How pressure groups exert influence

How pressure groups' methods have different results.

A pressure group's choice of methods will be determined  by the resources available and by its status as an insider or outsider group. Insider groups tend to negotiate quietly behind the scenes, using their private contacts in Whitehall. They may even be given the opportunity to offer their views on draft legislation. Organisations such as the National Farmers Union are able to offer the government the benefit of their specialised knowledge in return for influence over policy. Pressure groups may also lobby MPs, briefing them on issues of concern or giving evidence to committees. Lawyers acting for the human rights group, Liberty, have done this in order to put their views across on counter-terrorism policies that affect people's civil liberties.

Outsider groups typically resort to less discreet methods to draw attention to their concerns. Lacking contacts within government, they may try to exercise influence through email campaigns and petitions, or staging demonstrations and publicity stunts. Members of the pressure group Black Lives Matter UK, for example, obstructed flights at London City Airport in September 2016 to draw attention to their claim that ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by pollution.

The ways in which groups seek to promote their cause or interests may depend  on the access points  available to them. Insiders who are regularly listened to by decision makers will sit on policy committees at local, regional, national and even European level. They will also often keep permanent offices at their point of access. While the UK is still a member of the EU, for example, large groups and organisations have maintained of access in Brussels and Strasbourg. If groups do not have such access points available to them, they must look elsewhere for their methods.

Direct action is not always peaceful. Some of those who took part in the 2010 student demonstrations against increased university tuition fees were prosecuted for disorderly conduct. Other pressure groups, usually those that are well funded, may initiate legal challenges against policies to which they are opposed. The Countryside Alliance took its case against the banning of fox hunting (in vain) to the High Court in 2004.Greenpeace, for example, has destroyed genetically modifed (GM) crops to publicise the dangers, while members of Plane Stupid, wishing to demonstrate the dangers of airport expansion, have trespassed at Heathrow and disrupted fights.

Some groups may use a combination of 'insider' and 'outsider' methods. Much depends on the nature of the issue and the degree to which the government is willing to respond. 

Other methods of exerting pressure:

Party donations. It is common for groups to make grants to political parties as a means of finding favour for their cause or interest. Trade unions have financed the Labour Party. Many business groups and large companies send donations to all parties, but mostly to the Conservative Party. In this way they hope to influence policy.  

Parliamentary lobbying can be important. Most MPs and peers promote the interests of one group or another, raising issues in debate or lobbying ministers directly. They are sometimes able to influence the content of legislation, proposing or opposing amendments, if they sit on legislative committees.

 Media campaigns can be important. Groups may hope that the press, TV or radio will publicise their concerns. Although the broadcast media in the UK are politically neutral, some programming may publicise an issue to the benefit of the cause. An example is David Attenborough's Life on Earth series which had a huge effect on environmental awareness. Groups may help to finance advertising campaigns.

 The courts. Pressure groups can pursue an issue through the courts if it feels government or a state body has acted contrary to the rule of law and has discriminated against a group in society. Judicial review is increasingly used. 

Why do some pressure groups have more influence than others?

What constitutes success for a pressure group? Success for some groups may consist of winning publicity for an issue rather than actually changing government policy. It is particularly hard to gauge the success of insider groups, as they do not usually publicise their achievements to avoid offending their government contacts.

The success of different pressure groups can vary considerably as a consequence of the wider context. Much depends on the climate of public opinion and the willingness of the government to make concessions. Access to effective methods of communication is another factor that may promote success. An example is the dramatic sequence of events that followed a period of rising petrol prices in September 2000.

The UK economy almost ground to a halt when road hauliers and farmers spearheaded a movement to blockade oil refineries, in a bid to get the government to reduce the tax on fuel. These activists had considerable leverage and made use of mobile phones to assemble their supporters rapidly, with little warning. They also enjoyed widespread public approval. They secured a limited success by catching the Blair government unprepared — they gained a freeze rather than a cut in the duty — but two later attempts to replicate this mass protest, when the cost of fuel began to rise again, failed to attract significant support.

Several factors which  might explain

· Resources A large membership who pay subscriptions means that a group is likely to have the financial resources to run offices, pay permanent staff and organise publicity. For example, the RSPCA employs about 1600 people, supported by thousands of volunteers, and can afford to take out full-page advertisements in national newspapers. The size of a pressure group's membership can also be important in persuading government that it reflects a significant section of public opinion. However, this is not always the case. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament had an estimated 110,000 members in the mid-1980s but the Thatcher government could afford to ignore its large and well-orchestrated demonstrations, because it could rely on the passive support of the majority of the population.

Mass membership can also give a pressure group significant weight, as politicians may feel wary of upsetting so much of the electorate. The umbrella groups COPA and COGECA have over 50 years’ experience and represent a huge range of farming interest groups and over 30 million farmers across the European Union. As a result, this group has tremendous human resources that it uses to lobby the European Union, particularly in defending the budget allocated for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). However, COPA and COGECA are also helped by the fact that their aims have often been in alignment with those of many in the EU. Mass membership alone will not guarantee success. 

Financial Resources - Stronger finances give pressure groups more options. For one, they can afford to open offices nearer to key access points like Westminster or the European Commission, The Living Wage Foundation was given a £1 million donation from Trust for London, which allowed the campaign to research the impact of a living wage, proving the evidence they could use to influence employers and the government. Wealthier groups can also afford to hire expensive professional lobbyists, exploiting the ‘revolving door’ in Parliament by hiring retired MPs and civil servants, who are well positioned to advise the group and utilise their connections. Businesses can even hire MPs, to act as directors or advisors. Well-financed groups and individuals can afford to make donations to political parties, which might also help their voices get heard. The Conservative Party’s ‘Leader’s Group’, a dining club open to donors giving at least £50,000 per year, gives members access to the Prime Minister and other ministers, that many groups might envy. The Conservatives might argue that the heads of trade unions, which have historically given millions of pounds to the Labour Party, enjoy the same benefits. There are no limits on how much an individual can donate to a political party, the law only requires donations over £7,500 to be made public. This raises questions about whether wealth can be used to buy influence, or at least used to ensure that candidates sympathetic to a group’s aims are elected. The 2010-15 Coalition Government tried to prevent wealthy pressure groups from having an unfair level of influence over elections with the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act (2014). The law reduced the amount that pressure groups can spend influencing elections by around 60%, limiting them to spending £9,750 in each constituency. On some occasions, wealth can be problematic. The above average wages and pensions of doctors perhaps undermined the BMA’s 2012 strike over pensions reform. Ultimately, while money can buy access and services, it cannot guarantee results. 

Opposition - Another factor can be whether a pressure group has any organised opposition. An unopposed group obviously stands a greater chance of success than a group that has a wealthy, popular, or well-connected opposition. Pressure groups campaigning for strict banking regulations after the 2007 financial crisis had to compete with banks that play a vitally important role in the nation’s economy, and therefore wield considerable influence with politicians. Even the largest, most well-resourced groups can find that they face a similarly well-organised opposition. The Trade Union Congress represents 54 trade unions and over 6 million workers, but often it can find its recommendations in conflict with the equally powerful Confederation of British Industry, which represents over 250,000 public and private companies. 


· Tactics and leadership Experienced, capable leadership is vital to success. For example, the RSPCA played a key role in securing the ban on hunting with dogs in 2004 by collaborating with two similar groups, the League against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, so that they were not competing with each other. Another key to success is knowing which 'access points' in the UK political system to target — the points at which a group can apply pressure. The European Union can also have an important role, such as developing and policing environmental standards. Friends of the Earth ran a long and ultimately successful campaign to compel the UK government to clean up beaches, as required by the EU.

Ideological outsiders, like the group Class War, often utilise direct action to gain attention. The group received worldwide media coverage when members vandalised the Cereal Killer Café in 2015 as part of a demonstration against gentrification. However, the media coverage was largely supportive of the café owners and the vandalism was widely condemned. Commentators did spend a news cycle debating the impact of gentrification and the shortage of housing, but this debate is far more likely to be influenced by groups operating within more formal, legal channels. 

· Public support Pressure groups whose agenda is in step with public opinion are usually more successful than those whose objectives fail to engage it, or whose methods alienate potential sympathisers. The Snowdrop campaign to ban the use of handguns was successful largely because of public reaction to the 1996 Dunblane primary school massacre, when a gunman killed 16 children and their teacher. Favourable media coverage can play an important role in winning support, as can the involvement of a well-known personality. TV celebrity Joanna Lumley's support for retired Gurkha soldiers was important in overturning a government ban on their right to live in the UK.

• Government attitudes Insider contacts with government ministers and civil servants are often a key to success. The National Farmers Union's links to DEFRA were instrumental in bringing about the 2013 badger cull, intended to protect cattle against tuberculosis, despite the wishes of animal welfare groups, who advocated vaccination of herds as a more humane approach. The government will usually listen to the groups on which it relies for specialist knowledge of a policy area, and with whose agenda it can see some common ground.

Is insider status always effective?

 - Groups with insider status are usually expected to be more successful in achieving their aims because not only do they have the experience and resources to operate within the political system, taking part in consultations, or appearing before select committees, but also, due to their professionalism or expertise, governments actually seek out their opinion. In 2015, a number of medical and nutritional experts, along with the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, were asked to give evidence to the House of Commons Health Select Committee, as part of its inquiry into childhood obesity. Influenced by this evidence, the Committee recommended the introduction of a new sugar tax, a version of which was then announced by the Government in the 2016 Budget. Outsider groups, who  lack the professionalism of insiders, or who refuse to work within the political system, may choose to focus their efforts on the public. This can be effective, but it tends to take time, and is obviously not as direct as meeting with, or submitting evidence to, members of Parliament. The difficulty of becoming an insider can sometimes be overstated. However, not all insiders can hope to have the same influence. While there are core insiders and specialist insiders, who can wield considerable influence within policy communities and issue networks, and shape legislation before it is even drafted, there are many more peripheral insiders, who participate inside the political system, but with very little influence. Even core insiders lack guaranteed influence. Despite the status and influence of the BMA, junior doctors have repeatedly taken strike action in 2015 and 2016. The BMA spent months negotiating with the Department of Health to draw up a new contract for junior doctors but could not get the terms it desired. When an insider’s aims and issues are not in line with government policy, they can soon struggle to have influence.  An example of this is the loss of influence trade unions experience when the conservatives are in power.