Dissertation Final2

To what degree and in what ways do MPs
use Facebook for constituency
representation? What can explain the
differences in such usage?
By Tone Langengen
This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements of the BSc in Politics with Economics, Friday 15th
of April 2016.

2
Contents
Introduction 3
Literature Review 7
Methods and Data 14
Data Analysis 19
Discussion and Conclusion 39
Appendix: Code Book 45
Bibliography 68

3
1. Introduction
Representation is a fundamental part of the British political system. It
constitutes the foundation of the parliamentary system and is integral in the
workings of the legislative process. Representation has also traditionally been
very important for the citizens of the UK. As there is little tradition for direct
participation, people have to a great extent relied on their representatives in
parliament for expressing their views and grievances (Judge 1993; 1999a). The
institutional context has opened for two main paths through which the people
are represented. Firstly, historical developments combined with the
parliamentary nature of the British political system have made parties one of
the main representational paths. The political parties represent the views of the
citizens by presenting them with policy alternatives before elections, and
subsequently discipline the elected officials to ensure that they stick to these
policy programs. Secondly, the Single Member Plurality electoral system
combined with a tradition of geographic representation means that each
constituency has one MP that represents it. This constituency representational
link is non-partisan in nature, as MPs are representing the whole constituency
from which they are elected and not just their supporters within it (Norton
2012). Together these two dimensions, the party and the constituency
dimension, form the strong representational basis of the UK parliament.
In modern Britain, the party has traditionally been regarded as the primary
basis of representation and their position as the link between the people and
state has traditionally been trusted and respected (Lawson 1980; Dalton, Farrell
and McAllister 2011). Developments in the last few decades have however

4
resulted in a waning of this representational basis. Firstly, there has been seen a
tendency of declining importance of political parties in the British system
(Katz and Mair 1995; Scarrow 2000). Throughout the last decades there has
been witnessed a general partisan dealignment in Britain (Dalton 2000; Dalton
et al. 2000) that has led to declining numbers of members and activists in the
parties (Van Biezen and Poguntke 2014; van Biezen et al. 2012; Katz et al.
1992). Parties have thus evolved from being mass parties relying greatly on the
activities and finance of its members, to becoming increasingly
professionalised, centralised and personalised (Farrell and Webb 2000; Katz
and Mair 1995; Webb 1994). These changes are conceptualised to weaken the
parties’ capacity to generate political integration and legitimacy, thus
weakening the parties’ representative capabilities (Scarrow 2000, p.83; Katz
and Mair 1995; Mair 2006). This opens for the possibility, and perhaps even
necessity, to strengthen the second line of representation.
The party decline has occurred simultaneously with a decreasing level of trust
in politicians and political institution, and increased disenchantment with
politics as a result of a number of scandals. Most recently, this was fuelled by
the 2009 expenses scandal, which saw the level of trust in politicians among
the population plummet (Curtice and Park 2010). Politicians as a group are as a
consequence of this being conceived as being unrepresentative of the
population, but rather acting in their own self-interest, making people feel
increasingly alienated from Westminster politics (Cairney 2014; Allen and
Cairney 2015). In this time of scandal, parties have proven themselves unable
to mend the relationship with the people and regain their trust. People are

5
increasingly seeing parties as untrustworthy and unrepresentative organisations
only interested in collecting as many votes as possible (Curtice and Park 2010;
Dalton and Weldon 2005). In spite of this unfavourable view of parties,
political institutions and politicians in general, there is evidence showing that
the people’s views about their local MP can often exist independently of the
views of the House of Commons in general (Norton 2005, pp. 195-196; Norton
2012). There might thus be an opportunity for MPs to use the constituency
dimension to remain popular and trusted, and rebuild the population’s trust in
the system.
The party decline and increased distrust and disenchantment with traditional
party politics show that the traditional, party line of representation is
increasingly loosing its importance. MPs might thus both have the opportunity
and the reason to establish a personal reputation independent of the party and
focus more on the constituency in their representational activities. MPs can use
the constituency representation dimension to bridge a representational gap and
establish trust in the political system.
One possible line through which MPs can establish and expand a
representational relationship with its constituency in the modern world is
through social media. The UK population is increasingly using social media to
connect with people, read about news, and discuss politics. In 2015 it was
estimated that the average UK citizen spends 1 hour and 40 minutes browsing
social media sites every day (Davidson 2015). Social media is also increasingly

6
used by MPs, with increasing numbers of them having such sites1. Social
media does consequently establish a platform with opportunities for
representation, as it opens for communication with a large group of people on a
platform they frequently use. In the light of this, I will through this dissertation
attempt to answer two questions. Firstly, to what degree and in what ways do
MPs use Facebook for constituency representation? And secondly, what can
explain the differences in such usage? Through a discussion of this, I will be
able to shed some light on how constituency representation on Facebook
occurs, and whether there are further possibilities for constituency
representation on Facebook.
1 Figures can be found in Chapter 4.

7
2. Literature Review: Representation, Constituency
Service and Social Media
The representation literature identifies many different forms of political
representation. For the sake of this dissertation, there are two main lines of
representation that are important. The first is the party dimension. This
describes a party-focused way of representing the population. Following this
model, individual MPs from the different parties engage in ‘general
representation’ through sticking to the party programs and defending the
interests of countrywide groups (Norton 2012, p. 404). The second line of
representation that is important for this dissertation is the constituency
dimension, which is the MPs’ representation of the geographic area from
which they are elected. This can also be called ‘specific’ representation, as it
entails that the MP defend and advance the interests of the constituency and the
individuals within it (Ibid).
These dimensions establish two different ways in which MPs can chose to act
as representatives. Representation theory suggests that British MPs are likely to
focus mainly on the general, party dimension of representation. This is because
there is a strong party tradition within the British system that naturally makes
parties very important for British MPs (Coxall and Robins 1998; Judge 1999b).
It also makes strategic sense for the individual MP to focus on the party, as it is
the local party that selects who will run to be the MP in each constituency and
the constituents arguably decides who to elect based on the party they
represent. This thus means that it is the party reputation that matters the most,
and that the MP has low incentives to nurture a personal reputation among

8
constituents and focus their representation on them (Searing 1994; Carey and
Shugart 1995; André and Depauw 2013). According to representation theory,
the party model thus becomes both the natural and the rational choice for MPs.
The tradition for the ‘specific’, constituency representation does regardless of
these incentives stand strong in the British context, and there is evidence
showing that the constituency link has become stronger in the latter part of the
20th century. One of the main ways in which MPs cultivate the ‘specific’
constituency dimension of representation is through constituency service.
Constituency service includes doing casework, reaching out to constituents to
seek out their opinions and find out about their problems, and spread
information about what they do and what they believe (Fenno 1978; Cain et al.
1987). In a study of constituency service in Britain, Cain et al. (1987) found
that MPs spend a significant, and increasing, amount of time on constituency
service, through doing more casework, holding more surgeries and publicizing
their work. In the years after, Wood and Norton (1992), Norton and Wood
(1990; 1993) and Searing (1994) conducted studies confirming that MPs
devote a lot of time to constituency service. It was found that while surgeries
used to be relatively rare and MPs only used to receive a dozen letter a week in
the 1950s, the 1980s and 90s saw the constituency role of the MP becoming
increasingly important with surgeries becoming a regular occurrence, the
number of letters an MP received increasing to about 20 to 50 a day, and MPs
increasingly appearing in local media and writing newsletters to constituents
(Norton 2005, p.182; Norton 2012, pp.406, 411). MPs estimated in 1996 that
they used about 40% of their time each week in parliament on constituency

9
work, in 2006 this estimate was even higher at 49% for new MPs (Norton
2012, p. 407; Rosenblatt 2006, p.32). These developments have therefore made
scholars like Norton (1994) suggest that the constituency role is becoming the
dominant role in the House of Common.
With the introduction of the internet, MPs communication with constituents
has become easier. A main issue for MPs has been that contact with
constituents on an extensive basis has been limited by time and costs. MPs
have lacked the resources to survey constituents’ opinions and distribute
printed material. The internet has however transformed the potential for MPs to
contact constituents, as it has opened for a low-cost and less time consuming
direct link between constituents and the MP (Zittel 2003; Ward and Lusoli
2005; Norton 2012). This has been acknowledged by parliament, and MPs
were in 2011 granted £10,000 to develop websites and produce other material
about their parliamentary work. All MPs now have an official email that is
open for the public, constituents can follow their local MPs action through a
website (theyworkforyou.com), and many MPs send out e-newsletters and have
e-mail lists to let their constituents keep up with their work. Most MPs have
additional personal websites, some have blogs and many use social media sites
such as Facebook and Twitter (Norton 2012, pp.414-415).
Some studies have been done on how MPs utilise ICTs to perform constituency
service. These studies (Ward and Lusoli 2005; Francoli and Ward 2008;
Norton 2007; Williamson 2009) have found that MPs use websites and blogs
as an extension of the constituency service to disseminate information to

10
constituents. It was found that MPs to a small degree encourage dialogue with
constituents and that few keep up to date on replying to comments, therefore
only using the platform for one-way communication with constituents. Studies
on web 2.0, social media platforms have to a great extent confirmed the
findings on web 1.0; these sites are used for constituency service, but it is done
in a one-way, promotional fashion (Jackson and Lilleker 2009; 2011). Despite
the finding that the internet is used for constituency service, most of the studies
(eg. Norton 2007; Jackson and Lilleker 2009; Francoli and Ward 2008) have
argued that ICT mainly is employed to bolster the role of the party in the
system, and that the possibilities for constituency service remains largely
untapped.
Despite research finding that the internet is still mainly used as an extension of
the party dimension, it can be assumed that there are more opportunities within
its use for constituency service. Ward, Lusoli and Gibson (2007) have
suggested that the very decentralised nature of the internet makes it a challenge
to the party-based model. Jackson and Lilleker (2011) have also made a similar
comment in their study of Twitter, noting that it is a platform that facilitates
MP to focus less on promoting the party and more on promoting themselves.
Such findings therefore suggest that the constituency role appears to be, and
has the potential, to grow in the online dimension (Jackson 2003; Jackson and
Lilleker 2009; Ward and Lusoli 2005; Williamson 2009). Especially web 2.0
applications have been highlighted for its potential for changing the
relationship between MPs and constituents (Jackson and Lilleker 2009). These
platforms have created a richer experience for users, making social media have

11
the potential to become an effective platform for constituency service.
Facebook is therefore arguably a very suitable platform for constituency
representation. Firstly, the population has been found to want to communicate
with parliament on platforms ‘where they are’ (Digital Democracy
Commission 2015). With about 30 million monthly users in the UK (Statista
2016), it can be claimed that Facebook is where the population ‘is’, making it a
good platform to reach them. Facebook does secondly have some affordances
in terms of representation. Facebook has been shown to expand the flow of
information to networks and enable more symmetrical conversations among
users (Halpern and Gibbs 2013). The feature of pages is for instance a way in
which people can connect to an MP by ‘Liking’ a page, and through this action
they will automatically receive the updates from this page straight to their
newsfeed without actively approaching the page. Within these pages people
can easily comment on what has been posted by the page owner, and others can
see what people have posted, thus opening for communication among people
as well as with the page owner (Halpern and Gibbs 2013; Vitak et al. 2011).
Facebook therefore constitutes an easy and available platform for
communication between MPs and constituents.
There is therefore reason to investigate how and to what degree Facebook is
used for constituency service, both to find out how it is used and to try to
identify opportunities for further use. To my knowledge, very few studies have
been done on Facebook and constituency representation2. There exists a
substantial amount of research on MPs use of Facebook during campaigns, but
2 Jackson and Lilleaker (2009) include Facebook in their analysis of Web 2.0 platform usage.

12
how Facebook is used between elections for representation has been more or
less a neglected area thus far. Some assumptions about how social media is
used for representation can nevertheless be made from previous research on
social media in general and constituency service online and offline. A number
of studies have shown that the affordances of Facebook lead to more focus on
the individual politicians rather than the party (Enli and Skogerbø 2013). There
might therefore be a reason to expect that Facebook to a great extent will be
used in a personal way (Enli and Skogerbø 2013; Enli and Thumin 2012;
Strömback 2008; Lilleker 2010), and there might also be reason to assume that
the lack of party focus will be replaced by constituency focus (Jackson and
Lilleker 2009; Norton 2007). Another assumption that can be made is that there
will be very few MPs who engage in two-way communication. Previous
studies have shown that there is very little two-way communication between
MPs and constituents on social media in campaigns (eg. Ward et al. 2003;
Karlsen 2009), supporting the previous research on web 1.0 (and 2.0) and
constituency service findings that there is little two-way communication also
between elections (Norton 2007; Jackson and Lilleker 2009; 2011). It can
therefore also be assumed that most MPs will ‘talk at’ their constituents, rather
than ‘engaging with’ them.
Based on these assumptions, this dissertation will explore how Facebook is
used by MPs. This will be done by analysing data based on the analysis of the
MPs Facebook pages to investigate, quantitatively, how Facebook is used.
Through the data analysis, it will primarily investigate whether Facebook is
used to focus on constituents, the ‘specific’ dimension of representation, or

13
whether it is rather focused on the party, the ‘general’ dimension of
representation. It will also look at some of the content of MPs’ posts to find out
whether MPs report on activities in parliament and political views on
Facebook. It will finally investigate how Facebook is used, whether MPs are
engaging in two-way communication through Facebook, and whether they are
personal in their communication, as well as investigating whether posts are
easily accessible for the population, making it more likely that they will read it.
Through this work this dissertation will give an image of how British MPs
communicate with their constituents via Facebook.

14
3. Methods and Data
The data on MPs Facebook usage was collected during February and March
2016. It includes all 650 MPs, with information missing on one3. The dataset
consists of information about the MPs: their gender, age, party, constituency,
nation, majority, number of years in office, year first elected and parliamentary
position. This is collected from the parliament’s official website and from the
British Election Study data (Parliament.uk 2016; British Election Study 2015).
The dataset also consists of information about MPs’ social media usage:
whether they have a Facebook page, Twitter profile and Website, number of
Facebook likes, number of posts in one month and data on their posts in this
period. Having an active Facebook page is defined as having posted anything
on Facebook since September 2015, therefore excluding pages used for
campaigning rather than representation.
The data on MPs’ Facebook usage was collected during the first weeks of
March. The data analysis contains all posts on MPs Facebook pages in the
period between 29th of January to 29th of February. The information in the
posts was coded in to 7 categories focusing on the content, style and focus of
the posts. The categories are based on previous literature on representation,
analysis of MPs’ online activities, and the Report of the Speaker’s Commission
on Digital Democracy.
3 Harry Harpman, Labour MP for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, died on the 4th of
February 2016. No by-election was held for his constituency before this dissertation was
finished.

15
Variables
The following section describes the categories the MPs Facebook posts have
been coded into. The full codebook can be found in the Appendix.
Constituency focus
The first coding category analyses whether the focus of the post is on the
constituency. The focus of the communication shows who the MP wishes to
reach, and who will feel like the recipient of the communication and thus be
more likely to engage with it. If the message of the MPs communication is
focused on the constituency, for instance through referring to casework,
sharing local information, and asking for constituents’ views on an issue, the
representational focus of the MP is on the constituency (Wahlke et al. 1962;
Eulau and Karps 1977; Jackson and Lilleker 2009).
Focus on all voters in the constituency
Representation literature recognises that representatives will often tend to focus
on their own supporters, usually based on party, rather than everyone in the
constituency (Esaiasson and Holmberg 1996; Esaiasson 2000; Fenno 1978).
The role of a constituency representative is nevertheless to represent the whole
of the constituency, not just one group. Coding this will provide some
information about whether the MP is representing the constituency, or whether
the focus is primarily on the party. This category will therefore measure the
number of posts where all constituents, not just certain groups, are the focus of
the posts. This consequently excludes any post referencing only the party

16
supporters in the constituency, for instance clearly criticising the other party or
referring to party specific events in the constituency.
Activities in Parliament
The third category of the index deals with the content of the posts. An
important part of a MP’s job is to be in the House of Commons and represent
his constituency and the party there (Fenno 1978; Cain et al. 1987).
Communicating this activity to constituents is therefore important to show their
constituents that they are qualified to be the constituency’s representative in
parliament, by presenting their views in parliament and standing up for the
constituency. Examples of such communication is explaining votes, showing
footage from debates, or referencing something that happened in parliament.
Political Views
Another content aspect of constituency representation is presentation of
political views. By providing this information to the constituents, they become
more familiar with the political placement of their local MP and get the chance
to ask for clarification of these views (Fenno 1978; Cain et al. 1987). Sharing
information about political views can for instance be done through providing a
link to a website with the MPs political views or through making posts about
causes that are important for the MP.
Online Responsiveness
Responsiveness, opening up for feedback from the constituents, is generally
regarded as a key aspect of being a constituency representative (Fenno 1978;

17
Jackson and Lilleaker 2009; Cain et al. 1987; Norton and Wood 1993). By
opening up for two-way communication with constituents, MPs can find out
about the opinions of the citizens and identify common issues and problems, as
well as give off an appearance of accessibility, which is assumed to increase
trust (Fenno 1978; Cain et al. 1987). This measure will find out whether MPs
use Facebook to replicate traditional means of communication with
constituents, or exploit the possibilities of the medium to engage with
constituents in new ways (Norton 2012; Jackson and Lilleker 2009). It will be
measured by whether the MP replies to comments on the page and/or uses
other tools to be interactive with constituents on Facebook as outlined in the
codebook.
Personalisation
Making communication on social media more ‘personal’, making it appear to
come directly from the MP and his or her close co-workers, is another aspect to
representing the constituency. Through personal posts MPs open for
constituents to identify with them by giving them a sense of familiarity and the
image of them as an ordinary human being, hopefully making the visitor
emphasise, engage with and like them (Fenno 1978; Jackson and Lilleker
2009; 2011; Auty 2005; Jackson 2008). This ‘personalisation’ on social media
must include using personal pronoun in posts and include photos of the
candidate taken in less formal settings.

18
Accessibility
According to the Digital Democracy Commission (2015), which has surveyed
the population, people want parliament to make communication easier to
understand, through simplifying the language, condensing the message and
using visual images. Even though this report deals with how parliament should
communicate, much of this can be translated into how the population believe
politicians should communicate. From this, one can thus assume that the way
in which posts are presented matter for whether the posts are read by
constituents or not. This category will therefore look at aspects such as the
language used in the posts, length of the posts, and the use of visuals to
supplements the text.
Measurement
‘Constituency Focus’, ‘Activities in Parliament’, ‘Political Views’ and
‘Accessibility’ is measured as a proportion of the frequency of posts. The issue
with this measurement is that an MP who posts few posts exclusively about
one topic will score high on this. I have attempted to solve this in the data
analysis by controlling for frequency. ‘Focus on all Constituents’ is measured
by the total number of such posts as a proportion of the number of posts
focused at the constituents. This highlights how partisan MPs are in their
communication with their local constituents. Online Responsiveness and
Personalisation are measured in an ‘either or’ way. MPs who engage in two-
way communication or who are personal are given the value of 1, while those
who are not are given the value 0. All the categories are in this was given a
standardised value between 0 and 1.

19
4. Data Analysis
Who uses Facebook?
A total of 433, or two thirds, of MPs have had an active Facebook page since
September 2015. There are slightly more female MPs who use Facebook
(73%), than male (64%). Young MPs are more likely to have an active
Facebook page than older MPs; all MPs under 30 and 87% between 31 and 40
have active Facebook pages, while only 47% of 61-70 and 27% over 70 have
the same. On a party basis one can see that the 66% of Conservative and 60%
of Labour MPs have active Facebook pages. As for the other parties, one can
see that all of SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs have Facebook, the previous
pioneering party in terms of Internet communication, the Liberal Democrats,
have 63% of their MPs with active Facebook pages, while all the other parties
average 61%. Scottish MPs are therefore the overall most active on Facebook
with 97% active users, while Irish MPs are the least active with only 53%
using Facebook. MPs in more marginal seats are more likely to have Facebook
with 87% of those MPs with less than a 5% majority and 76% of those MPs
with a less than 10% majority having one, while only 57% of those between 40
and 50% and 48% of those with over 50% majorities having one. There are
large differences between the different cohorts, among MPs elected in 2015 a
total of 91% have an active Facebook page, while among MPs elected before
2005 under 50 % of MPs in the different cohorts have Facebook pages with
percentages as low as 26% for the 1983 cohort.

20
Among those who use Facebook, the average number of posts within the 31
days period is 17.6 posts. There is however high variance, from 0 posts to 113
posts.
Variables of Facebook Use
How MPs use Facebook is measured in 7 variables: Constituency Focus, Focus
on All Constituents, Activities in Parliament, Political Views, Online
Responsiveness, Personalisation and Accessibility.
Table 1: Means for the Index Variables
Mean Std. Dev.
Constituency Focus 0.5757 0.3165
Focus on all Constituents 0.8145 0.3345
Activities in Parliament 0.1470 0.1929
Political Views 0.2819 0.2541
Online Responsiveness 0.2864 0.4526
Personalisation 0.5081 0.5001
Accessibility 0.6907 0.3425
Only candidates with an active Facebook page are included in the analysis (N=424).
The mean score on the different variables shows six initial findings. Firstly, it
is evident that Facebook is used to a great extent to communicate with
constituents. Almost 60% of all posts in the study are focused on constituents,
making constituency focus the main mode of communication on Facebook.
Secondly, MPs tend to focus on the whole constituency, and are not partisan in
their communication. They are thus not just directing their Facebook
communication to the local party elites, as some of the representation literature
suggested. Thirdly, it can be seen that the MPs focus relatively little on
activities in parliament, or to a certain degree also political views, in their
communication, suggesting that Facebook is not primarily used for
communication of political views and activities. A fourth observation is that

21
about 50% of MPs choose to be personal on Facebook. This is a substantial
amount, but perhaps not as many as could be expected based on previous
research that has highlighted the personal aspect of social media. Another
observation is that the number of accessible posts is almost at 70%, suggesting
that MPs who are using Facebook are using it in a recipient-friendly way,
making their information easily accessible. Finally, it can be seen that 28% of
the MPs that use Facebook engage in some degree of two-way communication
with voters, a relatively high number compared to what has been found in
previous studies.
Table 2: Factor Analysis, Varimax Rotation
Constituency
Dimension
Political
Dimension
Medium Usage
Dimension
Const. Focus 0.791
0.940
0.202
-0.129
0.056
0.183
0.463
-0.088
0.083
0.776
0.850
0.035
-0.087
0.188
0.187
0.127
-0.035
0.057
0.797
0.806
0.524
Focus on all Const.
Activities in Parl.
Pol. Views
Online Respons.
Personalisation
Accessibility
As there is no obvious reason to assume that these variables are correlated, an
explanatory factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to unveil
whether the variables establish one, unified, constituency index or whether
they load in different ways. The factor analysis revealed a three-factor solution,
which establishes three separate dimensions of Facebook usage amongst MPs.
Constituency Focus and Focus on All Constituents establish one dimension of
Facebook usage, the Constituency Dimension, which describes the focus on

22
constituents in Facebook communication4. Activities in Parliament and
Political Views establish a second dimension, the Political Dimension, where
the focus is on communicating political activities and views. Finally, Online
Responsiveness, Personalisation and Accessibility establishes a final
dimension that describes how MPs use the medium Facebook rather than the
content of their posts, named the Medium Usage Dimension.
The Constituency Dimension
The dataset consequently reveals that one way MPs use Facebook is to focus
on the constituency. The MPs who use Facebook in this way direct their posts
at their constituents, and they do to a large degree address all constituents when
they do. The factor analysis also shows that MPs who use Facebook in this way
tend to focus less on political views. This way of using Facebook corresponds
with the ‘specific’, constituency, model of representation. This manner of using
Facebook implies that the constituents are the primary focus of communication
and that this communication is essentially party neutral. The MP is not
promoting the party, but rather promoting themselves and their constituency
work.
This section will analyse the different characteristics of MPs who use
Facebook to communicate with constituents.
Age
4 Accessibility also loads on this dimension. For simplicity, I have decided to chose to include
accessibility in the factor dimension with the strongest loading and thus chosen to define
loading as over 0.5. It can however, be argued that accessibility establish its own, separate
dimension. But as it aligns well with the Medium Usage Dimension, I have chosen to
incorporate it into this.

23
Age is negatively correlated with the Constituency Index (Peasons R -0.126,
sig. 0.008). Suggesting that younger MPs are slightly more likely to use
Facebook to communicate with constituents than older MPs are.
Party
There are some differences in the how MPs from different parties use
Facebook, as illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3: Means for the Constituency Index by Party
Constituency Focus Focus on all Constituents Constituency Index
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Cons 0.639 0.326 0.850 0.332 1.490 0.602
Lab 0.507 0.315 0.747 0.364 1.254 0.612
SNP 0.466 0.183 0.834 0.247 1.300 0.340
Other Party 0.638 0.342 0.828 0.314 1.390 0.553
Conservative MPs score overall the highest on the Constituency Index and on
both the Constituency Focus and the Focus on all Constituents variables.
Labour MPs score the lowest overall, and focus the least on constituents in
their posts. When there is a constituency focus they tend to focus more on
Labour supporters within their constituency, rather than all constituents. The
possible reasons for this difference will be looked at in more detail under the
Political Dimension section. SNP MPs are shown to focus less on the
constituency in their posts than both the Conservatives and Labour. This is
most likely because the SNP MPs tend to focus on the whole of Scotland in
their communication rather than just their specific constituency. When SNP
MPs focus on their constituency they do however focus on all of their
constituents almost to the same degree as Conservative MPs. This places them
between Labour and the Conservatives on the overall scale.

24
Years in Office
The number of years an MP has in office is negatively correlated with the
Constituency Index (Pearson’s R -0.214, sig. 0.000). An MP with fewer years
in office is therefore more likely to focus on their constituency in their posts.
This can be seen when looking at the means for the different parliamentary
intakes, where the 2010 and 2015 cohorts score the highest, while MPs elected
in the 1980s and to a certain extent the 1990s and early 2000s5 score relatively
low. Norton and Wood (1990) argue that each new cohort of MPs is motivated
to build up a personal vote. Using Facebook to do this might, for the new 2010
and 2015 cohorts, be a natural way to do this, explaining why they tend to
focus more on the constituency than their more long-serving counterparts.
Majority
There is a small negative correlation between majority and the constituency
index (Pearson’s R -0.13, sig. 0.007), suggesting that the MPs in more
marginal seats are more likely to focus on the constituency in their Facebook
posts than those with a high majority. This can be seen clearly when in Table 4.
Table 4: Means for the Constituency Index by Majority
0-4.99 0.692 0.283 0.873 0.278 1.565 0.517
5-5.99 0.616 0.318 0.801 0.332 1.417 0.579
10-19.99 0.584 0.302 0.823 0.327 1.407 0.572
20-29.99 0.546 0.305 0.866 0.304 1.412 0.524
30-39.99 0.530 0.310 0.767 0.350 1.297 0.597
40-49.99 0.538 0.354 0.797 0.386 1.334 0.683
Over 50 0.409 0.392 0.624 0.447 1.033 0.795
5 With the interesting exception of the 1997 cohort that score quite high

25
These findings are consistent with some previous findings suggesting that more
marginal MPs are more likely to use the constituency service model (Jackson
and Lilleker 2009). This is likely to be because MPs in more marginal
constituencies are trying to strengthen their incumbency, their position locally,
to be re-elected, and that connecting with constituents, and especially all
constituents in a non partisan way, is a way to achieve this. Studies on the
constituency role and marginality have previously shown that MPs in safe seats
are just as likely to be diligent constituency MPs as their more marginal
counterparts (Norris 1997). It may therefore be the case that the MPs in more
marginal seats merely put more focus on communicating their constituency
service than MPs in safer seats.
Parliamentary Position
There are also some differences between MPs with different positions.
Table 5: Means for the Constituency Index by Parliamentary Position
Cabinet
Minister
0.393 0.408 0.508 0.278 0.901 0.890
Shadow
Cabinet
Minister
0.318 0.300 0.537 0.332 0.855 0.697
Other 0.5926 0.309 0.835 0.327 1.428 0.555
When comparing the average scores of ministers, shadow ministers and others,
there is evidence that having a high position within the party leads to lower
scores than a low position. The standard deviation is however much higher
within these high positions, suggesting that there are some ministers and
shadow ministers that focus more on their constituency.

26
Overall
To determine what the impact of these correlations are there was executed a
regression to control for the other variables.
Table 6: The Constituency Index. B-Coefficients, S.E. in parentheses.
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10.
Dependant Variable: Constituency Index
The significance of majority and age both disappeared when controlling for
numbers of years in office and parliamentary position. The number of years in
office is still significant when controlled for these variables, but the correlation
is very small. However, it cannot be ruled out that majority and age also
matter, as they appear to be related to numbers of years in office.
There is also a sizable impact of having no position within the parliament
compared to being in the cabinet. There is on the other hand no significant
impact of being a part of the shadow cabinet compared to the cabinet; this
I II III IV V VI VII
Constant 1.386***
(0.035)
1.610***
(0.096)
1.428***
(0.110)
1.525***
(0.115)
1.581***
(0.115)
1.042***
(0.224)
1.022***
(0.227)
Gender 0.013 0.006 0.057 0.057 -0.003 -0.032 0.033
Age -0.068**
(0.28)
-0.060**
(0.27)
-0.054**
(0.27)
-0.002 -0.013 -0.012
Party
Cons
0.238***
(0.064)
0.238***
(0.063)
0.199***
(0.063)
0.193***
(0.065)
0.198***
(0.066)
SNP 0.040 0.029 -0.075 -0.089 -0.098
Others 0.260 0.209 0.230 0.195 0.187
Majority -0.005**
(0.002)
-0.004*
(0.002)
-0.003 -0.003
Years in Office -0.102***
(0.028)
-0.078***
(0.028)
-0.078***
(0.029)
Parl. Position
Shadow
Cabinet
0.236 0.229
No
Position
0.543***
(0.191)
0.537***
(0.191)
Frequency 0.001

27
means essentially the same for constituency work. The difference is therefore
about whether the MP has a high or low position in the party, rather than being
a part of the Government or not, on how much focus they put on the
constituency.
The regression finally confirms that there is a significant difference between
Labour and the Conservatives when controlling for other variables. It is
therefore likely that there is something specific about the parties or the parties’
position that makes their member MPs focus more or less on the constituency
in their communication, which will be evaluated later.
The Political Dimension
Posting information about political views and activities in parliament on
Facebook establishes a separate usage dimension. The factor analysis shows
that MPs who have a high percentage of posts with Political Views and
Activities in Parliament, tend to focus fewer posts on the constituency. Even
though reporting on activities in parliament and explaining political views
arguably can be a part of the constituency representation, it appears as though
those who posts a lot about this tend to focus less on the constituency. This
way of using Facebook therefore corresponds more with the ‘general’, partisan,
model of representation. Previous research has highlighted how high focus on
activities in parliament and political views tend to correspond with a party-
centred focus of communication, as this communication tends to be focused on
promoting the views of the party rather than constituency service (Williamson
2009, p.516; Zittel 2003). The factor analysis also shows that MPs who use

28
Facebook in a political manner are less personal on Facebook. This
corresponds with the view that focusing on policy is an alternative to focusing
on personality (Jackson and Lilleker 2009, p.259), which again corresponds
with the party model of representation, as these MPs appears to be focusing
less on promoting themselves and more on promoting the party (Jackson and
Lilleker 2011).
Facebook to communicate political views and activities in parliament.
Party
There are again some party differences on the political index as illustrated in
Table 7.
Table 7: Means for the Political Index by Party
Activities in parliament Political Views Political Index
Cons 0.126 0.187 0.230 0.254 0.355 0.368
Lab 0.179 0.222 0.348 0.265 0.526 0.225
SNP 0.171 0.132 0.320 0.137 0.491 0.381
Other Party 0.105 0.148 0.304 0.303 0.409 0.368
The Labour MPs focus to a greater degree on activities in parliament and
political views than other MPs. The reason why Labour MPs focus on political
views and activities in parliament, and less on the constituency as seen
previously, while the Conservative MPs focus more on the constituency and
less on political issues can be explained by differences in how the parties view
their role as representatives. Rush (2001) asked MPs what the most important
thing was when carrying out the role as a representative: the nation as a whole,

29
the party or the constituency. Overall, MPs tended to prioritise the constituency
highest. However, Labour MPs were found to more frequently prioritise the
party than other MPs did. There might therefore be a factor specifically related
to the Labour party that makes them focus more on the party, most likely
connected to the party’s history as a party born out of a social movement.
Another possible explanation is that this reflects a difference between being a
member of the governing party and being a member of the opposition. It might
be that Labour MPs are more reliant on promoting their party and its policies
as a part of the permanent campaigning, while the Conservatives who are in
government is not. Many of the Labour party MPs post with a political
message are also attacking the government’s policies, which is a type of post
that Conservative MPs won’t usually make. This gives Conservative MPs more
of an opportunity to focus on the constituency in a nonpartisan way. This
explanation is however speculative, and further research must be done to
validate this.
There are differences between the MPs’ parliamentary position and how much
they focus on political views and activities in parliament as shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Means for the Political Index by Parliamentary Position
Act. in parliament Political Views Political Index
Cabinet Minister 0.000 0.000 0.215 0.262 0.215 0.262
Shadow Cabinet
Minister
0.130 0.233 0.396 0.330 0.526 0.459
Other 0.151 0.192 0.278 0.249 0.429 0.364

30
A comparison between the different means reveals that it is in fact the Cabinet
Ministers that focus the least on activities in parliament and political views,
while shadow ministers’ focus the most. This is most likely explained by the
fact that shadow ministers’ responsibility is to show the population that Labour
can do a better job on their assigned area, thus making it natural for these MPs
to post frequently about political issues to convince the people that Labour
have the better policies. Another explanation is that Cabinet ministers focus
very little on the political dimension, especially activities in parliament, in their
posts, therefore making them diverge from everyone else. These explanations
are however just suggestions, and further interviews with the MPs would
probably reveal more of the rationale behind the different choices.
Overall
Table 9: The Political Index. B-Coefficients, S.E. in parentheses.
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10.
Dependant Variable: Political Index
Constant 0.434***
(0.022)
0.438***
(0.061)
0.573***
(0.061)
0.536***
(0.073)
0.553***
(0.074)
0.423***
(0.146)
0.475***
(0.146)
Gender -0.004 -0.005 -0.043 -0.043 -0.060 -0.059 -0.062
Age -0.001 -0.008 -0.010 0.006 0.004 0.002
Party
Cons
-0.183***
(0.040)
-0.183***
(0.040)
-0.194***
(0.041)
-0.182***
(0.042)
0.195***
(0.042)
SNP -0.043 -0.039 -0.069 -0.061 -0.037
Others -0.014 0.005 0.011 0.018 0.038
Majority 0.002 0.002*
(0.001)
0.002*
(0.001)
0.002*
(0.001)
Years in Office -0.029 -0.028 -0.030
Parl. Position
Shadow
Cabinet
0.175 0.193
No
Position
0.125 0.142
Frequency -0.003***
(0.001)

31
When controlling for the other variables, the only significant variable
(excluding the weak frequency correlation) is being a Conservative MP in
comparison to being a Labour MP. SNP is not significantly different from
Labour, and are thus likely to diverge from Conservatives in a similar way to
Labour.
There is also a minor effect of majority when controlled for years in office. It
could therefore be claimed that the MPs who have a large majority are slightly
more likely to focus on political issues. However, as the correlation is very
small and the standard error relatively high, there can there be drawn no real
conclusions based on this.
As for the MPs parliamentary position, it can be seen that despite of the means
when controlled for other variables the effect of being a shadow cabinet
minister compared to a cabinet minister is insignificant. This is most likely
because shadow cabinet ministers are Labour MPs, while cabinet ministers are
Conservative MPs, making much of the difference being explained by party.
However, as the data is the whole population of MPs and not a sample, there
might be reason to claim that as the B-Coefficients for being a shadow cabinet
minister and having no position compared to being a cabinet minister are
relatively large, that there is some kind of relationship between the two, with a
note that the variance is large.
The Medium Usage Dimension

32
The last dimension contains the categories of Personalisation, Responsiveness
and Accessibility. These categories all deal with how Facebook is used as a
social medium, whether the possibilities that lie within the medium are used,
rather than the manner of representation in itself. As for Responsiveness, most
of the MPs who score highly on this score because they respond to comments
left on their posts. However, some MPs are developing further the concept of
responsiveness online. For example, Drew Hendry SNP MP for Inverness,
Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey holds Q&A sessions on his Facebook page
where he invites constituents to raise any concerns they have by leaving posts.
Paul Maskey Sinn Fein MP for West Belfast has introduced an ‘Online
Constituency Service’ by inviting constituents to contact him on Facebook and
Twitter at particular times, opening for confidentiality by sending
personal/direct messages on Twitter and Facebook. And Ben Howlett,
Conservative MP for Bath, advertises on his Facebook page his ‘Howlett’s
Hour’ on Twitter, where he answers constituents questions about particular
topics. Other MPs ask for their constituents’ opinions about what to ask in
parliament or introduce surveys to find their constituents’ views on specific
issues. How personal an MP is on Facebook also varies, it can be the absolute
minimum or it can very personal, as is outlined in the Appendix.
Facebook in these ways.

33
Age
There is a negative correlation between age and the Medium Usage Index, on
all of the variables separately and overall (Pearson R = -0.265, sig. 0.000).
Table 10: Means for the Medium Usage Index by Age
Online Respons. Personalisation Accessibility Medium Index
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Under 30 0.615 0.506 0.923 0.277 0.785 0.238 2.323 0.729
31-40 0.388 0.490 0.624 0.487 0.771 0.277 1.783 0.908
41-50 0.317 0.467 0.531 0.501 0.711 0.341 1.559 1.009
51-60 0.190 0.394 0.405 0.493 0.628 0.365 1.223 0.937
61-70 0.182 0.390 0.386 0.493 0.645 0.366 1.213 0.924
Over 70 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.516 0.403 0.455 0.736 0.923
The means for the age groups show this tendency very clearly. The younger
MPs score consistently higher on all the separate dimensions than do their
older colleagues. Particularly striking is that among the under 30s more than
50% use Facebook for two-way communication, while among the over 70s
none of them do. These differences between young and old MPs is broadly in
line with the technological competence among the population, where the
younger generations are much more used to using such technology and are thus
better as using it to its full extent.
Party
There are some party differences on how MPs communicate with their
constituents.
Table 11: Means for the Medium Usage Index by Party
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Cons 0.286 0.453 0.536 0.277 0.710 0.350 1.533 1.000
Lab 0.169 0.375 0.445 0.487 0.648 0.361 1.261 0.902
SNP 0.593 0.496 0.648 0.501 0.695 0.269 1.936 1.056

34
Other
Party
0.273 0.456 0.273 0.493 0.753 0.302 1.300 0.819
The SNP MPs score much higher than MPs from other parties on the Medium
Usage Index, which is a result of their high scores on online responsiveness
and personalisation. SNP MPs respond to messages and posts on Facebook to a
much greater extent than any other party group, with more than half of the SNP
MPs scoring 1 on Responsiveness. One explanation is that the SNP use social
media as their primary online channel to communicate with constituents. The
SNP is the party where the fewest MPs have personal websites, with only 61%
of SNP MPs having a personal website compared to Labour (93%) and
Conservatives (95%).
Labour performs the worst in this category. One explanation for this is that
Labour MPs are the ones that use Facebook in a political way and that the
political dimension users score the lowest on the medium usage variables. This
can be explained by either the fact that many MPs with high scores on political
views tend to post directly from Twitter to Facebook, or that posts reporting on
parliament or political views tend to become more technical and less accessible
for the population as a whole.
Years in Office
There is a negative correlation between an MP’s years in office and the
Medium Usage Index (Pearson’s R: -0.314, sig. 0.000). MPs who have been in
office for a shorter time are thus more likely to use the possibilities that lie in
medium, through making posts more accessible, more personal and engaging

35
in two-way communication. This can be an effect of having had to use
Facebook actively in first-time election campaigns, thus being more
experienced in using Facebook as a platform for effective communication.
Studies from the United States have shown that challengers were more likely to
be early adopters of social media than incumbents, suggesting that more
recently elected MPs (elected in 2010 and 2015) might have more experience
and competence when it comes to Facebook usage (Williams and Gulati 2013).
Another possible reason is that MPs who have spent more years in office are
more likely to have established a way to communicate with constituents and
partisans before the emergence of Facebook. They might therefore not put as
much effort into using the platform, and may use it more as an extension of
traditional communication tools rather than for the possibilities of it.
Majority
The majority of the MP is negatively correlated with the Medium Usage Index
(Pearsons R: -0.113, sig. 0.006). This suggests that MPs in more marginal seats
are slightly more likely to use Facebook for efficient communication. Jackson
and Lilleaker (2009, p. 250) suggested that social media may be a part of the
‘permanent campaign’, and that MPs in more marginal seats therefore focus
more on effective communication. Replying to messages on Facebook and
being personal is a way to be perceived as accessible and trustworthy, which is
often regarded as key for re-election (Fenno 1978). This taps into the
discussion on the ‘personal vote’. Even though the evidence for the personal
vote is mixed (Norris 1997; Norton 2004; Jackson 2008; Lilleker 2006; 2008),

36
this finding suggests that MPs to a certain degree appear to believe in the
personal vote.
The parliamentary position of the MP does again lead to differences in usage.
Table 12: Means for the Medium Usage Index by Parliamentary Position
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std.
Dev.
Cabinet
Minister
0.111 0.333 0.222 0.441 0.612 0.380 0.945 0.947
Shadow
Cabinet
Minister
0.150 0.366 0.250 0.444 0.520 0.414 0.920 0.935
Other 0.297 0.458 0.527 0.500 0.701 0.336 1.525 0.980
The MPs who do not have a high position in the party score higher on the
Medium Usage Index. They score in particular much higher on personalisation,
which is not surprising seeing that MPs with higher positions are even less
likely to have anything to do with the running of their own Facebook page than
other MPs, and because of their high position there is less reason to create an
illusion of them posting personally. They are further on also less responsive to
messages. This can be explained simply by the difference in the number of
Facebook likes, and thus people who engage with their posts, with ministers
having an average of 50113 likes, shadow ministers with 26586 likes and other
MPs with only 7278 likes.

37
Overall
Table 13: The Medium Usage Index. B-Coefficients, S.E. in parentheses.
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10.
Dependant Variable: Medium Usage
The regression reveals that when controlling for the other variables there is still
an effect of age, but the effect becomes considerably lower when controlled for
years in office. The effect of the number of years in office also becomes much
lower when controlled for age, but it remains highly significant. The effect of
majority becomes insignificant when controlling for these variables. This again
confirms that these three variables are related, and thus perhaps all feeding into
decisions for Facebook usage. Interestingly, even though majority overall
becomes insignificant when controlled for age and years in office; there is still
an effect of majority on just online responsiveness (Pearson’s R -0.003, sig.
0.05). There is therefore some evidence suggesting that MPs with a smaller
Constant 1.478***
(0.059)
2.273***
(0.160)
1.986***
(0.181)
2.127***
(0.191)
2.231***
(0.190)
1.741***
(0.375)
1.531***
(0.371)
Gender 0.057 0.033 0.086 0.085 -0.025 -0.003 0.010
Age -0.243***
(0.046)
-0.227***
(0.045)
-0.218***
(0.045)
-0.116**
(0.051)
-0.126**
(0.051)
-0.116**
(0.050)
Party
Cons
0.247**
(0.106)
0.248**
(0.105)
0.177*
(0.105)
0.191*
(0.109)
0.246**
(0.108)
SNP 0.634***
(0.152)
0.618***
(0.152)
0.427***
(0.156)
0.430***
(0.158)
0.331**
(0.157)
Others 0.256 0.183 0.221 0.211 0.126
Majority -0.007**
(0.003)
-0.005 -0.004 -0.004
Years in Office -0.187***
(0.046)
-0.172***
(0.048)
-0.164***
(0.047)
Parl. Position
Shadow
Cabinet
0.385 0.310
No
Position
0.486 0.415
Frequency 0.011***
(0.003)

38
majority are more likely to respond to messages and posts on Facebook, though
the correlation is very small.
The effect of being an SNP MP is significantly reduced when it is controlled
for years in office and some for frequency of posts. This suggests that some of
the effect of the SNP derives from the fact that they are more recently elected
and post slightly more often than other MPs. However, the effect of the SNP in
comparison with the Labour party is still sizable, but much closer to that of the
Conservatives. It can thus be concluded that both Conservative and SNP MPs,
utilise the possibilities for Facebook as a medium and communicate efficiently
in comparison to Labour MPs.
The significance of not having any position in relation to being a minister is
sizeable. The effect is however not statistically significant, which suggests that
there is some variance. However, as previously noted, this is an entire
population, which means that it can be concluded that there is some
relationship between the two.

39
5. Discussion and Conclusion
The analysis of the data shows that what Jackson and Lilleker (2009, p.257)
called a ‘small minority of pioneers’ appears to have become a much larger
group. A majority of MPs are now actively using Facebook between elections,
suggesting that Facebook usage for representation is becoming the norm rather
than the exception. This is true especially for the MPs of the more recent
intakes, making it likely that the parliament will get increasingly active on
Facebook as new MPs replace the old.
It is, however, not just the fact that MPs use Facebook, but the way they use
Facebook that is interesting. This dissertation has on a general level found that
MPs’ focus is primarily on their constituents, and that this focus tends to be
non-partisan. There are some differences between groups of MPs: Younger,
more recently elected MPs score slightly higher in terms of constituency focus,
there is some evidence pointing toward MPs in more marginal seats focusing
more on the constituents, and the MPs without cabinet and shadow cabinet
positions focus to a sizable degree more on their constituency than do their
cabinet and shadow cabinet colleagues. There is also a visible party effect
where Conservative MPs focus much more on constituents than their Labour
counterparts, who appear to focus more on the party and political views.
However, despite these differences, the proportion of MPs that focus on the
constituency overall is much larger than that who focus on political issues and
the party, making it evident that Facebook is to a great extent used as an
extension of the constituency service dimension of being a representative.

40
This finding replicates much of what has been found in previous studies of
MPs online activities, suggesting that Facebook works like the online sphere in
general: MPs focus on their constituents. Previous studies, like Norton (2007),
do however conclude that the constituency focus on Facebook is an attempt to
bolster the party in the system. There can however not be made any such
conclusions in this dissertation. The dissertation would have benefitted from a
more inclusive index that also measured variables such as general party focus
(not constituency level), and more variables describing the content of the posts,
as this would arguably have made it possible to give a firm conclusion on this.
However, the fact that the posts tend to be non-partisan, often personal and not
focus on political views is highly suggestive in the direction that Facebook is
not necessarily used to bolster the party, but rather to bolster the individual
MP.
Despite this dissertation replicating findings on a primarily constituency
focused way of communicating, there is some evidence suggesting that the way
in which this communication between MPs and constituents take place might
be changing. Previous studies have found that MPs use the internet as an
extension of the traditional way to represent, to disseminate large amounts of
information to, rather than engaging with, their constituents (Norton 2007;
Jackson 2003; Jackson and Lilleker 2009). This study has shown that a
substantial amount of MPs, 28.6%, use Facebook for two-way communication
with their constituents. Even though this does not constitute a majority, it
implies that there is a certain level of two-way communication between MPs
and constituents on Facebook that has not been found in previous studies.

41
Because of this change from previous studies, it can therefore be suggested that
MPs increasingly use the internet, and specifically Facebook, to engage with
constituents beyond the traditional fashion. As the data also shows that it is the
younger and more recently elected MPs who are more likely to be responsive
on Facebook, it can be reasonable to assume that with the intake of new,
younger MPs, there might be increased levels of engagement with constituents
on Facebook. As this dissertation has seen, there are some MPs who innovate
in ways to use social media for two-way communication6. With this innovation
it might be possible that there will be a diffusion of these techniques, in the
same way there has been diffusion in the use of websites and social media
(Norton 2007; Willamson 2009; Jackson and Lilleker 2009), to further expand
this way of utilising Facebook. It is possible that there could be some sort of
critical mass effect, where when a large enough number uses two-way
communication online and e-representation techniques, it might be adopted by
more MPs and become the norm rather than the exception. However, this will
depend on whether MPs see the usefulness of such usage. Interviews with MPs
would have helped to nuance these predictions, as it would have helped to
better understand the reasoning behind MPs’ online choices.
Despite the difficulty in saying anything with certainty, this study has
suggested that there are possibilities within Facebook for expanding the way
representation works. If the tendency of constituency focus and online
responsiveness continues, Facebook might alter the possibilities for
6 Examples in chapter 3 and appendix

42
representative democracy. In a time of distrust and disengagement, and where
people are no longer active in political parties, there has been highlighted a
need to find new, alternative ways to increase participation and strengthen the
representational link between people and parliament. The internet has been put
forward as a possible channel for this (Lusoli et al. 2006; Witschge 2004). The
Digital Democracy report (2015) has found that the people want to be able to
communicate with parliament online, suggesting that from the side of the
people, communication with their MPs on Facebook establish a possible
solution. Through Facebook, MPs can inform constituents about their
activities, views and other relevant information, and constituents can comment
on this and discuss issues, both with the MP and other constituents. Facebook
therefore represents the possibility of establishing a direct link from the MP to
all constituents that can enhance representation.
However, for Facebook to become a truly effective platform for representation,
MPs will have to continue to expand their two-way communication and make
sure their posts are accessible to a public wider than those who voted for the
winning party. On the constituency side, there must also be made changes in
the way the population perceive MPs on Facebook. Studies have found that it
is only the most politically active that follow MPs on Facebook and that
politicians tend to reach their own supporters, thus meaning that politicians’
communication on social media is to a great extent preaching to the converted
(Norris 2006, also Norris and Curtice 2008; Karlsen 2015; Lusoli et al. 2006).
For expanded representation on Facebook to work, MPs’ Facebook pages must

43
become Liked by not just the most politically active and their strong
supporters, but by the wider population of the constituency.
Despite the possibility for an expansion of online representation, there are
some clear limits. It is firstly unlikely that there will be a great change in how
the population use Facebook. Even though MPs might increasingly use
Facebook in ways that could open for more contact, it is unlikely that they will
reach all people in their constituency with this limited type of contact therefore
making the communication less representative. It is secondly very probable
that the quality of the contact through social media is poorer than face-to-face
contact. There is therefore a quantity versus quality question that must be
answered, to evaluate whether there is reason expand the use of Facebook.
Further studies might look into who follows MPs on Facebook and how the
population perceive MPs’ Facebook pages. This would shed some light on
what the people want from their representatives, and also whether there is any
reason for MPs to keep expanding their representational activities on
Facebook.
This dissertation has shown that Facebook is used, and has the potential to be
used even further, as a way in which MPs can strengthen their individual
position independently from the party by communicating directly with their
constituents. There are differences between how different groups of MPs
communicate on Facebook, based on party, intake, age and position in
parliament, but there can be witnessed a general constituency focus in their
use. Facebook consequently has the potential to strengthen the constituency

44
representational link in a time of party decline and decreased trust. However, it
is unlikely that Facebook can change representation completely, both because
of issues on the side of the MP and on the side of the constituents. On the other
hand, it may have the potential to add an extra dimension that expands the
representative basis of the British parliament. It might be a way in which
certain groups of the population can feel closer to their local MP, and feel as
though politics is becoming more about the people again.

45
Appendix: Code Book
Every individual post an MP posted is given either 0 or 1 in the different
categories.
Frequency
All posts from 29th of January to 29th of February are counted, except from
change of the page’s profile or cover photo.
Constituency Focus
Constituency Focus is measured by the number of posts that are directed at the
constituency. Every post of the individual MPs are analysed to recognise where
the focus of each posts is, and the posts with a clear constituency focus are
given 1 for Constituency Focus.
Posts about the MPs’ activities in the constituency
One type of post that is counted as a post focused on the constituency is a post
that reports on the constituency and the MPs’ activities in it.
Suella Fernandes, Conservative MP for Fareham post constitutes an example of
a post directed at constituents:
“Some delicious fair trade chocolate tasting (and dried fruits for me) to mark
FairTrade in Fareham. Good to support this with Mayor and Mayoress Ford
and Cllr Sean Woodward. Well done to Rachel Hicks and the walking, talking
banana!”
Post given 1 on Constituency Focus

46
Information about local issues and events
Another type of post that is coded as focused on the constituency is reports of
information about what is happening in the constituency. This can either be
practical information, such as Gordon Henderson, Conservative MP for
Sittingbounrne and Sheppey post abut roadwork:
”A249 Update - 4th February 2016. Good news! Please find below the press
release I have just received from Highways England: A249 near Sittingbourne
to reopen tomorrow. Both lanes on the northbound A249 are expected to
reopen tomorrow morning (Friday 5 February) following the completion of
work to repair damage caused by a burst water main last month”.
Or it can be about upcoming events that constituents might be interested in.
Such as Sarah Newton’s, Conservative MP for Truro and Falmouth, post about
a local event in Truro saying:
”Do come along and join me for this great local event and support Shelterbox”
and linking to a page with information about the event.
MPs congratulating a constituent
Another example of an MP that directs itself at constituents is when an MP
takes time to congratulate a local constituent. Such as Richard Arkless, SNP
MP for Dumfries and Galloway’s post about a local constituents involvement
in Sport Relief 2016 saying “Well done Lindsey!” and linking to an newspaper
article on what she is doing.

47
Posts about surgeries or other meetings
A very common type of post that counts as a post directed at constituents is
about local meet-ups or surgeries in the constituency. In these posts the MP is
directing the post at constituents and asking them to meet. Examples includes
Tim Farron, Liberal Democrat MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale post about a
open meeting was having:
”If there's any issue I can help you with and you're able to get to Windermere
tomorrow afternoon, please come along to the Marchesi Centre between 4
o'clock and 5 o'clock and I'll do my best to help.”
Or, Stephen Kinnock Labour MP for Aberavon’s post saying:
“I will be holding my next advice surgery in Briton Ferry Community Centre
on Friday 4th March between 5.30 and 6.30pm“.
Posts about MPs activities who are being related to the constituency
Other examples of posts directed at constituents can be about activities of the
MP that is not directly related to the MPs constituency work, but the MP still
addresses his or hers local constituents. Example of this includes Michael
Dugher Labour MP for Barnsley East’s post about his meeting in parliament
with the Alzheimer society, reporting that:
“(…) Barnsley Hospital is outperforming the national average length of stay
for dementia patients, which is very important for making treatment less
frightening and confusing. Barnsley Hospital and charities like BIADS, of
which I am proud to be a patron, do fantastic work caring for individuals and
families who are impacted by dementia and it is welcome news that our local
health services are helping to fix dementia care.”

48
Posts about MPs activities in parliament being directed at the constituency
Some MPs also addresses their activities in parliament to their constituents by
making it relevant for their constituents. An example of this is Tim Loughton,
Conservative MP for East Worthing and Shoreham’s post about his speech in a
Westminster Hall debate on the performance of Southern (Govia Thameslink
Railway) attaching a video and writing:
“(…) I brought up how I had received an email just that morning from a
constituent saying that they had just been told that the 7.31 am from
Shoreham-by-Sea had been cancelled. At 7.35 am, they saw it shoot through
Shoreham station. Later in the day, I found out that, in fact, the train had not
been cancelled(…)”.
Posts about something relevant to the constituency
Finally, if a post does not mention the constituency explicitly, but something
that is otherwise related to the constituency, and almost exclusively the
constituency, it is also classified as focused on the constituents. For instance,
Stephen Doughty, Labour MP for Cardiff South and Penarth, post about the
local asylum centre Lynx house does not explicitly mention the constituency,
but is clearly aimed at constituents:
”Excellent write up of the latest revelations in the Clearsprings asylum
controversy being pursued by me and Jo Stevens. CEO was forced to apologise
today to Home Affairs Committee for red bands scandal + extraordinary
revelations about how their Chair was paid £960k last year and the CEO
£200k+ after my research into company records. Tomorrow I have secured a
Commons debate to question Home Office Minister on what they knew and
how these contracts are being monitored - huge questions about whether they
are doing right by either the vulnerable people fleeing persecution or the
communities they live in”.

49
Posts with no special constituency focus
Any post that does not mention the constituency or direct itself at the
constituency in any explicit way is not regarded as focused on constituency.
This can either be posts directed at all partisans or the whole nation.
Posts about a whole region
However, a post that focuses on something that is of the interests of a whole
region (eg. Scotland, Cornwall, London) does not count as a post directed at
the constituency. For instance Scott Mann, Conservative MP for North
Cornwall posted:
“Delighted to join Cornwall colleagues to welcome bouquets of magnolias to
10, Downing Street to mark the early arrival of spring to Cornwall (…) This is
the fifth year spring has been declared in this way for Cornwall and the first
time a bouquet has been presented to Downing Street to mark the occasion.”
This clearly relates to Cornwall, but not his constituency of North Cornwall
directly, and is thus not included in constituency focus.
Focus on all Voters in the Constituency
Focus on all Voters in the Constituency is measured by the number of posts
that directs itself at all constituents without excluding any groups. Every post
directed at all people in the constituency, thus without any partisan slant, is
given 1 on Focus on all Voters in the Constituency.

50
Campaigning posts
A common example of posts directed at only the partisans is campaigning
posts, which is especially very prevalent in the Scottish and Welsh seats in the
period in question. SNP MP of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Paul
Monaghan’s post about campaigning for SNP Scottish Parliament candidates in
his constituency is an example of a post directed at constituents, but only his
partisans:
“Heading for Thurso this morning to support Gail Ross SNP and her
campaign for #Holyrood16. We'll be on the High Street from 10:00am #SNP”
The text was accompanied by a photo saying: ”Help Elect Gail Ross”.
Another example is posting about partisan events. Angela Eagle, Labour MP
for Wallasey, post is an example of this:
“Thank you to all the Labour party members, new and old, for our coffee &
cake evening”.
Another example is Richard Burgon, Labour MP for East Leeds, post about an
East Leeds Labour event saying:
“I'm looking forward to welcoming my friend and Shadow Treasury team
colleague Rebecca Long Bailey to East Leeds Labour Party next Friday".
Post given 0 on Focus on all Constituents
Criticising the local party or local council
Further on, criticising the local council or the other party in the constituency is
also counted as partisan communication. An example of this is Steven
Paterson, SNP MP for Stirling:
”The only way to raise income tax in the Scottish Parliament is to raise it for
everyone. Labour has some serious explaining to do after they proposed a plan
to raise income tax by 1% - a plan that would hit hardest in the pockets of the
poorest. A blanket tax on every earner is not a progressive tax policy, it is a
regressive one. It is no wonder that this sorry party is now polling behind the
Tories in Scotland. Moray residents will be relieved to learn that their

51
Council's ridiculous proposal to hike Council Tax by 18% has been
abandoned.”
Posting information about the governments activities
Informing about the activities of the government is however not seen as
partisan, unless it includes a political message, as it arguably is information
that is relevant to everyone. For instance, posting about the new government
policy of 30 hours of free childcare. Even though it comes from the
Conservative party, it is information to the entire population.
This is however something that perhaps should have been nuanced, as posting
such posts is a way to make oneself look good for the party.
Posts complaining about the government (affecting all constituents)
Likewise, complaining about the government does not have to be partisan
either. If the government is doing something that is arguably affecting all
constituents, regardless of partisan belonging, and is regarded as focus on all
voters. An example includes the Cumbria floods, where several Cumbria MPs
such as Jamie Reed Labour MP for Copeland posted about the government’s
failure to apply for EU funds:
“Time is running out. Government's refusal to apply for EU Flood support
fails communities in need. Read my full letter to the Prime Minister here:
http://jamiereed.net/…/government-delay-risks-cumbria-floo…/ To have any
chance of accessing much needed funds, the Government must apply before the
end of the week”.
Such posts are regarded as directed at all constituents.

52
Posts about cross-party political causes
Cross-party political causes are not regarded as partisan. Thus campaigning to
vote leave the European Union is not partisan; it rather potentially addresses
everyone and excludes everyone. An example is Andrea Jenkyns, Conservative
MP for Morley, who posts about vote leave events:
“We are having an Out of the EU rally on Saturday 5th March outside Morley
Town Hall. 930am -1030am. If you are passionate about Brexit and Britain
leaving the EU then please join us. It is not a time for party politics but a time
to put Britain's future first. We look forward to seeing you there. Andrea
Jenkyns MP AND Cllr Robert Finnigan”.
Activities in Parliament
Activities in Parliament is measured by the number of posts where the MP
reports on or references his or hers activities in parliament. Every post
reporting on activities in parliament is given 1 on Activities in Parliament.
Posts about events in parliament
Reporting on Activities in Parliament does in this dissertation not include
information on events going on in parliament, unrelated to the representational
aspect. For instance, Roger Mullin SNP MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath,
post does not count:
“I was pleased to support the Child Rescue Alert at an event in Westminster
last week. Sign up online to receive alerts by email or text - you could help
locate missing children quickly”.
Posts on such events are quite frequent, in February including Alzheimer’s
Society visit to parliament, World Cancer day etc., and such posts will often

53
give 0 in every category expect frequency, unless they are explicitly directed at
the constituency.
Post given 0 on Activities in Parliament
Posts about activities in parliament
What does count as reporting actions in parliament is to post a video, photo or
just a text referring what they did in the parliament. Such posts usually look
like this (example is Jonathan Reynolds, Labour MP for Stalybridge and
Hyde).

54
Posts with blogpost about ‘week in parliament’
Others link to a blogpost about their week in Westminster. For instance Kate
Green, Labour MP for Stretford and Urmston, who posted a link to her blog
with the text:
“You can read my latest blog about my week in Westminster
here:http://ow.ly/YKBdc. It was another busy one dominated by debates on the
EU referendum”.
The SNP produce some blog posts about the party’s ’week in Westminister’.
For SNP MPs who link to this and who feature in it, this will count as reporting
on activities in parliament, for those who do not feature it does not.
Post given 1 on Activities in Parliament if the MP features
Post given 0 on Activities in Parliament if the MP does not feature
Political Views
Political Views is measured by the number of posts where the MP presents or
explains their political views. Every post describing political views is given 1
on Political Views.
Posting a link to political views page
Spreading information about political views can be done through providing a
link to a website where the MPs political views are spelled out. One example
of this is Ben Howlett, Conservative MP for Bath, who posted a link to a
section of his website called ‘my views’ accompanied by the text:
“I regularly update this section of my website on a large variety of topics and
pieces of legislation. I believe its really important that Bath residents can

55
access my views easily so I regularly updated. If you think something is
missing, please do get in touch”.
Post given 1 on Political Views
Posting about views on current political issues
Political views can also be shared by making posts about current political
events that is important to the MP. If a current political event is important for
the MP, a post about it on social media will be a way to inform the local
constituents about the issue and the MPs views on it. One example is the EU
Referendum post, which most MPs will have in some form, informing
constituents about their views on the referendum. This is a clear example of
expression of political view. One example of such a post is Mark Garnier,
Conservative MP for Wyre Forest, post:
“The starting gun has been fired on the EU referendum. Negotiations
completed, the date of the decision about Britain’s future is set for the 23rd
June. Despite voicing my opinions about our membership of the EU at the last
three general elections, in these pages, on broadcast media, and recently as a
signed up member of Conservatives for a Reformed Europe in the national
press, a few people are still unsure where I stand on our membership. So to be
clear, I will be campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU (…)”.
Another example is posts on Trident, such as Marion Fellows’, SNP MP for
Motherwell and Wishaw, post on this:
“The SNP stands against the renewal of Trident. We should be spending
billions on schools, hospitals and policing; not weapons of mass destruction
that can never be used. The threats that we face today as a country are entirely
different from those years ago. We must adapt to the world around us and rid
the world of nuclear weapons.”

56
Linking to a newspaper article – with text
A post of a newspaper link accompanied by a statement of political views
counts as an expression of political views. An example of such a post is
Richard Burgon Labour MP for East Leeds link to an article from the Guardian
called ’Mervyn King – new financial crisis certain without reform of banks’
writing
”This makes grim - but, for those of us who have been speaking up for real
reform of the banking system, sadly not surprising - reading. A "Bankers'
Chancellor" such as George Osborne is part of the problem, not part of the
solution”.
Linking to a newspaper article – without text
A lot of MP will link to newspaper articles. These are not in itself expression
of political views; unless they are accompanied by a text where the MP
explicitly spells out what they view is on the matter. Many links will just be
without any text – this does not count as expression of political views, such as
Conservative MP for Totnes, Sarah Wollastone’s post below:

57
Even though the article expresses a political view, the MP does not say
anything about their opinions, and the post does consequently not count as
expression of political views as it is not explicit.
Reference to a party or candidate
A reference to the MPs party or support of another candidate of the party is not
expression of political views in itself. There must be referenced to a specific
policy or political issue. For instance, Angela Crawley, SNP MP for Lanark
and Hamilton East, post with an SNP photo about the Scottish funding deal
saying: “A strong Government fighting Scotland's corner at every turn”, is not
counted as a political view as it only expresses loyalty to a party rather than
actually expressing views about a political issue.
Posts about dissatisfaction with another party’s policies – without alternative
Dissatisfaction with another party’s policies does not count in itself, unless the
alternative is explicit for it to be providing information about political views.
For instance, Angela Eagle, Labour MP for Wallasey, post linking to an article
on the Conservative Party ending free school meals saying:
“Tory plans to scrap a free school meals fund for Infant Schools is worse than
milk snatching”.
This cannot be counted as a political view as there is no explicit political view
expressed, just dissatisfaction with the governments policies.

58
Posts about dissatisfaction with another party’s policies – with alternative
If the post complains about another party’s policy, and includes a suggested
alternative, it is counted as a political view. For example, Luciana Berger,
Labour MP for Liverpool Wavertree’s, post saying:
“Joint blog from Lucy Powell and I - Government must heed warning from
teachers and make child #mentalhealth a priority”
Accompanied with the text is a link to a blog explicitly expressing their view
on what should be done to mental health is counted as an expression of
political view.
Reporting on activities in parliament with expression of political views
Reporting in activities in parliament can often be expression of political views
if what is being expressed. An example of this is Gavin Newlands SNP MP for
Paisley and Renfrewshire North’s post on his WAPSI campaign speech:
“Earlier today, I was able to support the WASPI campaign once again in
calling for a transitional arrangement to be introduced to help those women
who have been affected by changes made to the age of when they will start to
receive their state pensions. These changes have meant that some women will
now have to wait an additional 6 years until they start to receive their state
pension, and as a result this is pushing more women into poverty. It was
shameful that the Minister refused to listen to the harrowing stories of women
in my constituency who have been affected by these changes. The UK
Government can no longer ignore the views of these women and it’s about time
that they responded appropriately”.

59
Responsiveness
Responsiveness is measured in an either or way and it depends on whether
there are two or more examples of interaction using the medium Facebook.
Responding to comments
One example of a way to be responsive is to reply to comments left on the
posts on the page. Below it can be seen how Peter Kyle, Conservative MP for
Hove and Portslade, answers constituents on his posts both about everyday
things and political matters:
MP given 1 on Responsiveness if done twice
Linking to polls or surveys
Another example of using Facebook for responsiveness is to link to polls or
surveys to get views/suggestions of constitutes. One example of such use of
Facebook is Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham, Jon Cruddas, who
frequently uses surveys and polls to hear his constituents opinions:
“I've been contacted by hundreds of local women over the past few weeks
regarding their pensions. The dispute which was debated by MPs this month
centres on changes to the speed of transition from age 60 to 66 which will
leave many women in financial difficulty at a time of life when they should be

60
secure. I am in full support of the campaign against state pension inequality,
but I want to know what local women think. Please take a few moments to read
the article on my website and fill out my survey.”
Even though this is not using Facebook directly for interactivity, it is using the
online dimension for interactivity and linking to it on Facebook. It does
therefore counts as responsiveness.
MP given 1 on Responsiveness if done twice
E-surgeries
Some MPs use Facebook even further for two-way communication and have
introduced online surgeries. Drew Hendry SNP MP for Inverness, Nairn,
Badenoch and Strathspey does for instance have Facebook Q&A sessions on
his Facebook page where he invites constituents to raise any concerns they
have by leaving posts:
“As your local MP I want to make sure that I am highlighting issues that are
important to you. Although tonight's facebook chat is focused on mobile signal
issues, feel free to let me know about any issues that you need my assistance
with”.
Another example of this is Paul Maskey, Sinn Fein MP for West Belfast, who
on his side has introduced an ‘Online Constituency Service’ by inviting
constituents to contact him on Facebook and Twitter at particular times,
opening for confidentiality by sending personal/direct messages on Twitter and
Facebook.
“Back tomorrow with another #AskYourMP. Between 1pm and 3pm, I'll be
behind the keyboard to offer any advice or assistance I can. Get in touch and
share with your friends!”
Instances of such two-way communication give an instant score of 1 for
responsiveness.
MP given 1 on Responsiveness

61
Posting email or encouraging offline contact
Posting their email address and asking constituents to contact them there, or
encouraging constituents to come see them on their surgeries, is on the other
hand not being responsive on Facebook. For it to be responsive on Facebook,
the medium must be used in itself to be responsive rather than using other,
more traditional, tools.
MP given 0 on Responsiveness
Personalisation
Being personal on social media is measured in an either or way. For an MP to
get 1 rather than 0 on this measure their posts in the period must include
personal pronouns and non-official photos.
Personal pronouns
They must firstly use personal pronouns, such as I think or I believe or I did.
MP given 1 on Personalisation if combined with others
Non-official photos
They must secondly include a photo of the candidate, which is not an official
photo, thus giving the reader a peak into the everyday life of the MP. Examples
can include anything from photos taken in a professional setting, but by the
MPs office itself, such as Oliver Dowden, Conservative MP for Hertsmere’s
photo below:

62
It can however also be much more personal, such as Conservative MP for
Gosport, Stubbington, Lee-on-the-Solent and Hill Head Caroline Dinenage’s
photo of her son:
MP given 1 on Personalisation if combined with others

63
Official photos
Photos such as this example from Labour MP of Bootle Peter Dowd, which is
clearly taken in a formal setting, does not count as being personal:
MP given 0 on Personalisation
Accessibility
Accessibility of posts is measured by the degree to which the posts are easy to
read for the constituents. Every post deemed accessible is given 1 on
Accessibility.
Long posts
A very long post is not accessible as it takes long time to read. The cut off
point for ‘too long’ is deemed to be when one has to press the ‘continue
reading’ button on Facebook to see the entire post. An example of a too long
post is Michael Fabricant, Conservative MP for Litchfield, post of his article in
the Daily Telegraph:

64
However, if the MP links to a longer text and gives a brief description of what
it is this constitutes an accessible post, thus scoring 1 on accessibility.
Post given 0 on Accessibility
Links without description
Linking to a newspaper article, blog post or any other link without any further
explanation also makes the post inaccessible, as it requires the reader to click
an additional link and read a large quantity of text to understand the message of
the post. This example is SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire Peter
Wishart’s post:

65
Links with description
On the other hand, if the newspaper article, blog post or any other link is
accompanied by a short text describing the content, it is accessible as it gives
the constituents and overview of the message with the opportunity to read
further. This example is from Alison Thewliss, SNP MP for Glasgow Central:
Posting a tweet or part of blog post
Posting a tweet or part of a blog post as a Facebook post also makes the post
inaccessible. Such posts are formatted in a way that is unsuited to the medium,
and thus makes it difficult for the reader to read.
One example is Liam Fox, Conservative MP for North Somerset, who only
posts tweets on his Facebook page:
”On @VictoriaLIVE #VictoriaLive with @BBCJoannaG good studio audience
debate on #EUreferendum #Brexit @BBCTwo https://t.co/TI1Tzdxcic”

66
This makes sense on Twitter, but not on Facebook where the @ function has
no effect and the reader is used to longer more plain written texts.
Posts containing difficult language
If the post contains difficult or parliamentary language it will not be accessible
to all constituents. Everyone won’t be able to understand the content. This can
either be in written form. Either using parliamentary words or acronyms such
as WAPSI without any further explanations. More commonly however, if an
MP posts a video of them speaking up in parliament with no explanation.
Post not in English
Finally, a post that is in not in English is also inaccessible. Even if the
constituency to a large degree do speak a different language, it does mean that
the people in the constituency who do not speak the local language as well as
people from outside the constituency are unable to read the post. One example
is Liz Saville Roberts Plaid Cymru MP for Dwyfor Meirionnydd post in
As can be seen, Facebook offers a translation opportunity but this could lose
important information.

67

68
Bibliography
Allen, P., and Cairney, P., 2015. What Do We Mean When We Talk about the
‘Political Class’? Political Studies Review,
André, A, and Depauw, S., 2013. District Magnitude and Home Styles of
Representation in European Democracies. West European Politics,
36(5), pp. 986-1006.
Auty, C., 2005. UK Elected Representatives and their Weblogs: First
Impressions. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 57(4),
pp. 338–355.
van Biezen, I., Mair, P., and Poguntke, T., 2012. Going, going,… gone? The
decline of party membership in contemporary Europe. European
Journal of Political Research, 51, pp.24-56.
van Biezen, I., and Poguntke, T., 2014. The Decline of Membership-Based
Politics. Party Politics, 20, pp.205-216.
British Election Study, 2015. Version 2.1 2015 BES Constituency Results with
Census and Candidate Data [Online]. Available from:
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/data-object/2015-bes-
constituency-results-with-census-and-candidate-data/ [Accessed 4 April
2016].
Cain, B., Ferejohn, J., and Fiorina, M., 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency
Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Cairney, P., 2014. What is the problem with the British political class?
[Online]. Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy. Available from:

69
https://paulcairney.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/what-is-the-problem-
with-the-british-political-class/ [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Carey, J. M., and Shugart, M.S., 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote:
A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies, 14(4), pp.
417–39.
Coxall, B., and Robins, L., 1998. Contemporary British Politics, 3rd ed.
Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Curtice, P., and Park, A., 2010. A tale of two crisis: banks, MPs’ expenses and
public opinion. In: A. Park, J. Curtice, E. Clery and C. Bryson. British
Social Attitudes: Exploring Labour’s Legacy. London: Sage, pp.
Dalton, R.J., 2000. The Decline of Party Identification. In: R.J. Dalton and
M.P. Wattenberg, eds. Parties without Partisans. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 19-36.
Dalton, R.J., McAllister, I., and Wattenberg, M.P., 2000. The Consequences of
Partisan Dealignment. In: R.J. Dalton and M.P. Wattenberg, eds.
Parties without Partisans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 37-63.
Dalton, R.J., Farrell, D., and McAllister, I., 2011. Political Parties and
Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracies. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Dalton, R.J., and Weldon, S.A., 2005. Public Images of Political Parties: A
Necessary Evil? West European Politics, 28(5), pp.921-951.
Davidson, L., 2015. Is your daily social media usage higher than average?
[Online]. The Telegraph. Available from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandt

70
elecoms/11610959/Is-your-daily-social-media-usage-higher-than-
average.html [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Digital Democracy Commission, 2015. Open up! Report of the Speaker’s
Commission on Digital Democracy [Online]. Available from:
http://www.digitaldemocracy.parliament.uk/documents/Open-Up-
Digital-Democracy-Report.pdf [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Eulau, H., and Karps, P.D., 1977. The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying
Components of Responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 2(3), pp.
233-254.
Enli, G.S., and Skogerbø, E., 2013. Personalised Campaigns in Party-Centered
Politics. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), pp. 757-774.
Enli, G. S. & Thumin, N., 2012. Socializing and self-representation online:
exploring Facebook. Observatorio Journal, 6, pp. 87–105.
Esaiasson, P., 2000. How members in parliament define their task. In: P.
Esaiasson and K. Heidar, eds. Beyond Westminster and Congress: The
Nordic Experience. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Esaiasson, P., and Holmberg, S., 1996. Representation from Above: Members
of parliament and representative democracy in Sweden. Dartmouth:
Aldershot.
Farrell, D.M., and Webb, P., 2000. Political Parties and Campaign
Organizations. In: R.J. Dalton and M.P. Wattenberg, eds. Parties
without Partisans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 102-128.
Fenno, R., 1978. Home Style: House Members in their Districts. Harlow:
Longman.

71
Francoli, M. and Ward, S., 2008. 21st Century Soapboxes? MPs and their
Blogs. Information Polity, 13 (1/2), pp. 21–40.
Halpern, D., and Gibbs, J., 2012. Social media as a catalyst for online
deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for
political expression. Computers in Human Behaviour, 29(3), pp. 1159-
1168.
Jackson, N.A., 2003. MPs and web techonologies: An untapped opportunity?
Journal of Public Affairs, 3(2), pp.124-137.
Jackson, N.A., 2008. Representation in the Blogosphere: MPs and their New
Constituents. Parliamentary Affairs, 61 (4), 642–660.
Jackson, N.A., and Lilleker, D.G., 2009. MPs and E-representation: Me,
Myspace and I. British Politics, 4(2), pp. 236-264.
Jackson, N.A., and Lilleker, D.G., 2011. Microblogging, Constituency Service
and Impression Management: UK MPs and the Use of Twitter. The
Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(1), pp. 86–105.
Judge, D., 1993. The Parliamentary State. London: Sage.
Judge, D., 1999a. Representation: Theory and Practice in Britain. London:
Routledge.
Judge, D., 1999b. Representation in Westminster in the 1990s: The Ghost of
Edmund Bruke. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 5(1), pp. 25– 8.
Karlsen, R., 2009. Campaign Communication and the Internet: Party Strategy
in the 2005 Norwegian Election Campaigns. Journal of Elections,
Public Opinion and Parties, 19(2), pp. 183-202.

Dissertation Final2

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (12)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Dissertation Final2

Similar to Dissertation Final2 (20)

Dissertation Final2