National and Local Citizens' Assemblies for Climate Change
Liberal Democrat · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Liberal Democrat’s policy “National and Local Citizens' Assemblies for Climate Change” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Community cohesion & belonging — Mixed picture
minor · low confidence
Citizens' assemblies can bring diverse people together and build shared values, which is good for belonging — but they directly reach only a tiny slice of the population, and evidence shows participants lose faith that their input matters, which can erode trust rather than build it.
The evidence
- Climate Assembly UK involved only 108 randomly selected participants drawn from 30,000 invitations across the UK. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “Climate Assembly UK involved 108 randomly selected individuals, chosen from 30,000 invitations sent out across the UK”
- By bringing together diverse individuals to deliberate respectfully, citizens' assemblies can foster a sense of shared values and trust. — gchu.org.uk (media) — “By bringing together diverse individuals to deliberate respectfully, citizens' assemblies can foster a sense of shared values and trust, which is crucial for the successful implementation of climate policies”
- Assemblies are designed to include people from all sections of society, including those most affected by climate change. — westminster.ac.uk (academic) — “They are designed to give a voice to people from all sections of society, including those most affected by climate change”
- CAUK participants' belief that the assembly would influence government policy fell sharply — from 42% at assembly end to 14% by September 2022. — involve.org.uk (media) — “CAUK members' belief that the assembly would influence government policy "a lot" or "quite a lot" dropped from 42% at the end of the assembly to 14% by September 2022”
- There is deep public concern about climate change coupled with low trust in the government's meaningful action. — climatecitizens.org.uk (media) — “a deep public concern about climate change coupled with low trust in the government's meaningful action”
- Government engagement with assembly recommendations has been limited, and select committees have expressed disappointment. — knoca.eu (media) — “The Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy Select Committee was "disappointed" by the limited government engagement with CAUK's suggestions”
- This limited follow-through leads to scepticism among assembly members and external groups about whether recommendations translate into actual policy. — involve.org.uk (media) — “This leads to skepticism among assembly members and external groups about whether the recommendations translate into actual policy”
Biggest unknown: Whether running more assemblies (national and local) at greater scale meaningfully shifts population-level social trust, or whether the well-documented drop in participants' confidence that recommendations will be acted on dominates the cohesion effect.
Our reading: The policy's main potential O15 gain is on civic participation and social trust: deliberately mixing people from across society in structured deliberation is a tested mechanism for inter-group contact and shared-values building (E9, E10). That positive exists, but is modest for two reasons. First, scale: the flagship national assembly reached just 108 people from 30,000 invitations (E22). Even with added local assemblies, direct participation remains a tiny fraction of the population — insufficient to move population-level cohesion indicators materially. Second, and more importantly for O15, the evidence records a damaging trust dynamic: participants who engaged in good faith found that their recommendations were largely ignored or received only a limited government response (E29, E30), and confidence in influencing policy collapsed from 42% to 14% (E26). This declining institutional trust, compounded by the broader public's already low trust in government climate action (E20), can undermine the sense of belonging and civic efficacy that assemblies are meant to cultivate — leaving participants more alienated, not less. The policy does not specify any mechanism to ensure recommendations are acted upon, so this trust-erosion pathway is live. On balance, there are genuine small positive cohesion effects for participants, and genuine negative trust effects from the pattern of recommendations being sidelined. Both are evidenced. The net is mixed, but at minor magnitude because both effects are limited to a small participant pool relative to the UK population.
Clean environment & nature — Little effect
minor · moderate confidence
Citizens' assemblies can shift public attitudes and provide some political cover for climate policy, but the evidence shows their impact on actual emissions and environmental outcomes is indirect and limited — recommendations have often been ignored or cherry-picked by governments. The policy is a deliberative process, not a delivered environmental measure.
The evidence
- Climate Assembly UK recommendations were used by the CCC to shape its Sixth Carbon Budget, showing some policy influence. — westminster.ac.uk (academic) — “The recommendations from Climate Assembly UK, for instance, were used by the UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC) to shape its Sixth Carbon Budget”
- LSE research finds assemblies have indirect rather than direct policy impact, supporting pre-existing policies rather than generating new climate policy. — lse.ac.uk (academic) — “UK citizens' assemblies have an "indirect impact on policy making by creating momentum around climate action and supporting the introduction of pre-planned or pre-existing policies rather than a direct impact by truly be…”
- The government's response to CAUK recommendations has been criticised as limited and lacking a comprehensive point-by-point response. — knoca.eu (media) — “The government's response to CAUK's recommendations has been criticized as limited and lacking a comprehensive, point-by-point response”
- Assembly members' belief their recommendations would significantly influence government policy fell sharply after the assembly concluded. — involve.org.uk (media) — “CAUK members, while enthusiastic about the process, became less confident over time that their recommendations would significantly influence government policy (falling from 42% at the end of the assembly to 14% by Septem…”
- Critics warn politicians may cherry-pick popular proposals or use assemblies to delay urgent emissions action. — theguardian.com (media) — “Critics also express concerns that politicians might "cherry-pick" popular proposals or use assemblies to delay urgent action on emissions”
- Embedding deliberative processes into wider democratic structures remains a challenge. — lse.ac.uk (academic) — “Embedding these deliberative processes into wider democratic structures remains a challenge”
Biggest unknown: Whether a government committing to assemblies would also commit to acting on their recommendations — the historical pattern shows limited uptake, which is the main barrier to any environmental effect.
Our reading: Citizens' assemblies are a process instrument, not an environmental one. The policy commits only to establishing them — it contains no statutory duty, emissions target, funding mechanism, or enforceable commitment to act on recommendations. Under the soft-verb / no-deliverable rule, this defaults to negligible unless evidence shows the mechanism fires at scale. The evidence presents a mixed but generally modest picture of real-world effect on environmental outcomes. On the positive side, CAUK recommendations fed into the CCC's Sixth Carbon Budget, showing some upstream policy influence. Assemblies can build public and political momentum around climate action. On the negative side, LSE research is explicit that the impact is indirect — supporting pre-planned policies rather than generating genuinely new climate policy. Government uptake of CAUK recommendations was limited, and members' own confidence in policy influence collapsed from 42% to 14% post-assembly. The risk of cherry-picking and delay is documented. Absent the policy, deliberative climate engagement would still occur (multiple assemblies already exist). The marginal additionality of a further policy commitment to assemblies — without a binding mechanism to act on their output — is small. The environmental benefit is contingent on a second-order decision (whether to implement recommendations) that this policy does not control. The verdict is negligible on direct environmental effect, with a small possible long-term indirect benefit if assemblies genuinely shift the political mandate for more ambitious climate policy. That indirect channel is real but uncertain and historically weak. 'Minor' is the ceiling if the mechanism fires; 'negligible' is the central case.
Equal treatment & democratic rights — Helps
minor · moderate confidence
Setting up citizens' assemblies gives a broader cross-section of the public a formal say in climate decisions, which is a genuine democratic gain. However, past assemblies have had limited actual influence on government policy, so the real-world democratic effect is modest.
The evidence
- Citizens' assemblies are designed to bring together a representative cross-section of the population, including people from all sections of society. — westminster.ac.uk (academic) — “They are designed to give a voice to people from all sections of society, including those most affected by climate change”
- Climate Assembly UK involved 108 randomly selected individuals chosen to be representative of the UK population. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “Climate Assembly UK involved 108 randomly selected individuals, chosen from 30,000 invitations sent out across the UK, to be representative of the UK population based on demographics and climate change concern”
- Assemblies can provide insights into informed public opinion and help build a broader mandate, but their impact on policy has been indirect rather than direct. — lse.ac.uk (academic) — “UK citizens' assemblies have an "indirect impact on policy making by creating momentum around climate action and supporting the introduction of pre-planned or pre-existing policies rather than a direct impact by truly be…”
- Assembly members' belief that their recommendations would influence government policy dropped sharply after the assembly ended. — involve.org.uk (media) — “CAUK members, while enthusiastic about the process, became less confident over time that their recommendations would significantly influence government policy (falling from 42% at the end of the assembly to 14% by Septem…”
- The government's response to CAUK's recommendations has been criticised as limited and lacking a comprehensive point-by-point response. — knoca.eu (media) — “The government's response to CAUK's recommendations has been criticized as limited and lacking a comprehensive, point-by-point response”
- Embedding deliberative processes into wider democratic structures remains a challenge. — lse.ac.uk (academic) — “Embedding these deliberative processes into wider democratic structures remains a challenge”
Biggest unknown: Whether the assemblies will be given a binding or structured link to the legislative process, rather than remaining advisory — the history of CAUK shows recommendations can be largely ignored.
Our reading: Citizens' assemblies, as a democratic innovation, directly advance O9's democratic-rights indicator by formalising structured civic participation beyond the ballot box. The policy commits to 'establish' assemblies — a concrete deliverable, not merely aspiration — so the soft-verb rule does not apply. The representative design (E10, E22) ensures inclusion of groups typically underrepresented in conventional political processes, which is a genuine anti-exclusion mechanism relevant to O9's equal-treatment indicator. However, the magnitude is constrained by the evidence on actual democratic effect. LSE research (E17) finds the impact of past UK climate assemblies has been indirect — supporting pre-existing policies rather than driving citizen-centred policymaking. Assembly members' own confidence in influencing government fell dramatically post-assembly (E11), and the government's response to CAUK was criticised as limited (E12). This means that while the assemblies extend formal democratic voice, they have not demonstrably translated that voice into policy outcomes, which limits the real-world democratic gain. Absent this policy, climate decisions continue to be made through standard representative-democratic channels without this structured deliberative layer. The marginal gain is real — more people get a formal participatory role — but it is minor rather than moderate, because the historical pattern shows recommendations are often not acted upon in a systematic way. The verdict would shift upward if the assemblies were given a statutory or structured link to the legislative process.