My post on the banning of display cabinets for cigarettes attracted the largest number of comments we have had since starting the blog.  As Croft commented, if the plan was ‘to show the readers what it is like to be intensely lobbied on a hot issue then I think it is a roaring success’.  The responses do indeed give some idea of the material we receive when a particularly contentious issue is being considered by the House.

When such an issue is on the parliamentary agenda, there are usually interest groups encouraging supporters to contact MPs and peers.   We are normally aware when people are being encouraged to write.  On one issue (fox-hunting), I knew the line taken by letter-writers before I had opened the envelopes.  One group had told its members how to address the envelope and adopted a more formal style than usually adopted.  On another issue (assisted dying), I received in one morning ninety-nine letters from individuals expressing their point of view on the issue.  Each was individually written.  The fact that they were part of an organised campaign was given away by the fact that they all arrived in the same envelope!

Those lobbying sometimes confuse quantity with quality.  Some people appear to think that inundating members with lots of letters or e-mails is an effective way of influencing their stance.  Far more important is the quality of the argument.  A few well-argued letters are more likely to affect members’ stances than lots of poorly-argued missives.  On occasion, rants can be counter-productive.  I have sometimes been sympathetic to a particular line but had second-thoughts because the representations in support of that line have been so poorly argued or simply unpleasant.   Conversely, my approach to an issue has on occasion been influenced by a well-argued, and well-informed, letter.

For people who feel strongly on an issue, writing to a parliamentarian can fulfil a safety-valve function.  They have been able to get something off their chest.  In this sense, letters can give some indication of strength of feeling.   Taking into account the depth of feeling as well as the breadth of support is important, though ultimately it is the merits of the argument that really matter.