Is the UK government finally bringing online campaigning under control?
Sam Coates, Unlock Democracy
It’s been less than 5 years since UK politicians have fully understood the power of the internet to fight election campaigns. In 2015, the Conservatives ran highly targeted ads in swing seats that contributed to their surprise majority. During the EU referendum, Vote Leave and others spent eye-watering sums of money at the last minute, targeting people who don’t usually vote. In 2017, it was Labour that won the social media war, while last December, the Conservatives learnt the lessons of the previous campaign.
A new era for political campaigning
The rise of social media has dramatically changed the dynamics of political campaigning. In the 1990s, a millionaire set up the eurosceptic Referendum Party to secure a referendum on EU membership, but his millions won him few votes. In 2020, it no longer matters if your party or campaign lacks members to knock on doors to speak to voters. Instead, you can broadcast your message to millions of people at a fraction of the cost of traditional campaigning. This is how Nigel Farage went from starting a brand new party to winning last year’s European election in less than 4 months.
The EU referendum saw an explosion of obscure Facebook pages spending huge sums pushing for a leave vote. We don’t really know who the donors are that are funding this kind of activity. In the few years since then, similar tactics have played a part in pushing public debate so decisively towards a ‘hard’ or no-deal Brexit.
Dark money donors and shadow campaigns
Last year, these shadow campaigns were used for the first time in a general election. Previously unknown, high-spending pages such as Campaign against Corbynism and Mainstream Network have been identified by openDemocracy as an important story in how the Tories broke the ‘red wall’.
Pressure has built up on the government to start regulating this online wild west. So plans have been published for proposals that could force online campaigners to say who is responsible for a campaign’s social media content.
But what will this actually change?
A name on a document won’t reveal who is funding this growing online influencing machine - or whether campaigns are unofficially colluding with political parties to push the same message. We should also look at this in the context of what other changes the government plans for our democracy.
There are lots of barriers to a fully functioning democracy in the UK. This includes the first-past-the-post voting system that effectively throws most people’s votes in the bin. Uncapped donations to parties mean the rich can try to buy the decisions they want. Lobbying happens behind closed doors, so we don’t know who ministers are speaking to before making important decisions.
Putting a plaster on a gaping wound
Politicians are from an increasingly narrow social base that prioritises certain business interests over the interests of wider society. Our unwritten constitution gives those in power far too much leeway to break the informal rules of politics when it suits them.
But in response to a political system that freezes out most of the public, the government’s proposed changes will throw even more ice on the democratic sphere.
Plans for compulsory voter ID will put up barriers to younger, poorer and minority ethnic voters who are less likely to have driving licenses or passports - despite no serious evidence of voter fraud. Constituency boundaries are due to be redrawn based on the number of registered voters instead of population. Since recent changes to how people register to vote, this means wealthier and more rural areas will have more representation - areas that usually vote Conservative.
Technology is moving much faster than our election laws - but the one change the government is proposing has been a known problem for years. Governments need to cooperate internationally to work out how to regulate the tech firms that are refereeing our democracy. But this one change won’t make any real difference - the public will still come second to rich ideologues who want to reshape politics in their interests.