Evaluate the view that think-tanks, lobbysists and pressure groups have little impact on government decisions.

Intro: Judgement

Disagree with the view: Think-tanks, lobbyists and pressure groups have a considerable impact on government decisions, with each able to reach and influence government in different ways.

Intro: Justification

Think-tanks are often indiviually connected with MPs and can thus directly influence legislation.

Lobbyists have a route into legislation and often have financial backing, allowing them to make their case effectively.

Pressure groups attract media attention and public support, encouraging the government to pursure certain policies or risk a loss of popular support.

Para 1: Think-tanks. Point

Think-tanks simply present arguments for certain policies/ legislation, but are removed from the actual legislativec process.

Thus they lack the necessary route to government, and only have little impact over government decisions.

Para 1: Counterpoint.

Think-tanks are actually far more connected to government than they first appear, with governments often calling on them to aid with legislation.

-For example, Blair used think tanks to establish his Third Way shift in the face of a more left-wing party membership.

Furthermore, MPs are often directly involved with think-tanks and thus influenced by them.

-Policy exchange is an example of this. It was set up by Conservative MPs, including Nick Boles. The past three Tory PMs have all spoken at the Policy Exchange.

In 2019 Gavin Williamson endorsed the think-tank's academic freedom paper.

There is also the existence of consultation periods.

-Upon implementing the law legalising gay marriage in 2012/13, the government set up a 12 week consultation period including religious organisations and gay think-tanks.

Para 1: Overall.

Despite lacking formal connections to government, think-tanks are often very political organisations and can influence government policy through the publications which they write.

Whilst many think-tanks due to not impact government decisions, those who are politically connected and wish to do so are often able to.

Nevertheless, it is adequate to conclude they are the least impactful among lobbyists and pressure groups.

Para 2: Lobbyists. Point.

One may argue that lobbyists have little impact because despite its access, ther government is more inclined to pursue its own interests of big decisions.

-For example, whilst lobbyists such as Best for Britain aimed to persuade MPs to back a referendum on a Brexit deal, Johnson ultimately went ahead with his campaign promise to 'Get Brexit Done'.

Para 2: Counterpoint.

The case of Brexit is less about the government ignoring pressure groups and more about attempting to retrieve political capital from turmoil.

-Even so, the Lobby group Leave.EU was hugely influential in the outcome of the Brexit referendum and has impacted the actions of governments since.

Whilst government intentions may override lobbyist intersts concerning large political decisions, they can easily be influenced regarding less seismic decisions.

-For example, BAA limited was initially included in Labour 1997 windfall tax. However through their lobbying attempts they argued that they did not fit in the tax's crtieria, resulting in them being taxed less than other industrial companies.

-The lobbying group Stonewall has enjoyed success. In 2001, under the Sexual Offences (Amendment), they forced the government to reduce the age of consent for homosexuals to 16, equal to that of heterosexuals. In 1999 they challenged the ban on gay people in the armed forces. They won and the government immediately suspended discharging homosexuals and within months changed the law.

Para 2: Overall.

Lobbyists can be very impactful in determining government decisions as they have both financial backing and the connection to government to influence it.

-In a survey in 1996 MPs were asked their impression of the 'overall effectiveness of various lobby consultancies in providing advice to their clients.'

53% of MPs felt the consultancies in general were 'very' or 'quite effective'.

Often Lobbying can slip under the political radar, however, the thesis that have have 'little impact' is inaccurate. Firms with large human and financial resources are able to exert considerable influence over goverment decisions on occasion.

Para 3: Pressure groups. Point.

One may argue that pressure groups have little impact as regardless of the awareness they raise, there is no binding element to their work, rendering their power minimal.

-For example, Liberty. It is a legal pressure group which suggests arguments pertaining to incumbent laws. However, there is no necessity for the government to follow their advice.

-Liberty campaigned against the introduction of the Investigatory Powers Act- nicknamed the 'Snooper's Charter'. However they were unsuccessful

Para 3: Counterpoint.

Whilst it is true there is not a necessity, factors such as public support and reputation can force governments to fold. Legal necessity is not the be all and end all. They can still therefore exert considerable influence over government decisions.

-For example, in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2014):

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974 requires some criminal convinctions to be 'spent' after a particular period.

However the Police Act (1997) allowed employers to request an 'enhanced criminal record certificate.'

Liberty intervened arguing that the law undermined the human right to privacy and the government changed the law.

Furthermore, Liberty won a battle against the police concerning the use of facial recognition technology- ensuring the latter are not able to use it.

Para 3: Overall.

There are factors to consider when assessing the impact that a pressure group can have on a government decision. Clearly if the government are not in line with the proposal to any extent then it may be futile.

-For example, the BMA and Child Poverty Action group both campaigned against spending cuts in Cameron's first term.

-However this was a policy the government was firmly committed to, and enjoyed a mandate for, thus not giving in to pressure at all.

Nevertheless, to assert that pressure groups have little impact is a large generalisation and would ignore many previous successes- ASH (action on smokign and health) campaigned for smoking to be banned in public places and together with medical evidence led to a ban being brought in, in July 2007.

Conclusion:

The broad statements that think-tanks, lobbyists and pressure groups have little impact over government decisions is inaccurate.

-It seems as though these groups' success can also rely upon the incumbent political party, with Blair's Labour seeming to be more susceptible to influence than Johnson's current administration.

-In regards to matters which are not firm manifesto commitments, these groups have the ability to wield considerable influence.