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:

• Catherine F. Smith, ‘Writing Public Policy: A Practical Guide to Communicating in the Policy-Making Process.’
• David Chrisinger, ‘Public Policy Writing That Matters’.

 

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