Catherine Taylor shares lessons on gauging citizens’ opinions at a two-day workshop
As a nation, we conduct extensive opinion polling. Polling by government departments and organisations, such as YouGov and the National Centre for Social Research, provides a rich baseline of information on the views of the UK public. In economic ‘domains’, for example, polling reveals a considerable amount about UK public attitudes to trade, technology and energy. We can also gain insights into how citizens view the ‘forces’ acting on the global economy, in particular geopolitics and the behaviour of key actors, such as the United States, China and the European Union.
In our work for this year’s Heywood Fellowship, which is examining the UK’s role in the changing global economic order, we have been able to draw some initial conclusions from traditional polling about what the UK public thinks. However, polling can only tell you so much – it offers a snapshot of people’s opinions through their immediate reactions to a question. It does not help you to understand the reasoning that sits behind those views, which is why we turned to a second source – a technique known as public deliberation.
What is public deliberation?
Public deliberation brings together a diverse group of citizens – often in what is known as a citizens’ assembly – to engage deeply with complex issues, consider evidence, hear a range of perspectives and reflect before reaching conclusions. Participants are randomly selected to be representative of the broader population. Unlike traditional polling, deliberation reveals the values, trade-offs and reasoning that shape public preferences once participants are given time, information and space to think.
Deliberative approaches have been credited with generating more informed and nuanced insights than polling: reducing perceptions of elite bias (enabling more diverse and often unheard groups to be involved in shaping policy); revealing what people really care about once they understand the context; reducing polarisation and creating constructive dialogue between people who may not otherwise interact; and encouraging longer-term thinking.
Although many citizens’ assemblies are initiated by civil society organisations, an increasing number are commissioned by public authorities at the municipal, regional, national and supranational levels. Notable examples close to home include the two assemblies commissioned by the Republic of Ireland’s national legislature, which contributed to the legalisation of same-sex marriage and abortion, as well as Climate Assembly UK, which was commissioned by six House of Commons Select Committees to explore public preferences around how the UK should address climate change. More recently, in 2023, the government-funded Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy conducted a series of citizens’ juries on UK trade policy. In terms of current deliberative work for central UK government, we are aware that the UK Cabinet Office is currently running a ‘People’s Panel’ on a digital ID system. There is also growing interest from the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
The Heywood Deliberation
Thanks to funding from our sponsors – the Heywood Foundation, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Business and Trade – we were able to run a two-day deliberative workshop in April, held at the Fellowship Team’s HQ at the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government.
Through the workshop, we aimed to better understand the rationale for views on the global economic order, which we had drawn from the polling data, and how these views varied across key demographic groups. We also wanted to test some of our research with the public and understand which of our possible future strategies or policy choices were most likely to achieve consensus.
We worked with two UK organisations to ensure methodological rigour and credibility in the design and delivery: the Sortition Foundation, which provides a civic lottery service for recruiting participants for deliberative events and which uses a selection process called ‘sortition’, a bit like jury selection; and the Involve Foundation, which provided participant support, mentored us through the design and delivery of the workshop, trained our table facilitators and provided lead facilitation during the event.
The Sortition Foundation secured 26 participants who represented a microcosm of the UK population across gender, age, ethnicity, disability, education, political persuasion and geographic location.
The core question we asked participants was whether we needed to change our approach to the global economic order to achieve sustainable prosperity for the UK and rising living standards. The first day’s deliberation delved into issues around the balance between openness and efficiency versus security – particularly in relation to trade – as well as the extent to which we should prioritise British economic interests over international openness. Day two then centred on the UK’s position in the global economic system – which countries we should partner with and how. Participants were asked how the UK should respond if other countries were to use their economic power against us and whether we should trade and invest mainly with big economic blocs like the US, China and the EU, or build relationships with countries more similar to us in size or values.
Challenging the traditional international economic posture
Before the workshop, we had been concerned that people would find the UK’s international economic policy a difficult topic. Yet, despite the complexity of the issues covered and the fact that we kept participants indoors for two days over a beautifully warm and sunny spring weekend, these concerns proved to be unfounded. All participants engaged fully in what were thoughtful and lively discussions.
We will provide more detail in our final publications in the autumn. However, an overall conclusion that emerged from the session was a divergence between the way the UK traditionally places ‘big bets’ on the global economy and the UK public’s view of our place in the world.
In our January publication, we described the UK’s traditional international economic posture as that of an ‘activist globaliser’: we support the US-led economic order and have promoted more globalisation of markets and backed rules-based systems; and we have made implicit ‘big bets’ that other states will want to join this globalising system, and that global openness is a positive and enduring trend.
The workshop, by contrast, suggests that the UK public views UK foreign and trade policy predominantly through a lens of economic self-interest, and participants felt change is needed. They expressed a desire for the UK to be more proactive and more willing to challenge existing orthodoxies in global economic relations. At the same time, there was a clear expectation that any shift would be handled carefully and with sensitivity to context. As one participant noted, “The UK model of globalisation in its economy has become its weakness” but the Government needs to be “pragmatic in [taking] destiny into its own hands.” Participants also overwhelmingly prioritised British economic interests over global connectedness and openness. National preference was particularly strong in relation to ownership of critical national infrastructure such as transport, energy and water.
Key success factors
Having reflected on the value of the workshop to our fellowship research, we offer the following takeaways to policymakers when considering deliberation as a technique:
1. Be explicit with participants about the purpose and how the results will be used. Many full deliberative processes result in formal recommendations to government. We were clear that participants’ views would be collated and findings communicated to government via our overall fellowship recommendations.
2. Ensure participants are selected through sortition to ensure participation is diverse and mirrors the wider public, as far as possible.
3. Do not underestimate the public’s ability to engage with complex issues but, at the same time, ensure material is clear, jargon-free and not overwhelming in volume. It needs to be accessible to all.
4. Bring in experts in deliberation to advise on design and delivery. Use a structured format with unbiased presentations, small group discussions, plenary sessions and time for reflection with regular breaks.
5. Skilled and neutral facilitation is crucial for supporting participants to communicate in productive and respectful ways, enabling everyone to be heard while avoiding louder voices dominating.
6. Focus on trade-offs, not just preferences. Public deliberation is most valuable when it tackles hard choices.
7. Combine deliberation with other sources of input. As the Heywood Fellowship, we have used a range of techniques to engage our stakeholders.
Rebuilding democratic trust
As policymakers operating in a democracy, the main route we have to understanding what the UK public thinks about any issue is the electoral process. Political parties publish manifestos setting out their intended actions and policies, voters consider those policies and then elect the people they want as their representatives.
Elections, however, are infrequent and upholding democratic systems requires consistent attention. This is especially the case currently with democracy under pressure globally, as authoritarian movements gain ground; polling in Britain reveals that public trust in institutions is low and falling. UK polling data reveals a populace that is not merely critical of specific policies but is increasingly sceptical of the entire system of governance and the state’s ability to deliver on its fundamental responsibilities. A record 45% of Britons noted in 2024 that they “almost never” trust governments of any party to put the nation’s interests first, a significant increase from 34% in 2019.
Given the range and scale of the challenges facing any government at the moment – from geopolitical uncertainty, squeezed budgets and competing priorities, to increasing societal division – successful delivery of a government’s agenda will depend not only on sound policy design but also on public understanding and consent. Policymakers therefore need to be on the hunt for ways to build trust in, and strengthen, the democratic process.
Institutionalising public deliberation, which is already happening in many countries and at all levels of government, is one way to address this deficit. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has set out a guide for policymakers, drawing on numerous examples across member countries and proposing eight possible models. These range from a permanent citizens’ council with one-off citizens’ panels (as is the case in Belgium) to a legal requirement for public deliberation before certain types of decisions are made (as is the case with the French 2011 law on bioethics).
Moving the ‘flotilla’ in the same direction
Lucy Smith’s work as the previous Heywood Fellow underscored that any successful and enduring national strategy must be built through open policymaking and the alignment of views from both within and outside government, thereby creating a ‘flotilla’ of actors all moving in the same direction. As the current Heywood Fellowship team, we have seen the value of deliberation in creating space for constructive dialogue between policymakers and the public and between different demographic groups. It is our firm view that the UK Government at all levels should be using deliberation more consistently when designing and delivering policy so as to achieve better policy outcomes and strengthen societal trust and cohesion.
Catherine Taylor is Visiting Practitioner as part of the 2025-26 Heywood Fellowship team. A UK diplomat for over 20 years, Catherine most recently led the team responsible for the UK’s relationship with the OECD.
