In contrast, an outsider group tends not to be recognised and accepted by the government, arguably that they do not wish to ‘pay homage’ or the political game, and bow down to the demands of the institution (Jones, 1991 p. 251). In quintessence, they are protest groups, which have specific objectives, which are external to the mainstream political opinion. For example, the government perhaps would not approach the animal activist group for advice about animal rights; however, may seek the professional knowledge and expertise from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA).
Pressure groups can also be influential within government, depending on current societal issues, the government has the opportunity to be selective about which pressure groups they utilise, and not all groups have equal access. A poignant example of this would be the National Farmers Union (NFU), in the 1980’s as an interest group they were an insider group. However, since the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the government have changed their tactics, deeming the NFU’s information as unreliable and not accredited, and now utilise the Royal Veterinary Society (RVS) for their expertise and knowledge instead.
Membership of pressure group parties has increased significantly over the last twenty years in comparison to the public who attend voting at general elections. This may be due to a variety of influencing factors, such as a higher disposable income, the advent of the internet, and there are now more bureaucrats. Kavanagh et al (2006 p. 418) suggests that ‘In Britain today, more than half the adult population are members of at least one organisation, and many belong to a number of groups.’ For Example, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, (RSPB) has more members in total than all of the British political parties amalgamated, (Grant, 1995 p.17) It could be argued (Grant, 1995 p.17) that this does not enhance democracy.
Pressure groups provide government with expertise and advice to facilitate policymaking, which ultimately result in enhancing the quality of government; they explore further avenues of participation, and actively contribute to the surveillance of government on behalf of its members, and look to expose information. Many of the pressure groups, whom assist the government, are experts in their own areas of competency such as medicine or farming.
With the increased prevalence of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Aids) was promulgated in the 1980’s, the Terrance Higgins Foundation (THF) was consulted for their technical expertise and practical advice. Budge et al (2006 p. 446) has suggested that consultation with relevant groups makes for rational decisions, and quotes, ‘Governments obviously have a democratic duty to consult and may depend on organised groups for policy information and implementation.’ Thus promoting political stability by providing a channel of communication between the government and the people, Budge, et al (2006 p 446) also suggested that by joining a pressure group, the populace fundamentally believe that they are actively being involved with politics.
Pressure groups can also provide an essential freedom for the populace, especially minority groups, they are able to organise with concurring individuals so that their views can be articulated, and taken into consideration by the government. For example, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) provides comprehensive information on its role in advising the Government on the transport needs of a disabled person. The DPTAC are currently lobbying for changes for people who are discriminated against, with disabilities, on aeroplanes, (December, 2007) this facilitates the needs of people who autonomously would not be able to make a difference, in essence, assisted by a pressure group, they have a voice.
Within the last decade, The People’s Fuel Lobby (farmers and the road hauliers) launched a campaign against fuel tax, blocking oil refineries, which caused widespread national disruption. The government were left with no option other than to reduce the price of fuel, in order for public confidence to be resumed and services to recommence. This type of pressure group campaign displayed a positive effect, as far as the protesting party were concerned, however, it was incredibly embarrassing for the government, who ultimately ‘succumbed’ to this form of blackmail.
It was suggested by Grant, (1995, p.13) that this bullying tactic can have detrimental effects and eventually recoil. For example, The Fathers for Justice Campaign (Guardian, Chezneck, 2006), allegedly plotted to kidnap Tony Blair’s son, which led to an announcement in 2006 that the group was dissolving, this may indicate that the pressure group had in fact gone too far on this occasion. A negative impact of pressure groups can be of overcrowding the political arena and overloading the government with information therefore, preventing them from addressing important issues.
Large scale demonstrations mounted by any group may lead to clashes with the police and the government, an example of this is the poll tax demonstrations which took place in 1990 (Jones, 1991, p.259), where scenes of violence were frowned upon by the public. During the 1970’s the Trade Unions had a substantial amount of influence and power within the government, until Margaret Thatcher came into power in 1979. It was suggested by Kavanagh et al (2006, p 418) ‘Thatcherite conservatives were often suspicious of pressure groups, blaming them for overload and exponential state expansion, one of the stated aims of Thatcherism was to tame the enemy within.’ Margaret Thatcher thought that pressure groups were (Jones, 1991, p.259), always ‘intrusive, meddling and interfering’ with government practices.
It was suggested by Watts, (2007, p.154) that pressure groups only provide for people that have the time, money and educational backgrounds and therefore this automatically excludes people from lower socio economic groups, these are the cohorts in society that really do need their voices to be heard.
To conclude, pressure groups are very popular in the United Kingdom, and there are in excess of five thousand diverse groups (Jones, 1991, p.259). It can be suggested, by the author, that pressure groups have some control over democracy; this is done by assembling the public with similar beliefs, and individual’s freedom to be heard increases power, thus creating movement of power downwards and away from central institutions, ultimately resulting in a fairer democratic society. Continuality of political action enhances democracy as it gives constant reviews to policy. If there were to be demise in pressure groups, the process would not flow, as government elections only take place every four years. Pressure groups bring to the attention of the public governments activities, ensuring that procedures are being followed. Regardless of positive or negative factors brought on by pressure groups, they play a poignant role in contemporary British politics, although it may not always benefit them or society, their role is to serve individuals politically in ways that elections, campaigns and political parties are unable to.
Word Count - 1568
References
Alderman, G. (1984), Pressure groups and government in Great Britain, 1st edn, Longman Group Limited, Harlow, Essex.
Birch, A. (1993), "Political power and policy making: Pluralism" in The concepts and theories of modern democracy, 3rd edn, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxford, pp. 217-225.
Birch, A. (1993), "The democratic state and the citizen: Democracy" in The concepts and theories of modern democracy, 3rd edn, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxford, pp. 109-132.
Blackwell Synergy - Br J Politics & Int Relations, Volume 10 Issue 1 Page 129-137, February (2008) Full Text. Available: [01/03/2008].
Budge, I., Crewe, I., McKay, D. & Newton, K. (2004), "Pressure Groups" in The New British Politics, 3rd edn, Pearson Education Limited, Essex, United Kingdom, pp. 441-471.
Coxall, B. (2001), Pressure groups in British politics, 1st edn, Pearson Education, Harlow, Essex.
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC). Available: [21/02/2008]
Finer, S.E. (1958), "Politics, parties and pressure groups", Political Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 265-266.
Grant, W. (1995), Pressure groups, Politics and democracy in Britain, 2nd edn, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
Guardian, Chezneck, G. (2006), Politics Today , Saturday, 13th May 2006 edn, The Guardian, London, United Kingdom.
Heywood, A. (2000), "Pressure Group" in Key concepts in politics, 1st edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, United Kingdom, pp. 222-226.
Jones, B., Kavanagh, D., Moran, M. & Norton, P. (1991), "The representative process: Pressure Groups" in Politics UK, 6th edn, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, Essex, United Kingdom, pp. 249-280.
Kavanagh, D., Richards, D., Smith, M. & Geddes, A. (2006), "Pressure Groups and policy networks" in British Politics, 5th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 417-440.
Kingdom, J. (2003), "Pressure groups in the United Kingdom" in Government and politics in Britain: An introduction, 3rd edn, Polity Press, London, United Kingdom, pp. 396-405.
Leach, R., Coxall, B. & Robins, L. (2003), "Politics, democracy and power: Democracy, power to the people?" in British Politics, 4th edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire, pp. 6-9.
Leach, R., Coxall, B. & Robins, L. (2003), "Politics, democracy and power: Ideas, interests and ideologies" in British politics, 4th edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire, pp. 11-14.
Leach, R., Coxall, B. & Robins, L. (2003), "Pressure groups" in British politics, 4th edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire, pp. 131-147.
McKenzie, R.T. (1958), "Parties, pressure groups and the British political process ", The Political Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 5-16.
Moran, M. (2005), "Representing interest in the Westminster system" in Politics and governance in the UK, 1st edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire, pp. 160-185.
Pottepl, A. (1958), "Attitude groups", The Political Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 72-82.
Rivers, P. (1974), Politics by pressure, 1st edn, George G Harrap and Company Limited, London, United Kingdom.
Roberts, G. (1970), "Pressure Groups" in Political parties and pressure groups in Britain, 1st edn, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, United Kingdom, pp. 78-107.
Sidjanski, D. (1967), "Pressure groups and the European Economic Community", Government and Opposition, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 397-416.
Stigler, G.J. (1988), Chicago studies in political economy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Strauss, G.R. (1994), "Pressure groups I have known", The Political Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 40-46.
Taguchi, F. (1968), "Pressure groups in Japanese politics", The Developing Economies, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 468-486.
Watts, D. (2007), Pressure Groups, 1st edn, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Whawell, P. (1998), "The Ethics of Pressure Groups", Business Ethics: A European Review, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 178-181.
Wootton, G. (1978), "Pressure groups: A typology of pressure groups" in Pressure groups in contemporary Britain, 1st edn, Lexington Books (DC Health and Company), Lexington, Massachusetts, Toronto, pp. 18-29.
