Why are some pressure groups more successful than others?

Pressure groups are organisations of people who all have a shared goal of trying to and eventually influencing governmental policy. They do this through different methods such as mobilising public opinion, or using their Insider group status as an advantage to have their issue brought up in government. With a main goal of influencing government policy and having their issues and opinions heard, the groups do not want to actually be elected into government. The success of a pressure group usually depends on several factors.

The first factor is how close the pressure group is to the government, and also the particular political party that is in power at that time. Some groups, also known as Insider groups, have better relationships with the government or political connections inside it, and this allows them to have their issues raised or promoted in political debates. As well as this, the government can and will go to these Insider groups to gather information on an area that the government could want to make a policy concerning. As the government knows that a specific pressure group has extensive knowledge in that area, they are more likely to consult them on it, and this allows the pressure group to get the specific policies passed that they think will favour them the most. An example of this would be that because the National Farmers Union (NFU) represents most UK farmers, it was consulted by the government about passing a new law that concerned those farmers. The NFU would be able to tell the government why the law was a good or bad idea, and possibly have influence over whether the law is actually passed or not. Furthermore, if a political party is in power at the time, having connections with that party is very useful for the pressure group. This is because if a member of that political party, who is usually an MP, agrees with or is sympathetic towards the policies and ideas of the pressure group, the more likely that those ideas will be brought up for debate in parliament by those MPs. An example of this would be the Labour Government passing a ban on hunting with hound dogs, and this is written in their Manifesto. Pressure groups such as the League Against Cruel Sports took action to help make this happen.

The second factor would be the extent of the resources that a pressure group has access to. Pressure groups that have more resources than others have a better chance of success. One of a pressure groups resources include its’ financial resources. Pressure groups can get money from donations to them from the public, or through membership fees that the group members have to pay. The more money the pressure group has, the more campaigning material they can produce and the more they can advertise their issues and ideas. For example, in 2009 eco-lobbyists such as Climate Action Network, WWF and Friends Of Earth received €8,749,940 from the European Commission. This would improve the pressure groups success because the more their issues are advertised, the more the public would see these ideas and possibly agree with them. This would cause them to join the group. Another resource that could determine the success of a group is the membership size of the group. Having more people that support the same idea means that more people are available to go to protests to support the ideas of the group. This not only mobilises public opinion and could influence people to agree with their ideas more, but it also means that the ideas of that group are spread. Large memberships also mean that the group’s vote could be considered very important to a political party. Pressure groups that carry thousands of members would be more likely to be successful because political parties would want to gain the approval of the pressure so that the pressure groups votes could be put towards that party, and possibly win them the election.

A final factor that would affect the success rate of a pressure group would be the overall nature of the pressure in the way that they put their ideas forward. This involves whether a group uses directly violent or controversial methods of getting their ideas across, such as rioting or vandalism, or whether the group uses peaceful methods such as cam protesting or marches. . An example of this would be in September 2013 when Greenpeace members climbed onto an oilrig to oppose the drilling for oil that was going to take place. The Greenpeace members actions did not influence the oil drilling, and their actions have been called disruptive and careless. Groups that use direct violence may have a better chance of success as violence is hard to ignore, and the easiest way to solve that violence would be to give the group the legislation or policy that they want so that the peace can be kept. However, violent methods could also be seen as immature ways of getting a point across, so this could increase the chance of the government just ignoring that groups ideas because they are not campaigning in a way that is considered serious enough to be taken seriously. And this can also be oppositely applied to groups that protest peacefully. Their actions may not be disruptive enough to catch the attention of the government for their idea to be heard. However, the government could be more willing to listen to ideas that a group has to propose if the group are being mature about the issue and not causing a scene. Although this was not only in the UK but also around the world, around 8 million people publicly and peacefully protested invading Iraq in 2003. However, the invasion of Iraq took place.

Overall the success of a pressure group relies on three main areas. These are the relation between the government and the pressure group, the amount of resources that the pressure group has, and the method that the pressure group uses to get their point across.