• Our work
    • projects
      • research
        • Audit of Political Engagement »
        • Delegated Legislation »
        • Brexit and Parliament »
        • Westminster Lens: Parliamentary Data »
        • A Year in the Life: From Member of Public to Member of Parliament »
        • Parliaments, Public Engagement and Poverty Reduction »
        • Future Parliament: Restoration and Reform of the Palace of Westminster »
    • insight
      • Statutory Instrument Tracker »
    • publications
      • Publications Home »
      • reports
        • Audit of Political Engagement 15 (2018) »
        • The Devil is in the Detail: Parliament and Delegated Legislation »
        • Taking Back Control for Brexit and Beyond: Delegated Legislation, Parliamentary Scrutiny and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill »
  • About
    • about
      • who-we-are
        • What we do »
      • contact
        • Contact us »
        • Our people »
      • careers
        • Jobs »
      • legal
        • How we are funded »
        • Privacy policy »
  • Blog
    • blog
      • Despatch Box Blog »
  • Media
    • media
      • Media Home »
  • Events
    • events
      • Events »
    • Join our newsletter

      Get the latest updates on our research and events, together with expert comment and analysis, delivered to your inbox.

      You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy here.

      Thank you!

      You have been successfully added to our monthly newsletter list.

      Follow us

      :( Oops! Something went wrong...

      Please reload the page and try again.

      Follow us

    Hansard Society logoHansard Society logo
      • projects
        • research
          • Audit of Political Engagement »
          • Delegated Legislation »
          • Brexit and Parliament »
          • Westminster Lens: Parliamentary Data »
          • A Year in the Life: From Member of Public to Member of Parliament »
          • Parliaments, Public Engagement and Poverty Reduction »
          • Future Parliament: Restoration and Reform of the Palace of Westminster »
      • insight
        • Statutory Instrument Tracker »
      • publications
        • Publications Home »
        • reports
          • Audit of Political Engagement 15 (2018) »
          • The Devil is in the Detail: Parliament and Delegated Legislation »
          • Taking Back Control for Brexit and Beyond: Delegated Legislation, Parliamentary Scrutiny and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill »
      • about
        • who-we-are
          • What we do »
        • contact
          • Contact us »
          • Our people »
        • careers
          • Jobs »
        • legal
          • How we are funded »
          • Privacy policy »
      • Join our newsletter

        Get the latest updates on our research and events, together with expert comment and analysis, delivered to your inbox.

        You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy here.

        Thank you!

        You have been successfully added to our monthly newsletter list.

        Follow us

        :( Oops! Something went wrong...

        Please reload the page and try again.

        Follow us

    • Blog
      • blog
        • Despatch Box Blog »
    • Media
      • media
        • Media Home »
    • Events
      • events
        • Events »
    • Scholars
    Prime Minister Theresa May and President Donald Trump at a press conference during May's first visit to the US since Trump took power
    blog / 19.02.17

    Government squandered public education opportunity with dismissive response to anti-Trump state visit e-petition

    Share this

    Last week the government had the opportunity to engage directly with 1.8 million citizens. Presented with a communication opportunity on this scale, more thought and effort should have been applied to crafting the message.

    Photo of Hansard Society Director, Dr Ruth Fox

    Dr Ruth Fox

    Director and Head of Research, Hansard Society

    Ruth is responsible for the strategic direction and performance of the Society and leads its research programme. She has appeared before more than a dozen parliamentary select committees and inquiries, and regularly contributes to a wide range of current affairs programmes on radio and television, commentating on parliamentary process and political reform.

    In 2012 she served as adviser to the independent Commission on Political and Democratic Reform in Gibraltar, and in 2013 as an independent member of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Committee Review Group. Prior to joining the Society in 2008 she was head of research and communications for a Labour MP and Minister and ran his general election campaigns in 2001 and 2005 in a key marginal constituency.

    In 2004 she worked for Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign in the battleground state of Florida. From 1999-2001 she worked as a Client Manager and historical adviser at the Public Record Office (now the National Archives) after being awarded a PhD in political history (on the electoral strategy and philosophy of the Liberal Party 1970-1983) from the University of Leeds where she also taught Modern European History and Contemporary International Politics.

    Unfortunately, what the 1.8 million signatories to the anti-Trump state visit e-petition got was a bland, 122-word brush-off that sounded as if it had been written by a grumpy minister forced to stay behind to cook up the lines after class.

    It was so poor they didn’t really need to waste 122 words when just 33 would have sufficed. Summed up, ‘the Government believes the US President should be extended the full courtesy of a State Visit; the date and arrangements have not been finalised; and the government does not agree with the petition.’

    It is responses like this – that treat the public with dismissive, high-handed disdain – that infuriates people, in this case those who had bothered to sign the petition.

    Whether you agree with the e-petition or not, 1.8 million of our fellow citizens clearly felt strongly enough to support it. The request was, as one petitioner put it, ‘responsibly and temperately expressed’ - they hadn’t called for Trump to be banned from Britain, merely that he ‘not be honoured beyond the bare essentials due to his office’.

    The government’s response has variously been described to me by correspondents in recent days as ‘rubbish’, ‘dismissive’, ‘anodyne’ and ‘abrupt’. The tone and content conveyed the impression that the government couldn’t be bothered properly engaging with petitioners’ concerns.

    E-petitions: a mechanism for civic education

    E-petitions are a great way to get an issue on to or higher up the political agenda. They can attract public and media attention and serve a useful ‘fire alarm’ function, providing citizens with an opportunity to air their views on a national platform. But they are also a means for our politicians to engage citizens on the issues and to facilitate deliberation on the complexities and nuances that underpin public policy.

    With some thought, the government could have sent a fuller, more nuanced response which sought to grapple with the issues surrounding this debate. It’s clear that many people – including lots of MPs and journalists – don’t know how state visits work; how many there have been and by whom; and what role Parliament plays. (My colleague Brigid Fowler has crunched the data so you don’t have to!)

    Providing some background and context might have been useful; it would at least have given the impression that the government was making an effort to engage and explain the issues. It could have set the matter in historical and foreign policy context: the data suggests, for example, that historically the US has been neglected when it comes to state visits (and in doing so perhaps they might have answered the intriguing question of why Mexico has had four state visits but the US only two!). They might even have referenced the suggestion from the Lord Speaker that the rules governing the use of Westminster Hall and the wider parliamentary estate for State Visits be reviewed, so that the process is more transparent and open in the future. But instead they chose the path of least effort and so squandered a great public education opportunity.

    Our annual Audit of Public Engagement shows that the public is generally more likely to sign a petition than they are to engage in most other forms of democratic activity apart from voting. The e-petitions system thus has symbolic as well as practical value in better linking Parliament and the public. Five years ago we published a report What Next for E-petitions? outlining the reforms necessary to improve the system. Many of our proposals, including the setting up of a Petitions Committee, were subsequently adopted wholesale by the House of Commons and form the backbone of the system we have today and which is largely regarded as much more effective than was the case in the last Parliament. But this incident shows there is no room for complacency.

    The government has to decide how responsive it is prepared to be to public concerns; it doesn’t have to agree with petitioners, merely be prepared to go the extra mile to communicate with them in a way that seeks to improve their perception of the process. If petitioners don’t get more thoughtful, nuanced responses the system will simply feed the anti-politics mood of cynicism and disdain.

    Parliament has significantly enhanced its public engagement efforts through the new Petitions Committee (as Prof. Cristina Leston-Bandeira has explained here). The Government should now do the same. Departments spend millions of pounds hiring consultants to put together public education advertisements for TV and social media. E-petition responses can similarly reach millions of people – so it should start treating the petitioning system as a mass civic education exercise rather than a political nuisance.

    Photo Credit: Jay Allen provided under a CreativeCommons licence.


    Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it

    Related

    The Queen's Speech opening the 2015 parliamentary session
    blog / 21.06.17

    The State Opening of Parliament: history, tradition and what to expect

    People on Westminster Bridge
    blog / 26.04.17

    Audit 14 key findings (video)

    Join our newsletter

    Get the latest updates on our research and events, together with expert comment and analysis, delivered to your inbox.

    You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy here.

    Thank you!

    You have been successfully added to our monthly newsletter list.

    Follow us

    :( Oops! Something went wrong...

    Please reload the page and try again.

    Top 3

    Photo of a clock showing the countdown to Brexit
    blog / 12.02.19

    Can the government get all its Brexit Statutory Instruments through Parliament by exit day on 29 March?

    Westminster Lens logo, Houses of Parliament
    blog / 15.02.19

    Westminster Lens: Brexit Statutory Instruments Dashboard

    Photo of Erskine May, parliamentary procedure
    blog / 25.01.19

    What are Business of the House motions in the House of Commons and how do they work?

    Latest

    Westminster Lens logo, Houses of Parliament
    blog / 15.02.19

    Westminster Lens: Brexit Statutory Instruments Dashboard

    In the run-up to the UK’s exit from the EU on 29 March 2019 we will be tracking the progress made by government and Parliament in preparing the statute book for exit day. Our analysis draws on parliamentary data and our own Statutory Instrument Tracker which we built several years ago to support our research on delegated legislation.

    Westminster Lens: Brexit Statutory Instruments Dashboard
    Photo of a clock showing the countdown to Brexit
    blog / 12.02.19

    Can the government get all its Brexit Statutory Instruments through Parliament by exit day on 29 March?

    There is much speculation that time is running out for pre-Brexit legislation, with – on the SI front – 412 Brexit SIs now laid but potentially up to 200 still to be produced. While the total could prove nearer 500 than 600, even the higher number can still be on the statute book for 29 March, but potentially at some cost to parliamentary scrutiny.

    Can the government get all its Brexit Statutory Instruments through Parliament by exit day on 29 March?
    Ian Paisley Jr campaigning
    blog / 04.02.19

    First use of the Recall of MPs Act: A tough test in North Antrim

    The first use of the Recall of MPs Act 2015 proved a damp squib, with not enough local electors signing the petition to trigger a by-election. This outcome reflected a mixture of challenging local factors in North Antrim and some broader shortcomings that might generate changes for any future use of the Act.

    First use of the Recall of MPs Act: A tough test in North Antrim
    Big Ben wrapped in scaffolding, UK Houses of Parliament, Westminster
    blog / 31.01.19

    Westminster Restoration and Renewal: A year on from the Commons vote to proceed

    It’s a year since the House of Commons voted to proceed with the proposed multi-billion-pound refurbishment of the dangerously dilapidated Palace of Westminster. The vote was a clear step forward, and considerable progress has been made since, but the tight vote and opposition to full decant among Conservative MPs suggest the path ahead could remain rocky.

    Westminster Restoration and Renewal: A year on from the Commons vote to proceed
    Photo of Erskine May, parliamentary procedure
    blog / 25.01.19

    What are Business of the House motions in the House of Commons and how do they work?

    With House of Commons business motions attracting unusual interest and controversy, former Clerk Simon Patrick sets out what they are and how they work.

    What are Business of the House motions in the House of Commons and how do they work?
    Prev
    Next
    • Contact us
    • What we do
    • Jobs
    • Privacy policy
    • Site map

    Join our newsletter

    Get the latest updates on our research and events, together with expert comment and analysis, delivered to your inbox.

    You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy here.

    Thank you!

    You have been successfully added to our monthly newsletter list.

    Follow us

    :( Oops! Something went wrong...

    Please reload the page and try again.

    Copyright © 2018 Hansard Society • Charity No: 1091364 • Registration No: 4332105.