Written evidence submitted to Speakers Conference
[SCS0034]
Introduction
Compassion in Politics (CiP) is a cross-party think-tank working to put compassion, cooperation, and inclusion at the heart of politics. Our work is split into two branches: developing proposals for reforming the political system in order to improve conduct, reduce conflict, and engender more compassion; and developing policies that spread the values of compassion, equality and inclusion.
We currently lead a coalition of democracy groups in a campaign to improve political culture (the Clean Up Politics Campaign) and together with the Jo Cox Foundation promote a ‘Civility Pledge’ to improve political conduct and discourse in and out of Parliament.
In the last parliament we worked with over 100 MPs to reduce bullying and harassment in the commons. We also provide resilience and compassion training and provided the Secretariat to the All-Party Group for Compassionate Politics in the last parliament which was Co-Chaired by Debbie Abrahams MP and Baroness Warsi.
In May 2024 together with the Apolitical Foundation, 50:50 Parliament and Hogan Lovell (solicitors), we conducted an exit survey of MPs exploring, inter alia, the impact of the current toxic culture on their mental health. The documentary which resulted, Broken Politics. Broken Politicians revealed a growing mental health crisis and suggested possible solutions.
In October 2024 we submitted a report to the Modernisation Committee (Reset : a blueprint for a 21st Century Parliament) which included recommendations to improve the culture within Westminster.
Our work is supported and promoted by a network of academics which includes Prof Alice Roberts, Prof Paul Gilbert, Prof AC Grayling, Noam Chomsky, Rainbow Murray, Guy Standing, Ala Sirriyeh, Kristin Neff, Peter Singer and Bill McKibben, and by public figures such as the Dalai Lama, Ruby Wax, and Gillian Anderson. Additionally, we draw on research from globally renowned academic psychologists working in the field of Compassionate Leadership. CiP has formed partnerships with like-minded organisations who work in the same space such as the Jo Cox Foundation, 50-50 Parliament, the Centenary Action Group, Unlock Democracy, the Democracy Trust, Carnegie UK, Equality Trust, Compass, British Psychological Society, Action for Happiness, Shelter and the Southall Black Sisters.
Compassion is defined as an empathetic awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the taking of action to alleviate it. Research shows that when compassion is cultivated it can help to regulate threat-based emotional processes such as fear and anger. It also promotes affiliation and connection and reduces outgroup antipathy (Gilbert, 2009).
We are delighted that the Speaker has convened this conference. The threat levels currently faced by MPs and candidates have the potential to undermine the integrity of our democracy, either by deterring good candidates from entering the political space or by inhibiting the words and actions of candidates and politicians. We note also that a disproportionate level of violence is directed against women and particularly women of colour.
In our view, we cannot speak of having a true democracy if the levels of intimidation are so great that politicians feel obliged to stay silent, or modify their views, or to be absent or less available for fear of what may happen to them, their teams or their loved ones. We have spoken in confidence to politicians who have told us that this forms part of the lived experiences of politicians.
CiP believes there are a number of factors driving the threat level. Our comments here will be restricted to changes that Parliament itself can make to try to lead on a reset in political culture which in turn may help to reduce the current levels of hostility expressed towards elected representatives and candidates. We do however recognise that this is only one part of a complex multi-causal equation.
Our Proposals:
- TRUST IN POLITICIANS
The most recent research by IPSOS MORI shows that voters’ trust in politicians is currently at its lowest level in 40 years, since the survey began in 1983. Just eleven percent of the British public say they trust politicians to tell the truth, making politicians the least trusted profession in Britain (Ipsos Veracity Index, 2023). A lack of trust can fuel anger and contempt. Therefore, taking steps to restore voter trust can be part of the actions we need to reduce levels of violence and intimidation. One of the fundamental reasons trust has fallen is a belief that politicians don’t tell the truth. Whilst we have no doubt that the majority of politicians are honest, a critical few have created a culture of dishonesty and misinformation in which all must work.
Our polling with Opinium (Compassion in Politics, 2020) showed that 72% of the public believe there should be a criminal law to prevent deliberate factual misrepresentation (with exemptions for mistakes, national security etc.) as it arguably equates to the fraud of voters and the electorate. We therefore propose adopting the measure which the Welsh Senedd has agreed to introduce (Morris, 2024). This legislation proposes to disqualify from office any candidate or elected representative who engages in fraudulent misrepresentation of factual matters. This would be a clear, tangible step to addressing the widely held distrust of politicians and signal a reset in the political landscape (see Nadel, 2024).
- LEADING BY EXAMPLE
At times of hostility and threat, strong leadership is of the utmost importance. In other professional spheres, strong and compassionate leadership has been associated with a number of benefits such as high levels of staff wellbeing, low levels of stress, lower sickness absence and staff turnovers (West, 2021).
Our view is that politicians should lead by example and model how to respond to conflict and hostility with dignity and respect and in a way that does not inflame it. In our recent report on Modernising Parliament which was submitted to the Modernisation Committee, we recommend an end to combative and obstreperous exchanges on the house floor (Compassion in Politics & 50:50, 2024). Our polling found that the way in which Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) and other debates are currently conducted reduced voters’ respect for politicians.
We believe it is reasonable to expect the standard of conduct in parliament to be consistent with that which would be expected in any other place of work. We are frequently told by politicians that it is the dramatic nature of these exchanges, particularly at PMQs, which maintains the public’s interest in parliamentary proceedings. We do not however think that this justifies the continuation of such conduct.
When we have played clips of PMQs to audiences (including representatives from other parliaments) the response is often laughter. This is not how the ‘mother of parliament’ should be responded to, not least as these set piece exchanges are so unrepresentative of the civil, cross-party way so much of parliamentary work is conducted.
It is reasonable to argue that through displaying hostility, degradation, and ridicule of one another, politicians facilitate the permitting of viewers and members of the public to view and address them in the same way. Modernising the ways in which these exchanges are conducted would be a visible reset and would enable politicians to model a manner of conducting political discourse that they would wish to observe in the public space.
We are of course, not saying in any way that parliamentary traditions are responsible for the violence we are seeing, merely that parliament can and should lead by resetting some of the historical norms which are not constructive to cultivating respect for political conduct.
- CIVILITY
Allied to the point above, we call for a greater emphasis on civility in general. This again needs to be modelled by those in leadership positions. Together with the Jo Cox Foundation we have promoted a civility pledge. The pledge calls for the use of civil and constructive tone in debate; acting with integrity, honesty, and compassion; and to behave respectfully towards others, even when there are disagreements.
Those politicians who have committed to the civility pledge and have adopted the principles report lower levels of animosity in political exchanges and a shift of emphasis from personal attacks to consideration of substantive matters.
If the majority of those within the political space (elected representatives at all levels, party members, party workers) committed to this pledge it is likely that a greater sense of psychological safety would be experienced by our politicians through reduced exposure to threat and hostility.
This is important as it has implications for the wellbeing of the people who work in politics. But it is also important because of the implications it has for political decision-making. When threatened our nervous system responds in a way that tries to ensure our survival. This is true for threats to both our physical and psychological safety. During such times our ability to remain calm, grounded, and reflective diminishes and our attention narrows, we become hyper focused on the threat and how to respond to it (Porges, 2022).
Additionally, feeling threatened can inhibit our motivation to extend and receive compassion (Gilbert, 2009). Such psychological processes are inconsistent with good decision-making on complex matters which often requires reflection, the weighing up of numerous competing factors, and logical, considered, consequential thinking. This can only be achieved in the absence of threat.
Our opinion is that more widespread adoption of the civility pledge would help to create these conditions of psychological safety. It can be taken by anyone working in politics at whatever level and in whatever role and setting. We firmly hold that civility should become the norm in our political world.
- SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
Social media is often the vehicle through which threats and intimidation are issued. We have spoken with elected representatives who have explicitly stated that in their view, social media has contributed directly to the culture of threat and hostility that they face. We think the situation is now so severe, for politicians and public figures alike, that we call for legislation to ensure that social media platforms are legally regarded as publishers. This would allow for them to become legally liable for the hate driven algorithms that drive their profits. This has become all the more urgent in view of events emanating from the United States, including the attacks made on UK politicians and ministers by the owner of X. Such attacks normalise threat and hostility towards political figures and again permit others such as users and members of the public to behave in a similar manner.
- FOREIGN DONATIONS
Lastly, we would also like to see a cap placed on foreign donations to British politicians and political organisations. This would help to reduce the threat of foreign funded disinformation and hate fuelled campaigns further affecting the British political landscape.
Conclusion:
We once again thank the Speaker for his leadership on this issue. At this dangerous moment in our history, where our politicians are under unacceptable levels of threat, we believe that taking the chance to reset the practice and perception of politics in Westminster is vital. As is protecting the democratic space by taking firm action to prevent social media platforms from being used as purveyors for and amplifiers of hate.
12 February 2025
References
Compassion in Politics. (2020). Public agree: politicians who deliberately lie should be treated as criminals. Retrieved from Public agree: politicians who deliberately lie should be treated as criminals - Compassion in Politics
Compassion in Politics & 50:50. (2024). Reset: A blueprint for a 21st Century Parliament. Retrieved from New Edits State of Britain 2023
Gilbert, P. (2009). The compassionate mind. Robinson.
Ipsos Veracity Index. (2023). Trust in Professions Survey. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-trust-in-professions-veracity-index-2023
Morris, S. (2024, July 2). Welsh Government Commits to Making Lying in Politics Illegal. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/02/welsh-government-commits-to-making-lying-in-politics
Nadel, J. (2024, June 10). We Can Stop Lying in Politics – But Will a New Government Pay Attention to the Public’s Demand for Honesty? Byline Times. Retrieved from https://bylinetimes.com/2024/06/10/we-can-stop-lying-in-politics-but-will-a-new-government-pay-attention-to-the-publics-demand-for-honesty/
Porges, S. W. (2022). Polyvagal theory: A science of safety. Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 16, 871227.
West, M. (2021). Compassionate Leadership: Sustaining wisdom, humanity and presence in health and social care. The Swirling Leaf Press.