3 checklists to help you write better public policy writing

If you want to learn to write public policy well, or improve your existing public policy writing, get Catherine F. Smith’s ‘Writing Public Policy’.

 

The author shows you how to:

  1. Write clear public policy
  2. Provides good written examples
  3. Checklists to help you prepare policy memoranda, position papers, briefings
  4. Helpful insights

 

 

The  11 Chapter, 226 page book, is worth it for the checklists alone.

 

I have copied 3 of checklists.

1. Checklists

 

Checklist 1: General method of communicating in a policy process

 

Step 1: Prepare

First, ask questions about the policy process.

Policy

 

  • To what policy action does the communication relate?
  • Does a policy already exist?

 

Problem

  • What conditions are problematic?
  • What problem do these conditions present?
  • How do I define the problem?
  • How do others define the problem?
  • What narrative does my definition suggest?
  • How do I frame or characterize the problem? What is it like, metaphorically?
  • What stories, frames or metaphors are apparent in other definitions of the problem?

 

Actors

  • Who are the actors?
  • What are their roles?
  • What are their interests?
  • Who else has a significant role interest in the process?

 

Politics

  • What are the major disagreement or conflicts?
  • What are the major agreements or common interests?
  • Which actors are most likely to influence the process?

 

 

Step 2: Plan

Second, ask questions about communication.

 

Purpose

  • Why is this communication needed?
  • What do I want to accomplish?

 

Message

  • What story do I want to tell?
  • What is my message?
  • How does my message differ from that of others on the topic?
  • What argument will I make to support my message?
  • How does my argument relate to that of others on the topic?

 

Role

  • What is my role in this process?
  • What is my interest in the outcome?

 

Authority

  • Whose name will be in the document(s)?
  • For whom does the communication speak?

 

Reception

  • Who is the named recipient(s)?
  • Who will use the information?
  • How do I want the information to be used?
  • Will the document(s) be forwarded? Circulated?

 

Response

  • What will the recipients know after reading the document?
  • What all the users you use of its information do?
  • What is likely to happen as a consequence of this communication?

 

Setting and Situation

  • What is the occasion?
  • What is the time frame for communicating?
  • Where, when, and how will this communication be presented?
  • Where, when and how will it be received and used?

Form and Medium

  • Is there a prescribed form or do I choose?
  • What is the appropriate medium for presentation and delivery?

Contents

  • What information will support the message?
  • Where will a succinct statement of the message be placed?
  • How will the contents be arranged to support the message?
  • How will the document’s design make information easy to find?

 

Tone and Appearance

  • How do I want this communication to sound?
  • What attitude do I want it to convey?
  • How do I want the document to look?

 

Document Management

  • Who will draft the document?
  • Will there be collaborators?
  • Who will review the draft?
  • Who will revise it?

 

Step 3: Produce

 

Write the document in 3 phases: (1st) draft, (2nd) review, and (3rd) revise.

 

Do not mix the 3 stages.

 

 Draft

  • Produce a complete working draft in accordance with your preparation and plan

 

 Review

  • Compare the draft plan and highlight any differences
  • Get additional review of the draft by others, if necessary
  • Referred to the checklists shown next to assess the draft’s effectiveness and quality and to highlight the need for revision

Revise

  • Make the changes called for by the review

 

Checklist 2:  Features of effectiveness

 

  • Address a specific audience about a specific problem.
  • Has a purpose related to a specific policy action?
  • Represents authority accurately
  • Uses appropriate form
  • Is designed for use

 

 Checklist 3: Measures of excellence

  • Clarity
  • Correctness
  • Conciseness
  • Credibility

Can you write and say it?

Smith says, “In policy work if you can’t write it, and say it, you can’t do it.”  A lot pf public policy practitioners can do neither.

So, if you don’t turn up to the public consultation, you can’t be surprised if you position is ignored.  If you do not turn up the comment, or don’t raise the key issue, or go into gobbledygook overdrive, you will miss the chance to contribute. It is a lot more common than you would think.  Few civil servants are telepaths, so if the reader does not understand what have put down in writing, they will ignore it. Only you are to blame.

 

 

 

Few Surprises

Smith notes most procedures are regular and the players tend to be established.

For example, once a year the European Commission prepare a Work Programme.  A limited group of people determine the main legislative and policy cycle for the Commission for the next 12 months. Despite the regular cycle, many interests just ignore it.

The preparation of legislative proposals, the passage of ordinary and delegated legislation, all have, more or less, common steps.  Whilst there are certain procedures that are less frequent, or where vagaries turn up, around 90% of your day to day work will be regular.

This has an advantage. You know most of the steps and key players in advance. More importantly, with Smith’s book, you will get to present your case in the best way possible. Her book will help you write out many public briefing letters, briefings and memos months in advance.

How to know if you don’t want to win?

It is clear that not many people want to genuinely influence public policy writing. First,  many interests do not want to positively persuade and influence. Too many interests are in the business of points scoring.  Second, you are involved, whether you like it or not, in the business of change. If you are against change, the chance of success is limited.

A guarantee to be ignored is to misrepresent your position. Along with showing you don’t your argument and issue, both will have your position being ignored and locked out of the public policy making process. Policy makers are busy and time is too limited.

 

 

Signs you want to win?

You want to persuade and want to win over key decisions makers over to your side.

Your audience are the policymakers, political advisers, officials, and legislators. I am guessing you know most of them.

The information you communicate is relevant, make things happen, have consequences should be publicly available.

It is intelligible, understandable, applicable, useful and credible. Your reader’s view is the only test for what is relevant, and how they see things the relevant criteria.

All too often, it is too easy for the reader to quickly put the public policy memo aside. You will not copy many of your colleagues.  No cluttered, unintelligible, abstract and confusing memo from you. You will be one of the few whose writing stands out for being clear, easy to read and clear.

 

The simple art of poor public policy writing

A lot of public policy writing is just plain bad writing.

When I worked for a British Labour MEP in 1997 I found that I was dropping the position papers of a well-known trade association directly into the waste paper bin. I did not throw them away out of political spite. I just could not understand what the organisation ever wanted. It read as if a Committee wrote the letter and position  and dropped it into the post to the politician.

I asked advisers on the Environment Committee, across political groups,  if they read the well-known organisation’s letters. They all responded that all this supposedly influential organisations letters went straight into the bin.

Today, poorly written policy memoranda, policy statements, and letters to politicians and civil servants are alive and well in Brussels. Indeed, nothing much has changed in 20 years.

It does not have to be the case. Clear writing has immediate benefits. Your reader can understand what you are asking for. You may strike lucky – they read what you have written and agree with you. This ups the chances that public policy makers, influencers, and politicians back what you want. Clear writing just ups your chances of getting what you want.

There are sane reasons for plain bad public policy writing. Sowing confusion rather than clarity can make sense in three cases.

First, if you are the public policy decision maker, you may want your flexibility as wide open as possible. You don’t want your remit controlled going forward. If one sentence can reasonably mean two or more views, it gives the author more flexibility later on.

Second, it  is a sound game plan to not make sense when was you want is genuinely barmy. Shrouding it some technical, legal or academic  gobbledygook may help you turn a desperate case around.   I was once contacted by the Cabinet of a Commissioner on the basis that the letter my client had just sent them was the first letter they had got from the client that the Commissioner could understand.

Third, whilst I like Plain English, I know  it is not for everyone. Most organisations seem to find clarity plain wrong.

I have a simple test that public policy writing needs to pass before it is sent.  Any piece of public policy writing is able to land on the desk of the Commission on a Friday at 7 pm.  A tired official can read it once and prepare a clear response for the Commissioner immediately.

This one technique has saved  my clients small  fortunes. One client was about to be banned on the Monday. A letter sent on Thursday evening to the Commission, noted that the Commission was accidentally about to ignore their new priorities if they adopted the text on the table. By Monday evening, the Commission had stepped in and ensured the ban did not happen.

 

Can you make your poor writing better?

If you are serious about winning for your client or interest, you can improve your public policy writing.

I recommend  two guidelines on writing public policy:

 

Good public policy writing is not easy. But, nothing good should ever be easy.

 

Brussels Behind Closed Doors

What can a 20 year documentary teach you about making laws

What can a 20 year documentary teach you about making laws

In 1997, I had the honour to work for British Labour MEP, Anita Pollack.   Anita gave me the chance to help pass my first piece of EU environmental legislation.  Anita helped steer through a ground-breaking piece of air quality legislation for the then EU 15.

I learned a lot. I have worked on a lot more environmental and fisheries legislation since.

I decided to mark the 20 years since the adoption of the law to re-watch a UK Channel 4 documentary that followed the directive’s passage. This fly on the wall documentary is uncannily accurate. Today, it catches how, even today, EU laws are developed, negotiated, and agreed. There has not been a programme like it since.

Today, many of the key players involved in the process have retired. Some are still active.

Council Directive relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (link) has now been updated. It met some of targets. Air pollution still harms our health in some countries.

What is striking is that even though a lot has changed, many things remain unchanged.

What struck me is that in over 20 years, is that  the reasons given to not act, or to wait before acting, are basically the same. The posturing that economic Armageddon will occur if environmental standards are improved are still too often recited like ancient holy recitals.  Many countries oppose any measures that costs anything to implement.

I have listed a set of personal observations drawn from 3 episodes.

1-15 are things that have changed. 15-65 are as common today as they were 20 years ago.

 

Observations

  1. Political agreement was secured in then record time. It took just 3 years for the law to be developed to final adoption.
  2. In 1997, was the height of the UK’s political influence in the EU under PM Blair. Germany allied with their natural UK ally.
  3. The UK Labour Group held 62 of the UK’s 87 seats.
  4. The S&D Group were the largest group in the EP.
  5. This was an EU of 15 progressive Member States. Austria, Finland and Sweden had recently joined on 1st January 1995.
  6. The UK held the EU Presidency from 1 January to 30 June 1997. Today, the UK skipped their Presidency as they prepare to the leave the EU.
  7. Ken Collins (S&D/UK) was the dominant chair of the Environment Committee. This Scot ruled the Committee with an iron will.
  8. The Environment Committee was the most active legislative committee in the EP. With 45 members only the Foreign Affairs (53), Agriculture (46) and Economic and Monetary (52) were more, but they did not have to trouble themselves with legislating.
  9. I see this time as environment policy’s high-water market. The big hitters of Svend Auken, Denmark’s Minister for the Environment and Energy, and even Ms. Angela Merkel, Germany’s Minister of the Environment (link),  were in office.
  10. The EP was coming of political age. Jacques Santer’s Commission was being pushed out because of wrong doing by French Commissioner Cresson on 15 March 1999.
  11. Ritt Bjerregaard (Denmark/S&D) served as the Environment Commissioner. She was a powerful and determined progressive political player who relished her role.
  12. She was one of the 20 Commissioner. This was a time when 5 large countries got 2 seats and the remaining 15 got 1.
  13. The Channel 4 documentary was the first fly on the wall documentary about the EU passes laws. I don’t think it has been repeated.
  14. Britain showed environmental leadership. A British Presidency secured a British official’s drafted text, steered through by a British MEP.
  15. DG 11/ENV brought forward an annual slew of ambitious legislative proposals
  16. People sometimes forget the heroic task of bringing together quarrelsome families together. It is a wonder to see.
  17. The system is designed on consensus. As soon as a proposal out the door of the Commission, the point of destination is agreement. The point of arrival is never too far from DG Environment’s original intent.
  18. The best chance to influence a Commission’s proposal is before it is issued.
  19. Most lobbyists – NGOs and industry – and Member States step in too late in the day. They get to tinker at the margins.
  20. The UK Mission to the EU (Perm Reps), UKREP, were then still getting used to Labour MEPs. We had been so long out of power for so long they simply never returned any calls. Many Perm Reps today still lack the political touch with their MEPs.
  21. Air pollution is still a problem today.
  22. Today, we know a lot more about Particulate Matter today than we did then. We were not precautionary enough. The real harmful particulate, the ultra-small PM 2.5, were left untouched. The science indicated it was the problem but we not sure enough. We ignored it for a few years. We came back to target it.
  23. Poor Air pollution makes our health worse. It fills up hospitals and spurs death rates upwards. Today, we better understand why.
  24. The Presidency needs to be impartial and not promote their own national interest during their 6 months chairmanship. Some countries find this etiquette hard to follow.
  25. Air pollution is a serious problem in many cities in the summer. Fate intervened in plenary vote in Strasbourg and set off air pollution alerts. These political stunts continue to help win big votes. I really did not create that event.
  26. Voting lists for different national Party groups vary. You need to follow them. Some countries set the votes for their MEPs.
  27. Industry kept submitting their recommendations after the voting lists had been prepared.
  28. The Group Rapporteur writes out the voting lists and many groups are very loyal in following Group voting. If you don’t get in early, you are not going have much impact.
  29. DG ENV has been chronically understaffed for decades. 20 years it dealt with a lot of new proposals. Today, few new laws come from them.
  30. The speaking points  and the language they use from  industry and NGO lobbyists seems unchanged in 20 years. It had no cross-party influence then. Why so few people have changed their game plan from a 20-year losing streak is strange.
  31. Cross party and cross-country voting coalitions work best. In 1997, Northern Member States voted against the South (which included France).
  32. Legislation is all about winning votes and the person with the most votes wins. This is the most fundamental law and too many people just know it, or at least ignore it.
  33. Taking action to help the public’s health is not cheap – €5 billion at the time – but it is cost effective.
  34. Most Governments dislike the idea of informing their own people about things. Public information on air pollution gets people asking for change. It actually bring about change. Many Member States air quality machines were defective and under-reported the real state of air pollution.
  35. If you want to avoid  an issue, just adopt a “review clause”.
  36. Spain, Greece and France all fought against binding air pollution limits back in 1997.
  37. Bringing publicity into legislation makes it a lot more difficult for politicians and civil servants to object.
  38. If your Political Group is strong in the EP, you can steamroller your position through the EP. But, you have to have the votes.
  39. The Chair of the Environment Committee’s  key power is where he puts your item on the agenda. Ken Collins put Anita Pollack’s work at the top of the agenda.  We got to take the file through the Parliament in record time.
  40. A lot of interests against the proposal were just to slow keeping up.
  41. Turning up to meetings with expensive watches on to Social Democrat MEP and talking about “jobs and growth” is a sure way of getting them to reject your position.
  42. Very few politicians beyond the right of the EPP ever bought the “jobs & growth” line in 1997. I don’t think much has changed in 20 years.
  43. Political hard work by a MEP in Brussels is likely to be unrecognised back home by the Party or constituents. Anita Pollack was not re-elected in 1999.
  44. Back home is where political power comes from and remains.
  45. The Member States in 1997 was more powerful than it is today, but it is still the ultimate centre of power.
  46. The Council has and always likely will represent the lions of national self-interest.
  47. The best way to influence National Ministers is back home in their capitals and ideally in their constituency.
  48. Spain did not think the science was clear. They argued that no action should be taken until the science is clear. The real reason for blocking was the cost. When scientific uncertainty is raised experienced players know the likely real reason is money.
  49. Labour veteran politician, the late Michael Meacher, made the key decisions for the UK. Civil servants’ advise and elected politicians decide. They really do.
  50. There is a lot of paper of work.
  51. The key skill is the ability to write clear, precise and concise briefings. Very few people can. Those who can, tend to win more votes.
  52. Back in 1997, most of the negotiations took place over the phone and email. Meetings are there to shake hands on a compromise. Not much has changed.
  53. The Presidency and Commission work very closely together to secure a deal.
  54. The Presidency’s role is to secure a compromise and works to get that.
  55. The Environment Attaches are often friends. When you spend 3 days a week with a group of people, you are likely to become friends with them. Compromise is actively sought.
  56. Member States officials are there to keep the Commission in check.
  57. The EP see their job to scrutinise the Commission, and often to re-table the amendments DG ENV has lost in inter-service consultation
  58. If you don’t do compromise, you need to leave Brussels.
  59. If you are a nomad,  become a MEP. You live from a suitcase in Brussels and your constituency (when the real work starts). Everyone, but French MEPs,  dislike Strasbourg. The real work is done in Brussels.
  60. The UK, whatever Party in power, has always taken a business friendly and pragmatic approach
  61. Scientific expertise is listened to but is seen by many politicians as too cautious. The memory of the WHO calling out BSE wrongly made many MEPs seeing the WHO’s standards as too cautious.Today, scientists are listened to, but politicians decide. It has been like that for thousands of year.
  62. Expert groups of scientist make compromises. It is clear that a Risk Assessment seems to be an art and not a science.
  63. Law making at times looks a like a steamroller driver in a hurry.
  64. Bringing public information into legislation makes it a lot more difficult for politicians and civil servants to object. National governments know this and tend to fight public information.
  65. The best way to make your position seem very reasonable is to get a Swedish MEP to say “in Sweden, we have a system, and it works”. I had the fun job of provoking a very nice Swedish MEP to say this in the Environment Committee one day. All of a sudden, people who we knew were going to vote against us, backed us. Politicians back ambition but not dreams.

 

 

How a NGO can win a campaign in Brussels

I have just re-watched a Channel 4 fly on the wall documentary, “Brussels behind closed doors”. It is a documentary about how an EU directive on air quality was adopted.

I know about this is obscure documentary because I worked for the Rapporteur, Anita Pollack MEP, on the adoption of this legislation. I learned a lot. For the next 20 years I have found myself working on legislation or campaigning to influence that legislation.

Re-watching got me thinking to  the best ways to influence EU policy.

Below, I have listed 26 points that I think a NGO would use if they really wanted to win.

 

  1. Have the proposal on the back of your pocket

The first thing you need is the draft law, along with the explanatory memorandum and supporting evidence, in your back pocket.

If you don’t have this, it is evidence that you really do not know what you want. If you can’t show an interested legislator at a moment’s notice what you want, in how the law or policy should look like, you are a not being serious. You are bystander to events and not an instigator.

 

  1. Be patient, wait for events

Good things take time to come about. I have shopped around policy solutions when the interest on the issue was too low. But, legislation has a habit of being tabled because of unforeseen events.

When your issue pops up in the political headlines and garners interest, this is your moment to move.  Seize the opportunity.

 

  1. Have the experts with you

Important public policy decisions are not made on the whim. There are a lot of checks and balances built in.

If you want to move things forward, you are going to have to have a group of select experts lined up to support you.

You are likely to have on staff, or experts on retainer, or at least some of the leading minds from academia and think tanks on speed dial. They will be ready to explain the supporting volumes of reports and studies that you have commissioned to support your case.

  1. Respond to the agenda

Issues on the political agenda come and go. They also return.  Your job is to respond to them and catch the wind when it blows in your direction.

You can work tirelessly on an issue for decades, but if you miss the opportunity of new found interest from a Commissioner, minister, or politician you will have to wait another decade in the political wilderness.

  1. Use celebrities

There is something about a photoshoot of a naked Greta Saatchi holding a cod that grabs interest.  I don’t understand why, but I know that all of sudden a lot of people become interested in the issue and very sympathetic to you.

There is a reason to use celebrities. They help your cause.

 

  1. Wear a tie and jacket

People have prejudices. It is helpful at times to confound them.

I am perplexed that even today a lot of people think that a NGOs campaigner wears a horse hair shirt to work. I always had that the uniform of the US west coast: chinos, shirt and sports jacket. For senior level meetings, a tie can be added.

 

  1. Know the rules of the game

If you don’t know how the fundamental processes for the adoption of legislation, I think it makes sense to seek another career.

I guesstimate that there are around 40 key processes for EU law. I would add another 10 for certain fields.

Strangely, most people are not aware of them. Even a lot of legislators and regulators are not aware of them. This is not for you. You will have a good grasp of the procedures you are dealing with.

 

  1. Know the 500, 250, 25 key players

You are going to have a rolodex of key people in Europe who decide and influence your issue. This is going to be made up of Ministers, their advisers, Commissioners,  Cabinet leads, civil servants, MEPs, MPs, experts, think tanks and key journalists.  It is around 500 to 250 people.

You are also going to have an institutive feeling for the who the key 25 people are. These are the 25 people who are at the end of the day will make the final decisions.

 

  1. Be flexible

You are going to have a plan, but you know your plan is going to go out of the window very quickly.

You are going to be flexible and harness opportunities. You are going to have a budget and resources that allows you to move with events, to run an advertisement in the Financial Times for a College decision, a go to a meeting that comes up that was never expected.

 

  1. Work with the media

You are going to be a source of information to the media. You’ll be able to provide the latest and unique insight on developments that is clear and and makes sense to them. They will see you as the go to person for comment 24/7. And, you will answer their calls and emails when they call you. You will make the mundane or technical seem interesting and important.

The press will provide you with the oxygen of publicity and a vital means of telling your story.

  1. Make it simple

You will make the complex clear and technical understandable.  You will be able to chat with Commissioners, politicians, officials, and technical experts in the same meeting at their respective levels.

You do not think that confusion helps, and instead you will speak to the audience at just the level they need.  You’ll shut down colleagues who start talking gobbledygook.

You are not the one of the many who thinks bamboozling your audience is smart. You know it is not and instead just alienates the very people you need to win over.

Instead, you will use smart charts, visuals, stories, facts and figures, that clearly and simply outline your position.  Making things simple is not to make it simplistic, but enlightening, so your audience say “wow, now I have got it”.

 

  1. Make it appeal to them

You will make your issue important to them.

You can do this in many ways. A well- placed news item on the TV that a politician’s family and friends watch can work wonders. I have not found a politician who wants to be personally responsible for their extinction of a species by their friends and family.

You won’t pitch the issue direct to them and instead, when the opportunity arises, have a friend of the key decision maker do it for you. Chatting about the extinction of a species over a weekend between friends is going to have a lot more clout than a briefing for a civil servant.

You will use celebrities and royals here as they are very helpful. They move in circles that you are unlikely to. They can often make direct appeals to people very high in the political food chain.

 

  1. Work in the cloud

You are a nomad, have a hot-desk in your office, airport and at home. You are accessible, call forwarding works. You are not a bureaucrat. We live in the 21st century where slack, skype, google office, all allow you, with the help of a smart phone and good internet connection, to work wherever you need to be.

  1. Inform your donors

Your work is going to be funded by the generosity of your members and sometime philanthropists.

It’s easy to forget in the day to day work that you work for them. They are paying the bills.

You need to let them know where their money is going. Always take their call and answer their email. Be straight forward and 100% transparent what you need the money for. If you need funding $100,000 for a court case, give them the details they want to make a decision. You are the ally to the donors and not your fundraising department.

If you start faking it the generosity will dry up very quickly. If you are honest, and admit the chances of success are low, or even non-existent, but it is important to do, I have found that the money will flow, often from unexpected places.

 

  1. Go Go-Pro

If there were an audience, you would go-pro your day.

Your donors may like to know where their money is going, and it must be a lot better than billable hours.

Sometimes, go-pro can record the unsubtle threat you will get. Death threats are still too common to environmental campaigners.

  1. Stunts work

Stunts  and demonstrations work, but please use volunteers rather than actors.

Greenpeace know stunts work. The world listens.

 

  1. Play for the long-term

Change does not happen over-night.  Even when you get the laws you want in place, it does not mean that the new laws will be implemented and complied with.

You will have a long-term perspective. You know that even if you get the law on the statute book, you will need to change gear, and get the law implemented, and bring about the change you wanted.

Now, the hard work really starts. You can outsource this work, or take it up yourself, but you are not going to walk away and trust the system to deliver. You know if you do this, the chances of what you wanted ever happening are slim, and the changes you worked so hard for, turn to dust.

 

  1. Ignore vast waves of land

You are not foolish. You know that vast swathes of the political landscape are never going to support you. Certain countries and political groups are, and likely always will, oppose you.

You are going to focus your limited resources on getting a coalition together of votes that will get you want you want. Nothing more. You are not in the business of gaining converts and instead you are going to focus on making sure your supporters turn up and vote and get enough wavering supporters switching to you.

You will ignore the advice of your colleagues who beg you to spend scarce time and money on getting the support of a country or political group who are publically and privately against you. Going into the lion’s den to win allies is a fool’s dream. You may come out, but you are likely to be scared, often fatally.

There is an exception to this. When you are winning, you can go into the territory you had conceded. It worked for Stalin.

  1. Outsource

You will be smart, and when it is best to win, you will outsource.

Why would you use your own local organization when there is a stronger NGO in that country who is also working on the same issue, supporting you. Use them instead.

 

  1. One night stands work

Campaigns throw up the most unlikely mutual interests. Harness them.

Working with supportive industry allies is used a lot today. As long as does not dilute your message, use it.

The mutual interest may end the day after you both politically get what you want, but as long as it gets you want you want, it is worth trying it.

 

  1. Supply the back up

You are going to find political allies who want to help you. Sometimes, they are going to say that they want to help, but they do not have the time and staff to do all the work. Make it easy for them and give to them.

  1. Don’t sound bonkers

Re-watching the documentary, I am reminded that some NGOs can sound bonkers.

Faced between the prospect of overnight de-industrialization or a transition,  most politicians (and people) are going to back the transition.  Pitching that the only way to get to a given target is by embracing the economic planning of Pol Pot is bonkers.

You’ll be smart. You will show how the objective is possible, by using available technologies and is more profitable than today’s model.

 

  1. Have a few bibles

I have a few core well-thumbed books that I constantly come back to.  Mine are:

  • European Parliament, “Rules of Procedure”
  • European Commission, “Better Regulation Guidelines”
  • Gueguen & Marissen, “Handbook on EU secondary legislation”
  • Chris Rose, “What Makes People Tick” & “How to Win Campaigns”
  • Mailyn Political, “How To Run the European Parliament”

 

  1. Have the lawyers on standby

Law making brings ups important legal questions. It is helpful to have a good lawyer on call. You will use them to prepare the draft directive, provide quick legal briefing asked for by an ally, rebut a legal position raised by the other side, and sometimes respond to litigation threats.

 

  1. Take the call

The greatest opportunities come from picking up the phone.  You will get a huge amount by answering calls and making them.

Too many of your colleagues don’t like phones. They dislike the ideas of cold calling to find out what is happening on their issue. They dislike even more the very idea of answering an enquiry from a journalist.

I have got some of my biggest political breaks from the phone.

If people don’t like the phone, it is better they try a new career

  1. Avoid the internal meetings

There is a disease that afflicts too many NGOs. It is internal meetings.

You will avoid this navel gazing. You will focus on changing the outside world and delivering change.

You are not a management consultant preparing yet another new set of power-point. You are a political campaigner.

 

  1. Speed works

You will have the draft bill, studies, amendments, supporting evidence ahead of time.  You are going to ignore the prevarication and internal dialogue of your hierarchy.

A key lesson I took away from Brussels behind closed doors was that speed works. The major weak point of our opponents is they were slow and we were fast. We did our homework, a lot of it, and tabled everything ahead of time. We played by the rules and used our in-built voting strength to put through our package.

We had a big advantage. Our opponents did not know how to respond because they were working too slowly.

You will learn from this. You will be ahead of the curve. You will have your full package out on the day of the Commission’s proposal. You will obviously already have it. You will set the agenda

 

Sources

I have borrowed ideas liberally from others in my work in particular:

John. Kingdon, “Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies”

Andrew Rich, “Think Tanks, Public Policies and the Politics of Expertise”

Robert. B. Cialdini,  “Influence” & “Pre-suasion”

 

Note

I have written the counter-point on what to do if you are targeted by a NGO campaign. I may publish it one day.