Read more

Nearly two-thirds of the public (59%) believe the government’s response to Covid should follow the advice of SAGE, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, according to polling released today. That includes over half (51%) of Conservative voters.

Close to half (47%), including a third of Conservatives (31%), also believe that the leaders of opposition parties should now be given a formal role in deciding the government’s Covid strategy.

The polling [1], which was carried out by Opinium [2] with Compassion in Politics, comes after the government was criticised for delaying the imposition of the latest Covid lockdown. 

It also found that the behaviour of politicians has caused 1 in 4 people to stop following the news and put 1 in 10 off voting at a general election [3].

Jennifer Nadel, Co-Director of Compassion in Politics, said:

“Too many issues of national significance - Covid, Brexit, and school meals - have been turned into political footballs. Rather than tackle the problems square on, many leading figures have sought to score cheap political points. It’s clear the public have had enough. They want to see mature, compassionate, and sensitive political leadership. 

“We believe now is the time to form a government of national unity - or at the very least, to invite members of the opposition to attend Cabinet Covid meetings. Going forwards our response to Covid should be led by science, informed by a range of views and interests, and decided upon in the interests of the public as whole.”

Notes

[1] https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cip/mailings/37/attachments/original/OP15716_Compassion_in_Politics_-_SAGE_and_Oppo_leaders.xlsx?1604771194 

[2] https://www.opinium.com/ 

[3] https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cip/mailings/37/attachments/original/OP15716_Compassion_in_Politics_-_Political_Debate_-_Tables.xlsx?1604771193

Research from Compassion in Politics suggests that parliament has become more divided and increasingly hostile since the turn of the millennium.

By analysing every single vote cast since Labour’s re-election under Tony Blair in 2001 the organisation was able to show that Labour and Conservative MPs are now far less likely to agree with one another than they were 19 years ago.

The research also showed that, during the last four years, there has been a significant rise in the use of certain ‘hostile’ words that Compassion in Politics argue point towards an increasingly aggressive tone of debate.

Between 2001 and 2005 under Tony Blair’s second administration, Labour MPs and Conservative MPs agreed with one another in roughly two out of five votes (42%). Since then the figure has fallen: despite a brief increase in levels of agreement from 2005 to 2009, levels of agreement between the two parties fell to 36% in 2009-2013, 31% in 2013-2016, and to just 10% since 2016 [1].

The organisation points out that although the dramatic fall since 2016 is likely to have been caused by Brexit, there was evidently a general decline in agreement between Labour and Conservatives prior to that.

Compassion in Politics also looked at how frequently three key words were used in parliamentary debates between 2015 and 2019 - enemies, traitor, and surrender. They found a 50% increase in the use of these words, rising from 625 references in 2015 to 946 in 2019. The organisation argues that these words represent a highly personalised and tribal style of debate that has become commonplace since the Brexit vote in 2016 [2].

Gabriel Moore, lead researcher on the project, said:

“What we found was that over a twenty year period, Labour and Conservative MPs clearly and consistently moved further away from one another. From a period in 2001-2005 when they could find agreement nearly half of the time they voted, we are now in a position where they almost completely and persistently disagree. The sharp fall in agreement that occurred after 2016 was clearly caused by Brexit but I would argue that the trends emerging pre-2016 are indicative of a more totemic, long-term change that has been happening in British politics and could yet continue.”

Jennifer Nadel, Co-Director of Compassion in Politics, said:

“Constructive disagreement is an important part of our democracy but this research has undercovered something darker and more sinister. It seems to confirm the impression many of us have had about politics for some time: that it has become an increasingly toxic, bitter, and destructive system which regards nastiness, point-scoring, and personal vendettas over constructive debate. Instead of encouraging members to find common ground its combative method of debating fosters differences and point scoring.

“Now, with so many vital decisions to be made about our future as a nation, it is time to end the parliamentary pantomime and bring some harmony and civility into politics. We are calling for a new code of conduct for MPs, for compassion training, and the strengthening of parliamentary standards so that bad behaviour is prevented, cooperation encouraged, and respect restored.”

Debbie Abrahams, Co-Chair of the All Party Group for Compassionate Politics, said:

“In my nine years in parliament I have witnessed the civility and courtesy in debates fall, mutual respect decline, and cooperation collapse. Women in particular seem to be on the receiving end of put-downs, jibes, and jokes and we know that behaviour is being mirrored by the abuse that female MPs - and especially female BAME MPs - receive on social media and in the press. This has become particularly bad since 2016.

“But I also know that there are many colleagues of mine, in all parties, who passionately believe in changing our politics for the better, in seeing the last few years as the nadir from which we rise rather than a path along which we must continue to tread. The APPG for Compassionate Politics will be working across parliament in the coming year for the adoption of new standards of debate and parliamentary practice and for new ways of reaching out beyond Westminster to improve relations between MPs and those they represent.”

Notes

[1] Data tables: 

[2] Data tables: 

Read more

More than 50 of the country’s leading psychologists have written to the government warning them that their current messaging on Covid could lead to increased rates of anxiety, stress, and depression. 

The letter, written in partnership with the think-tank Compassion in Politics, argues that government efforts to ensure public compliance with anti-Covid measures through fear-based messages could badly backfire. In particular they criticise recent government messages which have suggested that the behaviour of young people risks the death of their grandparents and that Christmas’s might have to be cancelled if infection rates continue to rise.  

The signatories argue that this approach could have a devastating effect on a population suffering from the mental strain caused by the pandemic. There is also evidence that fear-focused messages aren’t the most effective way to produce the required behaviour change.  

The letter further warns that the attempt to label “young people” as the cause of a recent spike in Covid infection rates could actually have the opposite effect to the one intended. They argue that blaming and shaming certain groups in this way could have a demoralising effect, causing them to disengage entirely from efforts to stem the spread of Covid.

Signatories to the letter urge the government to reframe their Covid messaging to be far more sensitive and understanding of the public’s emotional state while conducting much more research into the kind of targeted messages that might be needed to convince certain groups to engage with anti-Covid behaviours.  

Frances Maratos, Associate Professor and Reader in Emotion Science at the University of Derby, and one of the authors of the letter, said: 

“We know from studies of the aftermath of previous epidemics that fear messaging isn’t an optimal solution for behaviour change, especially when considering its long-term effects. For example, Ebola risk-elevating messages increased public anxiety, with messages delivered via media exacerbating stress and worry. The ramifications of this include, for some, poor mental health that can persist long-after fear-based messaging campaigns have ceased.” 

Professor Manuela Barreto, Head of Psychology at the University of Exeter, said: 

“The focus on young people is an unfortunate distraction from the bigger issues underlying the current situation, and one that is unproductive and will only make matters worse. Research shows that fear actually reduces empathy and pro-sociality, especially towards more vulnerable groups in society.”

Jennifer Nadel, Co-Director of Compassion in Politics, said:

“Dealing with a global pandemic requires care, concern, and compassion - it can’t just be beaten into submission by strong words and harsh rhetoric. The government must remember the burden the public has already had to shoulder, the amount of change they’ve accepted and the sacrifices they’ve made. It will require our collective strength to finally see off Covid - dividing us will only make us weaker. Rather than blaming, shaming, and debasing the public’s attitude towards Covid, the government must focus its energy on building a robust testing regime, on safeguarding the NHS, and providing financial security to those households most at risk from the oncoming recession."