Just another day in politics?

Do you wish things could be different, yet end up thinking 'if only something could be done to make good things happen', or 'I guess that's just the way things are'? Faced with a sense of helplessness, we risk losing faith in 'being part of the change we wish to see', to borrow Gandhi's phrase. 

We question our capacity to persuade decision-makers to behave differently. One result is inertia and a reluctant tolerance of things that should not be. But does it have to be this way?

As students, teachers, researchers and practitioners of psychology, we recognise our roles and responsibilities in being supportive and mindful of others. However, less often do we acknowledge that in doing so, we are using political skills to bring about positive change. 

Indeed, we are reluctant to identify our everyday capacities for communication, persuasion, raising awareness, advising, empowering and caring as political in nature, when these are actually the building blocks of 'making a difference'.

It is tempting to distinguish between formal Politics (with a large 'P') and everyday politics (with a small 'p'), but nonetheless, the skills entailed have much in common. For example, our capacity to draw attention to issues and make recommendations for appropriate change is considerable, and using psychological skills carries political clout. 

This article is about helping give a voice to a workgroup not usually heard and persuading those with authority to make improvements. I claim no special political powers, but I hope this example illustrates our potential as psychologists for positive influence in Politics.

A hidden workforce

As an Occupational Psychologist researching mental health in politics, I often see a failure to consider the capacity of those involved to function effectively, make good decisions and draw on sources of support. 

The losers in this are not only politicians, their families and colleagues, but also us – the electorate. In other words, shedding light on sources of pressure faced in Politics is also about illuminating reasons why things in our democracy are the way they are.

During the pandemic, key workers were lauded rightly for their heroic work. Yet even the idea of considering the needs of anyone involved in 'Politics' is something that stretches the empathy of many. 

We know enough to hold strong views about politicians, but rarely do we know about their staff or their efforts in representing our views and supporting many of us facing insurmountable odds, unsanitary housing, overwhelming personal circumstances or intolerable injustice.

MPs' staff number approximately 3,500 people working in Westminster or constituency offices nationwide. They are employed directly by MPs in small teams as caseworkers, researchers or office managers, helping to ensure citizens' issues are addressed wherever possible. 

In other words, the people who make democracy happen – via day-to-day actions rather than five-yearly at a general election – are committed individuals whose names you are unlikely to ever know. Perhaps this scenario sounds similar to many readers who work as psychologists supporting others?

Unfortunately, the little that is known of MPs' staff becomes better known when cases of ill-treatment and harassment by their employers are revealed. However, during the pandemic, their work was essential in helping the most desperate and vulnerable, as caseloads of constituents needing assistance doubled. In attempting to marshal support for those pleading for help, MPs' staff have been hailed 'unsung heroes' by UCL's Constitution Unit blog.

Following the publication of a British Psychological Society report 'Cognitive strain in Parliament' (by Educational Psychologist Cynthia Pinto, former BPS policy colleagues Saskia Perriard-Abdoh and Andrew Baldwin and me), I was invited to give a lunchtime online talk to the MPs' Staff Wellness Working Group (WWG). WWG's coordinators Estelle Warhurst and Thomas Fairweather are MPs' staff themselves, keen to support colleagues by arranging events, sharing well-being resources and job-related expertise.

During the Q&A, I learned how staff were working from home and like so many of us repurposing their kitchen table or bedroom to do so. Little could have prepared me for their descriptions of often harrowing aspects of the work of MPs' staff. 

This included calls from suicidal members of the public, as well as handling high levels of distress faced by constituents experiencing dire personal circumstances including tragic loss, impending eviction, financial ruin and family separation.

MPs' staff have become a focus for people experiencing anger or distress triggered by personal or national events. The dangers facing MPs and their constituency teams were underlined tragically by the murders of two MPs – Jo Cox and Sir David Amess – and staff member Andrew Pennington.
WWG help to provide their colleagues with a voice – in the absence of a unified body, as each MP is a separate employer and union membership varies. Until the establishment of Parliament's Members' Services Team, no one organisation had spanned them all.

Well governed?

While the challenging nature of their work was exacerbated by the pandemic, what staggered me was the absence of regulation of the jobs of MPs' staff or even mandatory training to support them in representing the most vulnerable in society. It seemed history and political conventions had placed this occupational group beyond the reach of the human resources support so many organisations and employees take for granted. 

Surely I was not alone in hoping Parliament and its MPs should become exemplar employers, even role models for other workplaces? Furthermore, if they were better supported in their work, was I naïve in assuming the efficacy of MPs and the democratic process would improve and constituents would benefit?

It was the same question I have been asking of our elected national politicians in my research with them over 30 years and I am struck by circumstances that continue to render their staff practically invisible. From conversations with WWG, it transpired research by an external professional might help support their calls for better working conditions. 

WWG had indeed found examples of worrying working environments. Yet difficulties they encountered in campaigning for change were similar to those facing many occupational groups – Parliament, like so many organisations seemed to need an outside agency to highlight what staff 'on the inside' already know.

I had not anticipated quite what would happen, and none of it would have without the cooperation and generosity of WWG's coordinators, their colleagues and Parliament's Member Services Team (MST). Working in collaboration, we co-designed the first survey to assess the psychosocial pressures of the job and staff well-being. Following my University's ethics approval, we had data from 217 staff by mid-2021 – a small proportion, yet indicative of the challenge, as without an overarching employment framework, there is no definitive list of MPs' staff!

Subsequently, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, established what is known as a Speaker's Conference – a committee of MPs directed to investigate a pressing matter – which for the first time considered the working conditions of MPs' staff. Accordingly, WWG and I launched a second survey in December 2022 and were soon invited to present the findings to the Speaker's Conference. No pressure of course, but the email enquired whether we could share our new findings within a fortnight in Westminster?

This time, 315 staff – most whom had not responded first time around – participated in this follow-up survey. The findings quickly gathered momentum, confirming this is a workforce highly committed to serving the public, yet facing often suboptimal working conditions characterised by job insecurity, lack of obvious career progression, modest remuneration and public hostility. 

Although there were positive examples of supportive MPs managing their staff appropriately, it was salutary that virtually half of staff were reporting significant symptoms of psychological distress as assessed using the General Health Questionnaire.

I arrived in London to give evidence to the Speaker's Conference and was greeted by Estelle from WWG. We were shown into a committee chamber and seated facing a dozen MPs in the same n-shaped panel seen on televised parliamentary proceedings. A heated debate on the representativeness of the survey sample ensued – confirming Parliament did not have a definitive list of staff working for MPs. Disagreements broke out among MPs about why or how this was the case.

I took the opportunity to point out, as gently as I could, that the discussion had illustrated the issue the Speaker's Conference had been convened to address. Namely, that this seemingly simple piece of information, of who works for MPs, had proved elusive precisely because of the quagmire that had developed around recruiting, inducting, training and managing MPs' staff – the transparency and accountability that other organisations expect was missing. 

As practitioners and researchers, we are often outsiders to the lives of individuals and organisations, which affords the opportunity to bring both knowledge and independence to a client's situation. For us, there is some security in accumulated knowledge, and for clients, there is recognition and potential valuing of our independent viewpoint. It turned out I was the only Psychologist and outsider to politics who gave verbal testimony to the Speaker's Conference.

Don't be daunted

For readers who find themselves called upon to present to a politically powerful group – whether in Parliament or in workplaces – I would offer two pieces of advice. One is the importance of pointing out things which we had hoped are obvious to others, including the logic of our arguments. The other is, however, 'powerful' we believe the audience to be, they are human and therefore prone to make mistakes or be swayed by emotions in the room. 

This affords the presenter in any context, real value in retaining composure to command attention – even though below the water level, we are likely pedalling for all we're worth! In short, don't be daunted!

For researchers who work frantically through the lonely hours to bring their findings to the light of day, I would add this: your work is important and deserves attention. Whether your aspirations are stimulating and enlightening discussion in the coffee bar, in class or at a conference, your research will assume an added perspective when you share it with others. This may not always be welcome, but nonetheless, it will demand you see your work as others do and realise what is required to sharpen its focus and its significance.

I must confess when I began researching mental health in politics in 1992, I did not envisage sitting in front of MPs in 2023, trying to persuade them how important well-being can be for democracy. Yet I have met many politicians who understand its value, even if they did not go 'on the record'. 

I have been most fortunate to have the support of my family, colleagues and my University, as no external funding has supported my research, yet the idea we need to ensure the best mental well-being of all those working to support our populations has never left me, or many others who prioritise this thought.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's latest book, Be useful: Seven tools for life, reminds us that WD-40 is so-named because it took Norm Lawson and colleagues 40 attempts to get it right. For me, it had taken 30 years for my research on mental health in politics to reach this formal audience. 

Admittedly, I have been slow, but in an organisation tracing its origins to the Magna Carta of 1215, I found somewhere that matched my pace! Thankfully, the timing was right and MPs recognised a compelling case for change, accepting recommendations from WWG, me and others for improved working conditions, including training, fairness, continuity of service and improved safety. On 16 November 2023, the House of Commons formally accepted these recommendations in a debate chaired by Penny Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons.

For us to be effective in psychology, wherever we apply it, I recommend strongly we recognise the importance of everyday political skills. It is also worth remembering that while change is possible, progress is slow and persistence is the key!

Dr Ashley Weinberg is a Chartered Occupational Psychologist, Senior Lecturer at the University of Salford and founding Chair of the BPS Political Psychology Section.

Key sources

Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Perrewé, P.L. et al. (2007). Political Skill in Organizations. Journal of Management, 33(3), 290-320. 
Flinders, M., Weinberg, A., Weinberg, J., et al (2020). Governing under Pressure? The Mental Wellbeing of Politicians, Parliamentary Affairs, 73(2), 253–273. 
Weinberg, A. (2022). The Mental Well-Being of Politicians. In A. Weinberg, (Ed.) Psychology of Democracy: Of the People, By the People, For the People, 146-170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Weinberg, A., Warhurst, E & Fairweather, T. (in press). Mental health and well-being in political roles. In Handbook of Political Management, (Ed.) J. Lees-Marshment. Routledge.