Pressure groups

Characteristics of pressure groups

Characteristics of pressure groups

• Seek to influence government policy from outside rather than inside

• Typically have narrow issue focus

• Members united by common set of interests/shared belief

Insider vs outsider

Insider groups - consulted by government, use influence and contacts to advocate for desired policy/provide expertise

Outsider groups - no special links to government, look to influence policy through protest/direct action

Interest Vs cause groups

Interest groups- advocate interests of specific sections of society (e.g., NEU) ,includes peak groups CBI, TUC)

Cause groups - based on shared attitudes/values (e.g., Greenpeace)

Insider methods

• Work with ministers/civil servants - allows influence on policy (e.g., BMA smoking in car with kids), BUT devolution arguably makes Westminster less important

• Work with Parliament (MPs pass policy through PMBs/amendments) - Autism act 209 was PMB passed with national autistic sociaty BUT govt can Whip MPs against bulls they oppose (so ministerial lobbying more effective)

• Work with political parties - research/lobbying leads to manifesto pledges (e.g., common wealth worker ownership Labour 2019) BUT ineffective as ‘putting al eggs in one basket’ - labour lost election

• Target wider chess points (EU Parliament) - CBI effectively lobbied European Parliament BUT obsolete after Brexit

Outsider Methods

Engage public through campaigns, demonstrations, petitions and civil disobedience e.g., Rashford and Fareshare causing. U-turn over school meals in 2020 BUT protest can cause harm (Just stop oil M25)

Factors determining success - wealth

Financial power of groups forces them to be listened to by government (corporations provide employment/investment in economy and parties) BUT wealth can’t always buy to success - conservatives increased corporation tax to 25%

Factors determining success - Size

Largest groups claim to represent public opinion, have greater wealth, organise campaigns (E.G., TUC march for the alternative, BUT small groups like the Howard league have significant influence [19 staff members])

Factors determining success - organisation and leadership

• Good organisation allows groups to effectively use resources

• Good leadership can bring contact to a group (e.g., Nick Clegg and Meta)

• BUT organisation can only take group so far (BMA 2014 junior doctors)

Factors determining success - compatibility with government

Groups more likely to succeed if views align with government; “march for alternative” had limited impact, whilst taxpayers’ alliance work lowered benifit cap

BUT protests against poll tax ousted thatcher - can succeed whilst incompatible if enough support

Factors determining success - popular support

Groups with widespread support have more influence than those without (e.g., Fareshare) BUT stop th war coalition - 1 million protested, but ignored by Blair

Group politics - good for democracy

• supplements electoral democracy (allows alternative views to be heard)

• Widens power, with opposing pressure groups sparking debate/educating public (forest and Ash)

• Widens participation, with activism attracting those disolutioned with partisan politics (BLM, stop the war)

Group Politics - bad for democracy

• Holds unaccountable power, with lack of scrutiny/internal democracy

• Wealthy groups more successful (E.g., JCB - 2.5 million donated to conservatives)

• Gives power to already powerful; groups like Children difficult to organise (doesn’t widen participation)