Why are some pressure groups more successful than others?

AIMS

The Living Wage Foundation has been hugely influential, with the Government now implementing a new ‘National
Living Wage’ for adults over 25.
However, the campaign did not start with the lofty aim of immediately raising wages across the entire country – it
began by focusing on just four hospitals in east London, before moving on to target individual profitable businesses
that they felt could afford the increase in wage.
By 2013, there were over 430 employers in the UK who had committed to paying their staff the ‘living wage’ and by
2014, this had reached 1000 different businesses, and over 60,000 workers.
It was now much more realistic for the campaign to pressure elected representatives to make national reforms.
The issue attracted considerable sympathy, as the group’s successes had raised awareness of the fact that the
National Minimum Wage often fell far short of the cost of living – the issue was also increasingly salient, as the
Labour Party was campaigning on the ‘cost of living crisis’.
In 2017, the Prison Officers Association, the Prison Reform Trust, and a number of other groups related to prisons,
all lobbied the Government to reverse spending cuts that they argue have contributed to rising suicide rates, and
sharply declining standards.
These groups have found it very difficult to have an impact because not only are they challenging the Government,
but they are doing so on behalf of prisoners, who lack political power and influence, and may struggle to attract
sympathetic supporters.
2.STATUS

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 perhaps 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 can 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.
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.
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.

3.RESOURCES

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.
On the 15th and 16th February 2003, around 2 million people marched in London to protest plans to invade Iraq.
However, this did not stop Parliament from passing a motion by 412-149, to support military intervention.
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.
4.METHODS

The methods a pressure group uses can have an important impact on their success; however, they are also a
reflection of the above factors.
Insider groups do not normally need to use direct action, which may prove unpopular with the public and
antagonise the government, because they are already working with the government.
The BMA, for example, only felt the need to use direct action after insider discussions failed.
Whilst the 2015 and 2016 junior doctors’ strikes have had considerable public support, this may change when the
group goes on an all-out strike in late April 2016, and more patients are disrupted.
Likewise, outsider groups with limited financial and human resources may have little choice but to use publicity
stunts to attract free media coverage.
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.