The coming general election is the UK’s first in approaching five years. Many changes have happened in how elections are done – partly through legislation, but partly also through informal shifts in the media, AI, and electoral administration. In this post, Sanjana Balakrishnan summarises all that is new.

The general election on 4 July will be the UK’s first since 2019. The intervening years have seen many changes to electoral process. These include important amendments in electoral law – most notably, but not exclusively, through the Elections Act 2022. They also include more informal shifts in, for example, the operating practices of social media companies and the capacity of local electoral administrators.

The breadth of these institutional changes means that July’s vote will be different from any previous UK general election. This post surveys the key points. It begins with legislative changes (on which the Hansard Society has offered an excellent and more detailed account) before turning to other innovations.

Elections Act 2022

The biggest set of reforms was introduced by the Elections Act 2022. Some of these changes related to local elections – see posts by the Unit’s Alan Renwick on mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections. The focus here is on those relevant to parliamentary elections.

Political parties have access to an array of data that can potentially inform how they campaign. Kate Dommett, co-author of a new book on the subject, explains what data-driving campaigning is, the different ways in which parties use it, the problems it can cause, and how it might impact the next UK general election.

Imagine yourself running a party’s election campaign. Your mission in the run up to polling day is to develop a strategy for securing electoral victory or an increased vote share. You know that according to the latest social science research that campaigns can have important, if small effects on electoral outcomes. You know you will need to work to locate existing supporters and encourage them to turn out and cast their vote. You will also likely need to persuade undecided voters of the virtues of your party. And you will need to contact activists and motivate them to get involved in the campaign by donating money, attending campaign events or sharing party messages.

The key to all these activities is being able to communicate with the right audience. You do not want to be sending a reminder to vote to supporters of your opponents, and you do not want to waste money sending advertisements intended to persuade people who already plan to vote for you. You therefore need to gather and sort information about people’s voting behaviour to develop tailored messages. You also need to work out what messaging and mediums are most effective for achieving your desired goals. What slogans have the desired effect, what appeals prompt donations, and what campaign action most effectively reminds people to vote?

This form of campaigning is nothing new, but in recent years the availability of new forms of data, the emergence of new and more sophisticated techniques for profiling voters, and new mediums for contact are seen to have heralded a form of ‘data-driven campaigning’. Rather than relying on their gut instinct, party campaigners now use data and analytics insights to construct their campaign as never before. And yet, whilst increasingly common, our understanding of what exactly is captured by the term data-driven campaigning is often opaque.

A new Constitution Unit report by Meg Russell, Hannah White and Lisa James, published jointly with the Institute for Government, provides a menu of constitutional reform options ahead of political parties’ manifesto preparation. Its chapters have been published on this blog throughout August, with this final excerpt identifying potential changes relating to elections and public participation.

Democracy rests ultimately on popular sovereignty. But the bond of trust between the public and their representatives – which is essential for healthy democratic governance – has become increasingly frayed. Public engagement with the political process has long been a cause for concern, and there is a desire to boost public trust and participation. In recent years, particular concerns have been voiced about the government’s attitudes towards the Electoral Commission, its policies on public protest and on voter ID, and a change in the electoral system for local mayors that appeared to be motivated by partisan gain. At a more mundane but nonetheless important level, there are also long-running challenges to the fair and effective administration of elections.

A range of reforms to elections, the conduct of campaigns, and the wider role of the public in processes of policymaking have been proposed to tackle these concerns. Some improvements could be made immediately. A number of others would require legislation, but would be largely uncontroversial, or could be implemented fairly straightforwardly through other means. Proposals for more fundamental change – most obviously to the Westminster voting system, and party funding – would be much more contested.

Quick win

The Elections Act 2022 empowered ministers to prepare a ‘strategy and policy statement’ for the Electoral Commission. Experts widely view the existence of such a statement as a threat to the Commission’s independence. Three Commons committees sharply criticised the government’s first draft, leading to revisions. Ministers should not proceed further with designating a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission. Rather, they should simply affirm their commitment to the Commission’s independence and welcome its work. Should a statement be designated, a future government should withdraw it.

Today, the Unit published the 80th edition of Monitor, which provides analysis of the key constitutional news of the past four months. In this post, which also serves as the lead article for Monitor 80, Meg Russell and Alan Renwick reflect on risks to democracy at home and the appalling invasion of a democratic nation, Ukraine, which could have long-term repercussions for the health of democracies across Europe.

Monitor has in recent years catalogued a succession of astonishing events in British constitutional politics: the 2014 Scottish independence referendum; the 2016 Brexit referendum; the parliamentary battle that ensued under Theresa May’s divided minority government post-2017; Boris Johnson’s unlawful parliamentary prorogation of 2019; and the politics of COVID-19 lockdown post-2020.

The shock likely to dominate memories of 2022 – Russia’s appalling invasion of Ukraine – is of a different order. The war is a terrible tragedy for all those directly affected; on the world stage it is Europe’s darkest and potentially most dangerous moment at least since the Cold War standoff of the 1960s, and perhaps since 1945. In response, British constitutional politics has seen a suspension of normal working. Hostile exchanges at Prime Minister’s Questions have been replaced by pledges of unity. The House of Commons has given standing ovations to Ukraine’s ambassador in London, and then to its President, Volodoymr Zelenskyy. A mutinous Conservative Party that had been gearing up, perhaps, to topple its leader now bides its time.

How Putin’s war might shift British politics beyond the short term remains to be seen. In this edition of Monitor, the developments discussed mostly predate the invasion. Some of these – notably, a raft of bills and consultations – have a momentum that will run on. As has been true for several years, these developments give some considerable cause for concern.

The publication of a draft Online Safety Bill has enabled two parliamentary committees to engage in detailed pre-legislative scrutiny. The conclusions of a special joint committee were discussed in earlier posts by its Chair, Damian Collins and Alex Walker. Here, Alex analyses the findings of the second report on the draft bill, authored by the DCMS Committee, and analyses the points of contention between the two reports.

Parliament has been giving close attention to the landmark Online Safety Bill since it was published in draft in May 2021. In December, the joint committee set up to consider the draft bill published its report. I considered its recommendations in the first part of this two-part series on the scrutiny of the draft bill. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Select Committee has since published its take on the draft legislation. As the DCMS committee commented, it is welcome that the bill was published in draft, and is receiving such comprehensive pre-legislative scrutiny. Whilst the government is of course not required to accept the recommendations of the committees, failing to address gaps they have both identified would not be a constructive response to the pre-legislative process.

One such gap (highlighted previously on this blog) is that of online harms to democracy. Whilst they diverge on a number of points, the DCMS committee and the joint committee share the analysis that this is a serious issue which the bill should address. In this piece, I consider the DCMS committee’s proposals to address online threats to democracy and look at how they differ from those of the joint committee. Both approaches to improving this aspect of the bill are worthy of careful consideration and the government should not use the points of difference as a way to avoid taking action.

Content that undermines democracy should be in scope

Constitution Unit Deputy Director Alan Renwick and I argued in written evidence to the DCMS committee that online harms to democracy should be addressed in the legislation. The committee agreed. The government’s own 2019 Online Harms white paper detailed the dangers that online activity such as the viral spread of disinformation could pose to democracy. But the measures the white paper set out to address this issue were later abandoned, leaving the draft bill with a considerable blind spot. Both the DCMS committee and the joint committee concluded that leaving this gap unfilled would be a mistake. However, the two committees recommended different changes to the legislation.