Hi Tim, Just a quick question - if this is what you did...
> We actually road-tested > that questionnaire, and most constituents we asked (in the triple digits) > said they would have clicked "NO" to your questionnaire if they had just > received that reply. ... then how do you account for the 127 MPs who, when we last ran the stats back in 2008, got responsiveness rates that were ranked 'Very High'? best, Tom It's also totally false to compare an MP's office, > most of whom have only one or two full-time members of staff (particularly > in the IPSA era) to a Government Department that has an entire > Correspondence Unit whose sole function is to reply to letters to Ministers. > Allow MP's to employ the same number of staff as their European and > American counterparts, and run a proper office, instead of IPSA's > penny-pinching, and more MP's will reply within a fortnight. > Tim > > On 8 September 2011 00:03, Matthew Somerville <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The "artificial deadline" was, I believe, chosen (years ago now) to be >> similar to that set by governmental departments for replies to MPs and Peers >> by ministers/ civil servants (example source at >> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2005-04-06a.137WS.1 ). >> >> Whether something is considered a response or not is up to the person who >> sent the letter in the first place, no-one else, certainly not WriteToThem. >> I would say getting a reply like you quote certainly counts as getting a >> reply in my book, given the questionnaire is clearly worded between getting >> nothing at all (or an auto-response) and getting something. >> >> Yes, WriteToThem only sends questionnaires for the correspondence sent >> through the site (which for some MPs is still fax, not email) - I'm not sure >> how it could cover other forms of correspondence - and so it explicitly >> states that fact, as in the line quoted by the previous poster; it doesn't >> claim in any way to be more than it is. >> >> If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. >> >> ATB, >> Matthew >> >> On 07/09/2011 22:19, e-mail timothy.mullen wrote: >>> >>> Without wishing to offend anyone, the tables on They Work For You are >>> meaningless; having worked in an urban MPs office on casework, it is >>> /impossible/ to meet TWFY's artificial deadline, particularly as they >>> count a letter saying "we've written to the appropriate Minister and >>> will contact you when we receive a reply" as a non-response, and only >>> consider email correspondence, ignoring the old-fashioned hand-written >>> letter or telephone contact, which when I left in 2010 made up at least >>> 70% of constituent contact; I'm afraid those tables are run by people >>> who've no idea what they're talking about. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> developers-public mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >> >> Unsubscribe: >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/timothy.mullen%40ntlworld.com > > > _______________________________________________ > developers-public mailing list > [email protected] > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > Unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/tom%40tomsteinberg.co.uk > _______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
