Online campaign groups can learn from and should work together with the charity sector when lobbying the House of Lords, according to social justice campaigner Esther Foreman.

Foreman has released Peering In, a practice-based research report undertaken as part of her Clore Social Fellowship, which analyses public and charity sector lobbying in the House of Lords.

In the report, she insists that online campaigning groups and the charity sector should develop co-working practices when organising peer-directed online campaigns.

She also says that these groups must emulate the charity sector by including in their email campaigns evidence-based policy positions and real-life case studies.

“Case studies matter as much as a policy position,” she says in the report. “Arguments need to be wedded into the ‘real world’ by showing clear linkages between policy and people’s lives.

“Organisations cannot expect to influence peers without an in-depth understanding of the context and subject matter which links directly to statements on the bill.”

Foreman further states that increasing democratic interaction with the House of Lords is one of the positive effects of social media, and insists that individuals need not be lobbying experts to contact peers, but should certainly have full research to back-up their arguments and be clear as to exactly who is being contacted and why. She also recommends that key sector organisations such as NCVO and the Sheila McKechnie Foundation provide toolkits and advice on lobbying Peers for voluntary sector groups.

Foreman accepts that peers need better support and training in information management to deal with the increase in off and on line communication they face today.

Esther Foreman’s full report is available from the Clore Social Leadership Programme website here.

The public’s ‘unrealistic expectations’

Elsewhere in her report, Foreman states that quality of comment is more important than quantity, and that content matters more than brand –organisations should not just rely on their reputation to get heard.

Her interviews with members of the House of Lords reveal that mass online campaigns are not likely to alter the opinions of Peers, in much the same way that traditional postcard campaigns did not previously.

Indeed, she reveals from her public survey that some people appear to have unrealistic expectations as to the scope for Peers to alter matters in the way they would like them to do so, since the Lords is bound by the legal system and is a revising chamber, existing to merely scrutinise and question.

“These unrealistic expectations may explain some of the misguided correspondence and communications received by peers,” Foreman says.

“Is the role of the House of Lords, historically an area for behind the scenes lobbying by the charity sector, ready to be pushed further into the public domain? And if so, is the charity sector ready for its traditional relationship to be redefined?

“Though peers have no constituency or obligation to respond and only limited administrative support, the
House of Lords has responsibility for scrutinising and revising draft legislation and for holding the government of the day to account for its actions.”