It is possible to make policy quickly and to achieve radical change and reform.
Parliament has no separate authority to rival the government of the day.
Nor does Britain have a codified constitution to limit government power; nor an entrenched Bill of Rights. So, the courts have not been a significant target of pressure group activity. The US Constitution gives great power to courts and legislature, unlike power in practice in UK, which is concentrated in the Executive.
Parties are disciplined and unified and the electoral system generally gives the most popular party an exaggerated share of the seats in the Commons, compared to the US so this means that pressure groups are less likely to persuade them to change there vote.
In Parliament, MPs put party first. They may be threatened with loss of career prospects but most of all, the party leaderships and their followers are tied by mutual interest the performance of their leaders is a key factor in why citizens vote for the party label at local level.
Party is the dominant factor in UK politics is about the clash of parties at national level, party competition dominates the working of parliament. The majority party directs government. The emphasis of the political system has been to produce ‘strong’ governments where reliance has been placed more on the ultimate political control, i.e. the need to win general elections.
The distinction between political parties and pressure groups has become blurred. Today many groups endorse candidates for office, raising campaign funds, provide workers, pay for television advertising and generally help out at election time. For example, in 1988, the Liberty Federation provided campaign funds and television advertising for both George Bush and conservative Republican Congressional candidates.
Funding of candidates by PACs means pressure groups can sponsor campaigns and political advertising for example pro and anti-abortion.
Think tanks started in US such as Brookings Institute or Heritage Institute
In UK however, many of same groups and types of pressure groups operate e.g. professional like American Medical Association or BMA in UK;, manufacturing industry, large companies such as Union Carbide or General Motors or oil companies like BP – refer to our visiting speaker John O’Reilly from BP Public Affairs Dept, who has lived in London, Washington and Alaska.
In the US there is pork barrelling every two years congressional elections take place.
This means that congress men look out for the own interests as they will up for election very soon so they will join up with the pressure groups to try and pass bills through that there state would approve of.
Successful promotion of such pork-barrel legislation is very likely to get the legislator re-elected by his constituents. Classic examples of such pork-barrel legislation include Federal appropriations bills for dams, river and harbour improvements, bridge and highway construction, and job-training centres, as well as legislation designed to prevent closure of obsolete or unneeded military installations, prisons, VA hospitals.
In the UK there is not the same emphasis on individual rights and liberties as in the USA. For example, there is still no powerful Freedom of Information Act in the UK, and the European Convention of Human Rights has only recently been incorporated into UK law.
In the US there is a Federal system this means pressure groups can operate at several levels and access points e.g. states, executive, legislature, judiciary. Political power more spread out in the US, separation of powers, so all the above are targets for lobbyists. E.g. BP
Britain is more homogeneous than the USA, and has fewer regional, racial and religious differences. Religion tends to be a question of personal conscience and the political questions about the role of state and church are of little interest to the most unreligious population in Europe. So there are fewer pressure groups on this matter and perhaps feelings are less strong in the UK than in the US in this matter
Key difference is different structure of government, then number of access points. In UK mainly executive, both civil service and Ministers who are supposed to make decisions. This reflects the concentration or fusion of powers in the UK.
In US federal system shown by importance of state governments at all levels. The weakness of parties is also clear in US less point in lobbying central party orgs, but much point in financing and supporting individual candidates.