast-moving,onecan
findthestabilisationofaparticularidea,thetippingpoint.Itisusedbythepowerfulforsure,and
muchTwitter-trafficisdull,butitcanalsobeusedtochallengepolicyandpractice.Thelifetimeofa
policyideacannowbeveryshort.AsJeffaresargues,‘Hashtagpoliticsisapracticeofmodern
policy-makingwherepolicyideasarecoined,fosteredandimbuedwithmeaningandassociations,
beforeeventuallybeingoverlooked,forgottenandseldommentionedagain’.115
OurparticipantsofferedtwodifferentwaysofusingTwitterforapurpose–byproviding
information,toarmtheirfollowersandotherrecipientswithinformationtochallengedominantor
apparentlyauthoritativenarratives.Wewouldstresstheordinarinessofourresearchsample–with
nodisrespecttothem,whoprobablyhavenootheraspirations–buttheirreachisofsignificance;
indeed,weselectedthemforourstudypreciselybecauseoftheirchoreographicpositionality.Thus,
thepromiseofsocialmediaisthatpotentiallyitaddstotheavailabletechniquesthatflattenpower
114
WeseethesecondarydataanalysedbyS.HallidayandB.Morgan-‘”Ifoughtthelawandthelawwon?
Legalconsciousnessandthecriticalimagination’,(2013)66(1)CurrentLegalProblems1-asessentiallymaking
thesamepointaboutpolyvocality–whiletheyacknowledgeandacceptthelimitsoftotalizingschemesand
acceptthat‘muchwillbefoundinthespacesbetweentheendsofthedimensionalspectrums’,theyargue
thatthesediscoursesaretheoreticallyproductive.115
P145.
21
structuresandspatialimaginations.Thisisspatialgovernmentalityinaction;itisuncontrollable,
miasmic,andenablesactorstojumpspatialscales.116
Ifsocio-legalscholarsareinterestedintheintersticesbetweenagencyandstructure,in
understandingstrategiesofresistance,aswellasthemundane(whichwetaketobethreeofthe
mostsignificantsitesofstudy),theyshouldsimilarlybeinterestedinfollowingtheTwitteractor
flows.Ifwedoso,andmakethatourstartingpoint,wemayendupwitharatherdifferentsetof
understandingsoflegalityandlegalspaces.117Inthisway,throughourdata,wehavesoughtto
developananalysisoflegalityandprotest,demonstratinghowsocialmediamayofferquite
interestingchallengestoourappreciationsofthatliterature.
Thesocialmedialiteraturereviewofferedinthispaperalsoprovidesinterestingsparksforsocio-
legalresearchers,interestedintheusesof,aswellascontrolsin,virtualandpublicspaces.Wehave
beendrawnparticularlytothehelpfulanalogyofchoreographyinthispaper,aseachofour
participantswas,inonewayoranother,seekingtochoreographaspectsofprotestagainstthe
bedroomtax.However,thisliteraturealsoremindsus(ifweneededreminding)ofthelimitsof
socialmedia,andofthewaysinwhichweinteractbothwithitandbeyondit.Weshouldbecareful
nottoessentialisesocialmedia,justasweshouldbecarefultoemphasisethelimitsofourdata.
Oneparticularlimitofourstudyisthat,whilewecanclaimthatourparticipantsgotthingsmoving,
wecannotclaimaspecificimpactoftheirworkbeyondtheattemptbytheSmilingAssassintobring
downthedecision-makingbureaucracy.Itmaybethatmanyofthoseothersare‘slacktivists’,butit
isalsoclearthattargetedinformationprovision,publicisationofothersocialmedia(likeblogs),
alongsideotherstrategiesmightmakeadifference.Wecannotclaimthattwitteronitsown
providesthesinglesuccessfulprotestresource;thatwouldbeanonsense.However,itdoesproide
arelativelynewmethodofco-ordinatinganddevelopingaprotestdance(tocontinuethe
choreographicmetaphor).Thebedroomtaxstillexistsandisbeingproppedupbythediscretionary
housingpaymentssystem.Thevoicesofprotestremainontwitterandelsewhereintheblogging
andpoliticalcommunities,andnewcallsforitsabolitionaremade.Yet,theresponsetothefinal
researchreportbyLordFreudintheHouseofLordswasthatthereportdemonstratedthat‘the
policyispromotingmoreeffectiveuseofhousingstockandencouragingpeopletoenterworkand
increasetheirearnings.Wewillthereforebemaintainingthepolicyandwillcontinuetoprotect
vulnerableclaimantswhorequireadditionalsupportthroughdiscretionaryhousingpayments’.118
Thereareotherwaysinwhichastudyofsocialmediamightgiveaddedvalue,forexampleby
thinkingabouttheuseofsocialmediainreferencetounderstandingsoflegalconsciousness.
Implicitly,wehavedrawnonthatliteratureinthisarticle.Thispointis,perhapsobvious.Legalityis
producedsociallythroughtwitterasitisthroughtraditionalmediaorinotherplaces,likequeues.
Nevertheless,eventhoughitmaybeatheoreticallyobviouspointtomake-thattwitterisasiteof
116
See,forexample,A.Akinwumi,‘Powersofreach:Legalmobilizationinapost-apartheidredresscampaign’,
(2012)SocialandLegalStudies1.117
Theperhapscounter-intuitivesociologyofthedoor-closerby‘JimJohnson’,akaBrunoLatour,(in‘Mixing
humansandnonhumanstogether:Thesociologyofadoor-closer’,(1988)35(3)SocialProblems298)suggests
someinterestingnarrativeswhichmightbedevelopedhere,particularlyabouthuman’slackofcontrolof
technology.118
HouseofLords,22December2015,col2441,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldhansrd/text/151222-0001.htm
22
legalconsciousness–ourrelativelysimplepointisthatthisfacthasbeenoverlookedbythesocio-
legalcommunity.119
Insodoing,wehavesuccumbedtothetemptationtoseelegalityeverywhere–but,asMezey
suggests,120ifthelawiseverywheresomuchthatitisnowhere,howcanwespeaktodatawhichis
apparentlyextra-legal?So,forexample,theUnderstaterwouldnotdescribehisroleorperception
as‘legal’,butwehaveinterpretedhisdatathroughthatlens.Thatmaybebecauseofthetotalising
discoursesoflegality,thefactthatourprimarydisciplineislawandweconsequently‘see’legalityas
beingallaroundus;121and/ortheinstrumentalfactthatthispaperisdesignedinpartasasocio-legal
reflectiononlegality.ItmayalsobeaconsequenceofwhatCotterellregardedasthe
meaninglessnessoftheinside-outsidedemarcationbetweenlawandsociology.122However,in
drawingonthebreadthoftheideaoflegality,wehavealsodemonstratedthewaysinwhichour
socialmediauserssoughttochallengetherightofthelawtoprovidetheofficialaccountoftheir
livedrealities.
119
SeetheinterestinganalysisinB.MorganandD.Kuch,‘Radicaltransactionalism:Legalconsciousness,
diverseeconomies,andthesharingeconomy’,(2015)42(4)JLS556.120
N.Mezey,‘Outoftheordinary:Law,power,culture,andthecommonplace’,(2001)26(1)LawandSocial
Inquiry145;seealsoK.LevineandV.Mellema,‘Strategizingthestreet:Howlawmattersinthelivesofwomen
inthestreet-leveldrugeconomy’,(2001)26(1)LawandSocialInquiry169;D.CowanandD.Wincott,
‘Exploringthelegal’,inD.CowanandD.Wincott(eds),ExploringtheLegal,Basingstoke:Palgrave.121
Fordiscussiononthealmostinevitablesubjectivityininterpretingdata,seeA.Sarat,‘Offtomeetthe
wizard:Validityandreliabilityinthesearchforapost-empiricistsociologyoflaw’,(1990)15(1)LawandSocial
Inquiry155.122
R.Cotterell,‘Whymustlegalideasbeinterpretedsociologically?’,1998)25(2)JournalofLawandSociety
171.