No abstract

Political advertising on Facebook is the latest in a long line of developments in campaign practice, and is a tool that has been mobilised extensively in elections around the world. In this article, we explore what we know about Facebook advertising at elections and ask what existing data from the UK Electoral Commission can reveal about current usage. Highlighting the principles behind Facebook advertising, we argue that existing metrics offer little insight into current campaign trends—posing analytical, methodological and normative challenges for academics and electoral regulators alike. Moreover, we argue that these challenges strike at the heart of debates about democratic responsibility and the degree to which governments should cede responsibility to commercial actors who may have differing understandings of fundamental democratic norms.

Studies of digital campaigning have revealed substantial change in the nature of political campaigns. Tracing the rise of email, party websites, social media, online videos and gamification, scholars have shown how, since the 1990s, parties have become heavily dependent on digital technology (Gibson, 2015). In this chapter we focus on two elements of the 2017 digital campaign: Facebook advertising and what we term 'satellite campaigns'. Whilst resisting claims of revolution and transformational change (Kreiss, 2010, Williamson, Miller andFallon, 2010)w e nevertheless argue that these digital practices have important implications for parties' organisational structures, practices and behaviour, as well as for public expectations of campaigning. Through this analysis we contend that the 2017 general election provides further evidence that 'digital media are reconfiguring party-related engagement' (Vaccari and Valeriani, 2016, p. 295), and agree with Gibson (2015, p. 191) that by 'chaf[ing] against embedded organisational routines and norms' these developments challenge established understandings of parties' campaign strategies.In examining digital, we adopt an expansive definition of the term. Alongside an interest in social media and party websites, we also examine the organisational digital infrastructure on which parties rely. Including digital databases, canvassing systems, online phone banks, and email lists, digital infrastructure is pivotal to parties' diverse campaign activities by enabling participation through the reduction of resource costs. In the analysis that follows, we employ this expansive conception of digital to consider developments within the Labour and Conservative parties, using these examples to illustrate wider emerging trends.By April 2017, few were predicting an early general election, but in the days that elapsed between Theresa May's surprise announcement on 18 May and the vote on 8 June, parties across the spectrum exhibited formidable online and offline campaigns. In the digital realm, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat, and

A growing literature on ‘agencification’, ‘quangocratization’, and the ‘autonomization’ of the state has highlighted a coordination dilemma in contemporary public governance whereby governments rely on delegated governance but are frustrated by the lack of control that arises from such structures. In the run‐up to the 2010 General Election in the United Kingdom this coordination dilemma was prominent as the capacity of the Cabinet Office to exert control over arm's‐length bodies, either directly or indirectly, received intense criticism. This article presents the findings of the first detailed research project to examine the subsequent Coalition Government's approach to this dilemma. It argues that in relation to the governance of public bodies, the role and capacity of the Cabinet Office has been transformed. In mapping this development the article explores the implications of the centre striking back in the context of ‘post‐New Public Management’ reforms.

Recent developments in contemporary politics have cast doubt on the status of expertise and led to the oft-repeated claim that the public have had enough of experts. In response, we review existing survey measures on experts and expertise in the European Union and United Kingdom with three main findings. First, there is insufficient survey data available to strongly support any claims regarding public attitudes to experts. Second, the evidence that does exist suggests broadly positive public attitudes towards experts, rather than the somewhat bleak commentary associated with descriptions of a ‘post-truth’ era. Third, there is scope for survey questions to provide improved macro-level descriptions of some of the attributes and expectations associated with experts, and that concepts from the academic literature can provide structure for such questions. Survey data has the potential to complement more granular, qualitative approaches as part of an interpretive social science approach.