stuy of UK Pressure Groups

To answer this question we must first understand what a pressure group is and what one does. Following this we will examine the activities of pressure groups as they attempt to influence the policymaking process in five different areas: - public opinion, civil servants, ministers, Parliament and political parties. Whilst examining this we will also be considering the implications this has for notions of democratic accountability.

In What is Politics, Bernard and Tom Crick define politics as “the study of conflicts of interests and values that affect all society and how they can be conciliated” . This defines politics as the ideal of conflict resolution within and between societies. Its sets an ideal that fair and just forms of compromise are more desirable than resorting to force, and sets an ideal for political systems to aspire to, even if they are too often restrained by pragmatic considerations. This conception of politics is closely related to the idea of pluralism . This term describes society as a multitude of competing groups that represent different social aspirations. These groups are said to compete, on what is mean

Direct access to ministers at heart of government may seem as the most promising of all channels. However, such privileged access does come at a cost. The Major government, keen to prove there was no such thing as a free lunch, created the Millennium Club . Businessmen were charged ten thousand pound for the opportunity to meet ministers at lunches, receptions and private functions. There was also a Premier Club, which had a membership fee of a hundred thousand pound, opening the doors to the Prime Minister and the cabinet for any potential suitors. Groups not able to afford such fees and not of ‘insider’ status would be unable to gain access to ministers, therefore closing a particular avenue for them to influence policy. This illustrates a clear advantage that some sections in society, namely business interests, have an advantage in financial terms, granting them access to senior ministers, that some less well financed groups are unable to exploit. This does not support pluralist notions of democracy of a level playing field therefore leaving notions of accountability considerably undermined.

Groups may also attempt to lobby parliament in order to be heard. Some groups employ professional lobbyists with contacts and experience in moving in such circles, but this tends to be expensive and is the favored method of the wealthier groups. For example, in 1996, a very detailed measure requiring water to be supplied to caravan parks was being considered in a parliamentary standing committee . The point of contention with the piece of legislation revolved around who would be responsible for the installation of such equipment, the Country Landowners’ Association, or the water company. Both parties employed lobbyists to promote their causes, but the advantage was held by the CLA as more of the MPs concerned were land owners than share owners in water companies. This debate does help promote pluralism, as it shows two opposing groups competeing for a different outcome on the one issue. Inevitably the group with the most resources available will prevail.

For a group to get their opinion heard and subsequently influence policy, they require an arena within which they can open some line of communication with the government. This can range from influencing the public to negotiations with top-level officials.

Some topics in this essay:
Poverty Action, Prime Minister, Age Concern, Tom Crick, Nuclear Disarmament, Hannah Arendt, CLA MPs, , NUS Cause/promotional, International Pressure, civil servants, political parties, public opinion, playing field, democratic accountability, insider status, level playing field, insider status guaranteed, access senior, metaphorical level, senior civil, sets ideal, senior civil servants, hold government accountable, notions democratic accountability,