I'm writing a letter, to whomever

[venta]

So, very shortly after the election I used the handy http://theyworkforyou.com mechanism to write to my MP.

She didn't answer, but I thought OK, fair enough, it's barely after the election, her mechanisms for these things probably aren't properly set up yet.

I wrote to her again today, asking her to sign EDM 210. The EDM is only relevant prior to the budget, and I realise I left it a bit late, but thought it was worth a shot - after all, she might get through her email to read mine in time to sign the EDM.

I've just received a reply from someone whom I infer to be a secretary, or similar, which has a twiddly graphic of the House of Commons portcullis and my MP's details on it, and says:

"If you are a constituent wishing to raise concerns or comments with me, please do so in writing (House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA). Please include your full postal address, telephone number and all relevant details."

So... er... my MP won't respond to email?

That's a bit rubbish.

Update I wrote to theyworkforyou, and they tell me that they were using a different email address for Angie Bray, and that they've updated their records now to use the one on her website.

Comments

[zotz]

Clearly those ones were going to a good email address, at least.

In general, it would pay to stick to the general principle that commmunication should be as accessible, understandable and informative to its recipient as possible. I have been told by one such recipient that it's suboptimal on cases one and three. They still get answers, according to the figures, but she'd rather get emails direct, as she finds them more useful.

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

On the other side, it should be easily accessible to the constituent. Indeed, I would argue more so, as it's not being done for the MPs benefit. And TWFY is more likely to have an up-to-date email address than a constituent, who would have to take steps to locate the MPs email address.

Easer of use, and accessibility for the constituent trumps any concerns of the MP, as far as I'm concerned.

The one place TWFY will wins over a random email is that TWFT insists on a full postal address on all communication.

[zotz]

I think that's rather missing the point. If you're going to the trouble of contacting someone, you maximise your chance of it being understood and acted on if you make it as user-friendly as possible. Refusing to on the grounds that it ought to be someone else's business would be rather perverse. It's presumably about getting results rather than about satisfying our ideas about who's in charge.

Yes, a constituent may have to go to more trouble to get an up-to-date address - I'm arguing that it's worth our time as constituents to do this as it's likely to increase our chances of getting noticed.

Incidentally, based as before on a sample of one, I would imagine that including a full postal address will ensure a postal reply rather than a return email.

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

I'm not refusing to, I'm just suggesting that just because one MP, to wit your sister, for whatever reason, prefers other types of communication does not mean that we should all have to find you our own MPs preferred form of communication, when a simple, centralised, well-known, and easily located, system exists. I don't like receiving HTML emails, but if my clients chose to send them, then it's my job to deal with them.

And including a full postal address will mean that the MP will not ignore the letter, as they will be able to verify that it is from a constituent of theirs. Without such reassurance, any MP will be loath to act, as Erskine May frowns on MPs dealing with cases of other MP's constituents.

[zotz]

People are free to do whatever they want, of course, but personally I suspect that TWFY is less useful than it appears at first sight, and therefore I wouldn't use it personally. Its ease of use doesn't really come into it if I'm not convinced it works. And as I've said already, it's not about anyone ignoring emails via TWFY, but rather that something about the process results in them giving a less clear picture of what the general public's view is.

If you were finding HTML emails slightly unclear or ambiguous, for some reason, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you advised people to use plain-text for best results.

You can't directly verify someone's address from an email. I could claim any name or address and it would probably go through fine.

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

If I'm sending an email, I'm not really concerned what the "general public's view is"; I'm writing on my own behalf. And I don't really see how TWFY clouds that.

HTML emails aren't unclear or ambiguous, I'd just [refer not to see them. And, no, one doesn't tell one's clients what to do. Not if one wishes to keep them. I'm sure your sister, as a lawyer, understands that!

Verification can easily be done from the electoral roll, when armed with a name and an address; it's not perfect, but it's better than a bald email (and it's as good as a letter, too). But it's an important point in a constituency-based system like ours, particularly so for ministers, who prefer other MPs constituents' letters to be vectored through the local MPs.

Just to be clear: I don't actually disagree with your points, but dealing with TWFY is a fairly small inconvenience for MPs; who do have to take into account that most of their constituents don't have the benefit of their education, position, and knowledge of the system.

[zotz]

It is not, as far as I can tell, about inconvenience. It is about knowing how many people have contacted her and what their views are - these presumably being at least partially representative of the general public's view and an indicator thereof. The impression I got from talking to her is that she doesn't feel she gets the same clarity as from individual emails and letters, which I would assume means they have less impact.

It is, as far as I can tell, about clarity. Not hassle. Abandon all talk of inconvenience - it's not the issue here.

And I don't know what about TWFY affects that. As I say, I should probably have asked at the time and may be able to this week.

Anybody can fake a valid name and address in any constituency - pick a surname and search in the phone book. The same is mostly true of physical letters, of course - to an extent it's done on trust, and the fact that it would backfire badly if one were to get caught.

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

Interesting; do you think perhaps she views TWFY as somehow being semi-automated, like an email campaign, and less worthy of attention, compared to individualy sent emails? I'd love to know.

Or does she value individual emails more highly as more deserving as having required more effort?

And I reckon address faking, in any medium, is unlikely; but spamming all 650 MPs' email addresses (without a local address) is a fairly simple matter (about 5 lines of Perl, I reckon). That's something TWFY doesn't allow.

[zotz]

Well, it'd be completely at odds with TWFY's goals. It's interesting that I've not heard of it happening somehow, though (including via paper letters) because it seems so straightforward.

I don't think it's to do with value. She needs to know how widespread support or opposition to various proposals is, and what people's reasons are for liking or not liking them. I don't think she thought she was getting that. I could be wrong - it could be something else - but that was the impression I got. As I say, I should ask her specifically.

[venta.livejournal.com]

I had (formerly) assumed that writing via TWFY would ensure that the mail was as accessible, understandable and informative as possible. If I were an MP, I'd have thought receiving emails in a standard format that has all the relevant details in an expected place would actually have been useful rather than detrimental.

[zotz]

I would have, too, and I really should have asked her for more detail at the time - I'm sure that TWFY would find even a single data point useful.

I may see her this week. I'll try to remember to ask.