Hi Francis and Tom, To answer your question first Francis, quite simply by setting a more realistic timeframe for MPs responses; to argue that MPs, with an office staff of two, three or four (the maximum IPSA's Staffing Budget will stretch to), who are dealing with constituent correspondence by email, letter, phone-call, and in some cases, personal visit, plus organising the MPs diary, school visits to Westminster, Ministerial visits to the Constituency, etc., etc., etc., can be expected to reply within the same timescale as a Minister who has a dedicated correspondence unit dedicated to nothing else but churning out largely bog-standard replies, is patently ridiculous, and shows a gross ignorance of how an MPs office works. I stand by my criticism of the league table and the way it's compiled simply because of that unrealistic timetable. If you extended it to maybe a month to five weeks for a reply (which has been the target in the office in which I worked between 1992 and 2010, and remains so today) then the league table would be more credible. In addition, it would be interesting to see published the percentage of people who actually respond to the follow-up questionnaire, given the opportunity of not responding if you feel neither option is appropriate. Certainly from a personal point-of-view when I have received the questionnaire (in my post-employment days) I don't know which is the more appropriate option for a reply that says "I have written to the Minister and will contact you again when I receive a reply" - is that a holding answer or is it a substantive answer? When I queried it with WriteToThem I was told it was my call.
Tom, 127 out of 650+ isn't very high, but does sound awfully similar to the number of MP's on the "payroll", those in Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet, many of whom get additional office allowances from their Party's to deal with constituency correspondence whilst the Member is on official duties, and therefore able to respond more quickly than your average backbencher, who, as I said to Francis above, is stretched to employ more than two full-time members of staff, and whose job descriptions include more than just answer email correspondence. All I can do is call it as I have seen it, and having worked closely with four neighbouring MP's offices, and spoken to numerous other staffers through informal networks, nobody takes the league tables at all seriously, or makes any effort to meet the ridiculously artificial deadlines contained therein. I hope that has answered your queries. Tim On 8 September 2011 10:07, Tom Steinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/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/archive%40mail-archive.com
