Ten months after an election that led to a new Government and a third of newly elected MPs at Westminster, knowing how best to engage with MPs remains unclear. The picture is complicated further by the wider context of funding cuts, bringing both added impetus for campaigning and making campaigning more difficult, along with uncertainty about what the ‘big society’ might mean for campaigning. As we shall see, questions have been raised about the very legitimacy of charities campaigning, as opposed to delivering services.
First though, a number of MPs have publicly criticised how charities campaign and the tactics they use. Are such criticisms representative of views among the new Parliament more widely? What should charities be doing to attract MPs’ attention and involvement in their campaigns?
Earlier this year some members of the Public Administration Select Committee questioned the role and focus of charity campaigning. One member, new Conservative MP Robert Halfon, described MPs as living in ‘a twilight world of email tyranny’, and said he was ‘astounded by just how many emails I get from charities and community bodies’.
This adds to the criticism voiced by various newly elected Conservative MPs in the weeks after the election. Last July Charles Walker described a lot of charity campaigning as ‘blunt and backhanded’ arguing that charities ‘assume their concerns must be our concerns. That’s almost bullying, to be honest’. In the same month Conservative MP Dominic Raab had his publicly funded email address removed from the House of Commons listings after his dispute with campaign group 38 degrees, insisting that ‘hundreds’ of campaign groups are ‘flooding MPs inboxes with pro-forma emails, [which] creates an undue administrative burden’. Meanwhile new Conservative MPs Graham Evans, Nick de Bois, Steve Baker and Guy Opperman used an EDM to criticise the effectiveness of EDMs, which he claimed have become a campaign tool for external organisations, with public affairs professionals drafting EDMs and encouraging members of the organisations they represent to send pro forma emails and postcards.
It is easy to generalise from these comments about a more general ill-will towards charity campaigning amongst Conservative MPs or new MPs more widely. Such comments inevitably provoke far greater publicity than the many positive (if less newsworthy) comments we hear about charities’ campaign efforts in our research with MPs.
nfpSynergy regularly surveys MPs on their awareness and opinions of individual campaigns and charities, and also ask for their insights on how charities can best influence them. Immediately after the election there was, unsurprisingly, a tendency for newly elected MPs to have lower awareness of prompted campaigns and to be less likely to take campaign actions. Since the election the gap in awareness between new and returning MPs is narrowing, as MPs settle into their work and charities have longer to build relationships and work with them.
Negative comments tend to concern lack of awareness or disagreement with a campaign’s objectives rather than particular campaign tactics. Whilst our research demonstrates that MPs’ reactions to campaigning is not as negative as the criticisms above suggest, these criticisms should nevertheless serve as an impetus for charities to focus on the campaigning techniques that really work. A number of findings have remained consistent before and after the election with respect to the key ways to campaign with MPs.
Our research consistently highlights the importance of campaign methods involving MP’s constituencies. MPs often cite constituency focused forms of contact as influential whilst relatively few feel that they are frequent, demonstrating an opportunity for charities to improve. This applies in particular to new MPs. Six months after the election, returning MPs were significantly more likely than new MPs to mention constituency correspondence (31% compared to 20%) and constituency business (16% compared to 7%) as ways in which charities most frequently contact them.
Over the last few months the Royal British Legion’s ‘Time to do your bit’ campaign has consistently topped questions in our research asking about campaign awareness and support. This is partly down to perceived importance of the cause, with 1 in 6 MPs (rising to 1 in 4 Tories) selecting the armed forces as one of three areas they are most concerned about, behind only cancer, child poverty and overseas aid. When asked why they support this campaign, comments include ‘close contact in my constituency’, ‘local support’ and that it ‘means a lot to my voters’. Most tellingly though, 7 in 10 MPs said that they came into contact with the Royal British Legion in their constituency, compared to an average of 1 in 10 MPs for other charities prompted.[fn]nfpSynergy, January/February 2011. Charity Parliamentary Monitor of 150 MPs[/fn]
Open-ended questions about how best to influence MPs also resulted in spontaneous comments about involving constituents in campaigns, as well as offering MPs statistics and information about what the campaign means for their constituents. Related to this, MPs are keen that all forms of contact are targeted and personal to them. Charities should seek to establish connections with MPs who really care about their issue and ensure that concise, informative briefings are sent when they are most needed.
The discussion has so far focused on how to campaign. Prior to the election Conservative MP Oliver Letwin went further and expressed his regret that ‘so much of the effort of some parties in the voluntary sector is devoted to campaigning’ rather than service provision.
Whilst charities should be prepared to demonstrate the case for charity campaigning, reassuringly our research shows little evidence of scepticism about the legitimacy of charity campaigning among MPs more widely. Tory MPs are less likely than Labour and Lib Dems to support prompted charity campaigns. A small number of Conservative MPs explain their lack of support for a particular campaign because it or the charity is ‘too political’. This is generally in the sense that particular charities are too closely aligned to a party or are politically biased. Far from criticising charities for campaigning itself, the most commonly expressed reason for not supporting a campaign is not being aware of it.
Ensuring that your charity’s campaign stands out in a crowded field is no easy task. However even with the current uncertainties, our research suggests that some things remain constant. Make the most of constituency forms of contact, and above all, ensure that you have a well-focused, personalised message and clearly defined campaign aims.
If you are interested in finding out more about our parliamentary tracking research please get in touch with Amandine at cpm@nfpsynergy.net or call 0207 4268888.