Evaluate the view the think tanks, lobbyists and pressure groups have little impact on government decisions

A pressure group is a broad term encompassing any political group that attempts to influence those in power without seeking power themselves. There are two types of pressure groups: insider and outsider. While insider pressure groups work with the government to achieve their aims, outsider pressure groups do not work with the government. Think tanks and lobbyists are insider pressure groups since they achieve their aims by intimately working with the government. In the UK, think tanks and lobbyists have influenced government decisions, but the role they play has been diminished as a result of public unease (in the case of lobbyists) and the general de-ideologization of established political parties (in the case of think tanks).

The impact that a pressure group has on government decisions depends on its nature. Insider pressure groups work with the government and are often consulted by the government for insights on how policies may impact a particular sector of society. The National Union of Farmers, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the British Medical Association (BMA) are all examples of insider pressure groups: not only do they seek to influence the government, but the government also seeks to consult them. Often, these pressure groups have views that are in line with those of the government. Recently, for example, the BMA managed to pressure the government to increase spending on the NHS under a plan that would increase spending by 3.4% per annum from 2019 to 2024. The CBI, which speaks on behalf of British businesses, managed to pressure the government to give more powers to devolved governments. In 2018, the Northern Ireland Civil Service was provided more powers by the UK government. It could thus be said that insider pressure groups have had an increasing impact on government decisions.

Outsider pressure groups, however, have not secured similar successes. These groups maintain their distance from the government to ensure ideological purity, which may be threatened through compromises with the mainstream. Usually, this distance is kept because of their largely non-mainstream ideologies. But it may also be that they do not have access because of their lack of funds or exposure. To influence government policy, they typically resort to public awareness campaigns, protests and civil disobedience. Currently, in the UK, one of the most out-spoken outsider pressure groups is an environmentalist pressure group known as Extinction Rebellion (XR), which seeks to pressure the government to legislate on one of its objectives, to have greenhouse emissions to net zero by 2025. Their actions, however, often lead to not only public disapproval but also legal repercussions that may harm the group’s legitimacy and future survival. Recently, for example, Extinction Rebellion targeted BlackRock, an asset management firm, by dumping ashes in its office. While Extinction Rebellion is certainly a radical group and does not represent the nature of all outsider pressure groups, the ideological stubbornness of nearly all outsider pressure groups means that their influence is limited.

Thus, it could be said that, in general, insider pressure groups are far more influential than outsider pressure groups partly because they work with the government but mainly because their objectives are more mainstream.

Think tanks are, moreover, a very specific type of an insider pressure group. They are made up of experts from different backgrounds who share the same political philosophy and organize in the form of a think tank to create various policies on other issues from a shared political standpoint. Political parties often consult with think tanks for inspiration on possible legislative proposals. They have more time and expertise and may, thus, create consistent policies on several issues from a shared political standpoint. Currently, since the government is conservative, classical liberal and conservative think tanks have had an increasing influence on the current (Conservative) government. Examples of these think tanks include the Center for Policy Studies, the Center for Social Justice and the Adam Smith Institute. Not only do these pressure groups influence the government, but they often become appointed into the government. Iain Duncan Smith, for example, was the founder of the Center for Social Justice. Not only did his group have a great influence on the government, but he was late even appointed in 2004 as the Works and Pensions Secretary. Thus, it could be said that think tanks not only have an increasing role to play in government policy, but their members may also end up as direct members of existing governments.

However, the role of think tanks is relatively limited. Importantly, think tanks can only be influential if their respective ideologies is in power. Today, because the Conservatives hold most of the power, left-wing think tanks, such as the Fabian Society and the Institute for Public Policy Research, have almost no influence on government policies. Thus, the influence of think tanks depends heavily on who is in power. Moreover, due to the highly ideological nature of think tanks, many policies tend to be ignored. This happens for two reasons. The more obvious reason is that legislation has to be passed by parliament and this includes members from the opposition who need to approve bills. Thus, compromises have to be made and the original proposals of the think tank may not be followed or may be diluted. The other reason is that political parties have become less ideological. The Conservative Party, for instance, were staunch neo classical liberals in the Thatchatcherite period, whereas the Labour Party, until the late 1970s, were advocates of social democracy. This soon changed. The Conservatives soon returned back to their non-ideological foundations and embraced pragmatic approaches to policy. Similarly, Labour softened its views on free-market capitalism and embraced many policies that were not strictly ‘socialist’. This switch from ideology to pragmatism means that ideologically-driven think tanks could not wield much influence since pragmatism (and not a religious attachment to ideology) was favored on both the Conservative and Labour sides.

It could therefore be said that, depending on who is in power, think tanks remain influential in UK politics, but their influence is limited (as a result of political compromises) and diminishing (as a result of a general de-ideologization within political parties).

Lobbyists are another insider pressure group. They are firms paid for by private clients (usually corporations or foreign governments) who seek government access to influence legislation to match the interests of their clients. Today, lobbying remains a large and active business with almost 2 billion pounds spent by corporations per year. Not only do these corporations seek, through lobby firms, to voice their concerns to the government, but so does the government consult with lobby firms to assess the impact legislation may have on key industries. While this shows that lobbyists are certainly influential, the lack of transparency in the work of lobby firms makes it hard to see what real impact lobby firms have on government decisions. However, politicians have often switched between being in office and working as lobbyists for corporations. Colloquially, this has been referred to as the ‘revolving door’ between the political and commercial world. 52 former ministers practice today work for such firms. Francis Maude, for example, a former MP and Minister of Industry worked as an advisor for the OakNorth Bank and the business intelligence firm GPW. All of this shows that lobbyists do wield a lot of influence over politics and, oftentimes, have direct links and connections to politicians.

The lack of transparency, however, in the work of lobby firms has raised a red flag for the public. For this reason, Parliament passed, in 2014, the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act (2014), which mandated that all lobbying activities are registered. It could be argued that the public, by merit of being aware of lobbying activities, checks the influence that these lobby firms may have. However, many would argue that the works of lobbies are still not transparent enough. Thus, the influence they may have on the government and, certainly, as a result of the ‘revolving door system’, potential MPs, remains.

It could, thus, be said that while lobbyist firms remain highly influential in the UK, new legislation that mandates transparency puts a limited check on their influence.

In conclusion, pressure groups, in general, and think tanks and lobbyists, in particular, remain to have a big impact on government policy. Insider groups, however, have more influence than outsider groups. Think tanks and lobby firms, being types of insider groups, have a lot of influence, but, in recent years, their influence has diminished. In the case of think tanks, it is because of the de-ideologizing of political parties in the UK. In the case of lobbyists, it is largely the result of public unease. To say, however, that these groups have little impact is an exaggeration.