pressure groups Flashcards
liberalist view of society vs pluralist
- state, civil society (voluntary) and family
- assumes all pressure groups have equal power, but they overlap and influence one another with unequal power
exam q for pressure groups
9 marker
- methods used
- types of PG
25 marker
- what makes a pressure group successful
- are pressure groups good for democracy
pressure groups vs pol parties
- seek to influence not govern
- provide information and advice and research
- can be less responsible/less inclusive and less accountable
- close links between parties and PG (unions) or progressive politics (AI) –> trade unions and labour
- groups can exist within parties (brudges group, tribune group, momentum and labour)
- some PG put forward candidates (pro lfie alliance in 1997/2001)
- think tanks (university research) have close links to parties (IPPR labour and CPS tory)
3 different types of pressure groups
- sectional –> BMA, NFU, RMT
- need to be apart of that demographic
- interest –> surfers for sewage, green peace
- anyone can join
- umbrella group: many groups come together to connectively make change
wyn grant and categorising pressure groups
- relationship in terms of power, insider and outsider
- core insiders: 2 way strong rel with policy makers on a broad range of issues
- specialist insiders: granted insider status in a more narrow area of expertise
- peripheral: insider status, rarely needed by gov due to interest/cause
- prison insiders: trapped due to relationship with gov (welsh tourist board)
- potential insider (rel can change), outsider by necessity (policy makers are against them, CBI), the ideological outsider groups (apart of their campaign is to be against policy makers)
what makes a pressure group successful
- success in achieving core aims
- success in progress towards a states goal
- objective success
factors affecting a pressure groups success
- achievability –> limited changes, that are quick to effect and cheap are successful vs wide scope and unrealistic
- child pov action group, too broad
- receptivity –> measures of support among important individuals (legislators and broader public)
- changes in political context –> renewable energy attitude changes
- optimum membership: (RSPB and 1.2 mil) = legitimacy and greater material resources (financial or skill set)
- large: gov may feel worried about upsetting large number of the electorate (COPA and COGECA and 30 mil farmers in eu –> HR lobbyists)
- middle class groups: educated, articulate membership or celebrity sponsorship
- financial resources: flexibility to methods a pressure group can use to influence gov (hiring professional lobbyists who can advise group on campaign, or can utilise connections
- non party campaigning and trade union act 2014 introduce tighter spending limits on pol activities (£9750 on each constituency)
- downside: gov funded = scared to speak out against in fear of losing funding and are not guarrenteed to work
- insider vs outsider: regular consultation with gov over policy
- indepth knowledge of parl working and they know who to pressure
- due to professionalism or expertise –> BMA influential as it reps a highly respected profession, but also have limited power, 2012 strike due to doc pension change
- methods: conventional and contemporary approaches (face to face lobbying of parl, social media, consumer campaigns) as opposed to extreme methods
- organised opposition: if comp is better resources, organised and has better relations with gov it is an issue, or a more sympathetic/attractive argument (pro life vs pro choice)
why do pressure groups fail
EVEN WITH ALL THE RESOURCES NEEDED, IF THE GOV IS NOT CONVINCED THEY WILL FAIL (directly, or from public opinion)
- campaign contradicts gov policy –> NUS and tuition fees in 2011 and disability rights group inclusion scotland failed to end bedroom tax
- gov is able to resist its campaign –> stop the war coalition did not stop 2003 iraq invasion due to gov decision and parl support, fixed term parl act kept coalition in power despite the tuition fees rising and benefits cuts
- opposition from other pressure groups –> forest and ASH for smokers rights as ASH is better funded, organised and has greater public support (!!!) and health group support like the BMA
- lack of public support –> gay marriage had widespread (!!!) public support, so groups against it would ultimately fail
- alienating the public –> actions and demands, PETA/ALF alienate public and make it less likely that they achieve their goals even if animal testing etc is looked down upon, reduced sympathy
evidence that show pressure groups are GOOD for democracy
- ensure minority groups and issues have a voice that might otherwise go unheard as they are not well represented in main pol parties –> pressure groups are vital in ensuring they are considered by politicians (illegal immigrants, suspected terrorist rights)
- provide essential expertise to government while also educating the public on key issues –> ensure politicians to make informed decisions (BMA and medical policies)
- offer an alternative to elections and traditional membership of pol parties, where turnout and pol party mems is low –> Royal soc for protection of birds has more more mems than L, C and LD combined and doubled while nov 12 police and crime commissioner elections reach a turnout of 15%)
- they ensure robust legislation due to input of a variety of opinion –> without research and expertise legislation could be slower as they lack the information to make lasting and effective decisions
- public funding evens the playing field so there is a sufficient pool of ideas –> funding of ASH was needed to counterbalance the wealthy tobacco industry
- during the coalition the mandate to enact the coalition agreement is weaker than a maj gov with a clear and popular manifesto –> invites pressure groups to question the gov as the public as a maj do not support
- high profile insider groups may dominate but can still face difficulties if their aims are too much or conflict with gov so there is balance –> BMA and doctors pension/public spending
evidence to show pressure groups are BAD for democracy
- can be seen as prioritising needs of vocal majority instead of the whole country –> HS2 protest due to house price impacts, noise levels instead of hollistic benefits
- expertise they give can be biased, giving some groups an unfair advantage, where other outsider groups cannot give the other side of the debate (retired crown servants, retired army officers and weapon manufacturer support)
- political activity of members is questionable, how involved?; how democratically organised are the pressure groups, unelected leaders
- strikes against gov are disruptive and distract them from policy making, BMA 2012, fire brigades union 2013 –> decrease efficiency of democratic gov (sometimes cannot enact manifesto promises)
- public funding of some makes tax payers fund groups they are opposed to
- allow the country to be dominated by a small number of elites, undermining pluralism in the UK: cash for influence 2010, disparity between human and financial resources
- heavily focused on their own aims instead of broader UK implications, tyranny of the minority –> gov needs to think about nationwide impacts but pressure G have narrow field of concern
promotional groups and social movements
- work in specific fields and try to change gov policy
- social movements: about gender and women, sexuality, disability, race, peace and environment
- socially liberal and radical
- exerted an indirect influence over policy makers as a part of contemp pol life –> challenging the elite
promotional groups and the state
- use of media, revolution in communications
- internet driven media –> news and communication outlets
promotional groups and lobbying
GOV
- groups complain about gov as members want change
- pressure groups are involved in ‘monitory’ democracy -> chastising those in power
- allow civil society to check and balance the power of gov
PUBLIC
- some groups lobby the public to mobilise public opinion to embarrass or force the state into action –> associational and promotional groups strike to capture the attention of both the public and policy makers
can promotional groups strengthen democracy
YES
- representational function: communicate opinion to politicians and policy makers
- help check and balance the gov and help the democratic process
NO
- usually lean towards the left of the spectrum, imbalance
- reinforces the lack of party orientation in british politics and political activism is less focused on institutions –> issue led
participation and promotional groups and problems
- not inclusive or representative –> educated and economically comfortable usually participate, more eager to speak and have a larger platform
- only allowing some to speak undermines democracy and changes it to ego-tropic from socio-tropic
- reduce citizen trust in democracy, weaken gov capacity to deal with the causes that all citizens care about
- raise unrealistic propositions that do not benefit the whole of the UK, but can cause disillusionment as gov as seen as incompetent and not caring
- imbalances in funding and resources –> some PG can make more demands and have a better position of power
