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:

researchsupport@kent.ac.uk

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’)withanaddressbeginningwiththe@symbol.One’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.