I am spending the week commuting between the annual conference of the Political Studies Association (PSA), which this year is being held in London, and the Lords. This morning I was at the conference speaking, at rather short notice, on the English Question and the coalition. The purpose of this post, though, is to focus on Westminster. Although both Houses are not sitting, the Palace remains active. Part of the reason is encapsulated in a comment made to me once by an MP: ‘MPs may take holidays, but letter writers do not’. MPs, and peers, continue to receive a mass of correspondence. The growth over the past forty or fifty years has been phenomenal.
The nature of correspondence, though, appears to be changing. At the beginning of each year, I put down a question to find out how many items of correspondence were received in the Palace in the preceding year. The figures for 2005 onwards are (with the number of items, and percentage, going to the Lords in parenthesis):
2005 4,733,000 (estimate) (946,000, 20%)
2006 4,789,935 (no figures for the Lords)
2007 4,199,853 (839,970, 20%)
2008 4,135,144 (620,271, 15%)
2009 3,540,080 (885,020, 25%)
2010 3,082,187 (770,547, 25%)
These figures do not include parcels, courier items, or internal mail.
What is notable is the decline in the incoming volume of mail. There are various possibilities. One is that, for whatever reason, fewer people contact an MP (or peer) – perhaps a recognition that other grievance-chasing agencies are just as (or more) effective, or a response to the expenses scandal (though the decline in volume was in train before that), or even that MPs are more effective in gaining what constituents want, reducing the need for constituents to write more than once or twice.
An alternative explanation is that the volume has not decreased but rather now takes other forms, notably e-mail. It is certainly the case that briefing material now often comes via e-mail – organisations are very alert to the value of sending their missives electronically – and it appears that constituents are increasingly utilising this form of contact. It is quite common for MPs to have an automated response making clear that they can only deal with matters raised by their constituents (and that the sender needs to have included a mailing address).
Given the fact that an e-mail is cheaper and easier to send than a letter, I suspect that the data on snail mail mask an increase in the sheer volume of correspondence. If there has been an increase, this may create problems given the pressure on MPs’ resources. In the wake of the scandal over expenses, electors are in no mood to support more money spent on MPs’ offices, yet as constituents will be none too happy if they do not receive a considered (and quick) response when they contact their MP.
1st Class stamp 46 pence or 75p for large letter.
That’s 9s 2d as I remember it 😉
Email is quicker and MP’s do seem to respond to it, in my experience with James Duddridge. Silver Surfers are now more than able to handle the technology infact I’d say they have an edge over younger models in the thirties and fourties.
I wonder how much of the snail mail was lobbying on behalf of companies and just pure spam ?
Perhaps we should ask Lord Knight for an App to measure amounts of email ?
Carl.H: A great deal of snail mail to MPs comprised (and comprises) lobbying material, though the bulk of actual letters has tended to be constituency mail, mostly casework rather than expressing an opinion on policy. How quickly Members respond to mail, be it snail mail or e-mail, is dependent in large part on how well the Members structure their offices. Some are exceptionally good in responding and others less so.
Silver surfers possibly have more time to devote to writing.
My MP has never failed to respond to every snail-mail, and email, I submit to her; she and her staff work their fingers-to-the-bone tackling our problems.
But the real disaster is that although she acts towards the appropriate authority in every matter raised, no redress nor change-for-the-better is made by any of those responsible authorities, be they Central Government, Local Government, or non-government bodies such as the Utilities.
On enquiring why when I wrote to a number of sitting Parliamentarians including a number of Peers I got no reply nor even an acknowledgement, I was told by an authoritative-source that “Neither your MP nor any other member of Parliament has any duty to respond to you”.
In the light of all this, that we are respectively stumbling across, the http://lordsoftheblog.net comparatively is surely a ‘democratic-miracle’.
2251T190411.JSDM.
milesjsd: The capacity of MPs to achieve a redress of grievance for constituents depends in large measure on what Department and area of policy is involved. If ministerial discretion is possible, then changes can be achieved. In many cases, there is nothing a minister can do, his or her hands being tied by statutory provisions. In many cases, constituents are not seeking a change, but rather an authoritative explanation or justification for some action; MPs are very good in getting that for them.
If you write to your constituency MP, then it is a parliamentary convention that they should respond to you. If you write to other parliamentarians expressing an opinion, it is up to them whether or not they respond. MPs usually have more extensive reseources than peers to reply. If you write seeking assistance, other MPs will explain that you must write to your own constituency MP.
e-mail.
e-mail
The only post which HAS to go snail mail is “contract”, and even that may not be so for much longer.
Twm O’r Nant: It will certainly be interesting to see if the apparent trend of declining snail mail is maintained over the next few years.
Off topic.
It was good to see members not frightened of voicing an opinion to the Government but a little late in my opinion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13137835
Carl.H: Indeed, as you know, I have now done a post on the report.