In this essay I will begin by outlining what we mean by the concept ideology. I will then discuss the political parties related to these particular ideologies. In the scope of this essay I will focus on the Conservative and Labour parties only.
It is helpful to think of ideology as 'applied philosophy' because it takes philosophical ideas out of the realms of theory and applies them to the real world. It provides a perspective for understanding human society and a schema from which policies can be developed. As with all philosophical perspectives, there are arguments for and against as well as competing and opposing perspectives.
The most common way of classifying ideologies is the left-right continuum. Right-wingers value freedom and the right for the individual to do as they please and develop their own lives without interference, particularly from governments. Left-wingers on the other hand, believe that this kind of freedom is won by the strong at the expense of the weak. They value equality as the more important value and highlight the collective interest of the community above that of the individual. In terms of the economy, the Right strongly support Capitalism; the right of individuals to form their own businesses to reap what rewards they can from the provision of goods and services. However, the Left argue that Capitalism is a flawed system that creates poverty where there is plenty and that it is much better to have collective ownership of industries so that workers get the full benefit of their labour. In the Centre, politicians dismiss both these positions as extreme and damaging to the harmony of national life. They tend to argue for combinations and compromises between them: in practice a mixed economy combined with efficient welfare services.
As we will see for the two main UK parties: Conservative and Labour which once upon a time represented the right and left, there has been a dramatic shift to the centre.
Dispatches
On the same day the British public heard details of the unprecedented cuts in government spending that will affect almost everyone in the country, taxpayers also learnt they'd have to pay extra hundreds of millions of pounds a year to Brussels, as MEPs voted in favour of an increase in their budget.
Calling the proposed 5.9% increase 'completely irresponsible and unacceptable', David Cameron has just managed to get the EU to limit the budget rise to 2.9%.
Dispatches reveals that, despite the worldwide credit crunch, it's still possible to get rich out of Europe. The programme details the exceptionally generous package of salary, pension and expenses that MEPs receive and how some have abused the rules to pocket as much cash as possible. While Westminster has tightened up on the expenses system, Brussels still hands out some cash allowances without the need for receipts.
The programme also looks at the system of agricultural payments, which are supposed to help those British farmers struggling to earn a livelihood and continue producing food. Dispatches shows how millions of pounds in grants have ended up going to some of the best known - and richest - landowners in the country.
Dispatches also examines how money meant to help deprived areas has actually been spent. In one case the programme discovers that hundreds of UK workers are being laid off and their jobs moved to Poland, funded in part by a multi-million-pound European grant.
In another case the programme investigates allegations of fraud when a man with a criminal conviction for dishonesty ended up running a project given hundreds of thousands of pounds of EU money.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Why are pressure groups seen as more effective than political parties in achieving popular aims?
Pressure groups are made up of people concerned with the protection or advancement of a shared interest. Unlike political parties which have policies covering many issues, pressure groups wish to influence government only on specific policies.
Although the term 'pressure group' is fairly new, there is historical evidence citing The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade as being responsible for abolishing the slave trade back in 1807. Nevertheless, it was the Anti-Corn Law League's success in 1846 in overturning legislation that benefited landowners at the expense of the rest of society that set a precedent. By showing that the poor and weak can triumph over the rich and powerful while at the same time establishing a model for doing so (Jones and Norton, 2010).
In the modern world, society has become increasingly complex and diverse which is reflected in the myriad of pressure groups today. Groups develop to defend and/or promote interests that may be affected by certain government policies. However, the relationship between these groups and governments are not always, perhaps not even usually adversarial. Ministers often lack the relevant information or expertise to draft wise policies, or indeed the authority to ensure that they are implemented effectively. In fact, the government needs the support or at the very least acceptance from these groups, to help legitimise policies and ensure their success. As the case of the 'poll tax' in 1990 showed, if groups involved in a new law refuse to cooperate and instead organise against it, that law can become unenforceable (Pilkington, 1998).
Pressure groups play an important role in the several stages of the policy process. Initially it may be them who raise an issue and put it on the political agenda. Then when the government sets out policy options for discussion (Green Papers) and proposals for legislation (White Papers), pressure groups may lobby back-benchers and civil servants. Finally, in Parliament, groups may influence the final form of legislation (Jones and Norton, 2010).
At the top of the agenda for most pressure groups is gaining access to the key policy makers – ministers and civil-servants. Grant (1985) describes groups that are consulted regularly as 'insider groups' while those who cannot gain access Whitehall are the 'outsider groups'. To come in from the cold and be one of the 'insiders', groups usually have to show one or more of the following traits: They have authority, demonstrated in the ability to organise the majority of their members. They are a reliable source of information and expertise. Their group's objectives are compatible with those in government. The objectives of the group are in line with the sympathy of the general public. They have a reliable track record and ability to fit in with the procedures and ethos of Whitehall. They possess powerful sanctions by having the ability to shut down or heavily disrupt society.
From this we can clearly see why for an individual with particular concerns, supporting pressure groups are more effective than supporting political parties. Parties cover many issues and the concern of the individual can get lost in the complexity of their many policies whereas the single-issue interests of the pressure groups ensure that their concerns remain at the top of the agenda of groups so heavily embedded into the political process.
References
Grant, W. (1985) 'Insider and outsider pressure groups', Social Studies Review, September 1985
Jones, B. and Norton, P. (2010) Politics UK, (7th ed), Pearson Education Ltd: London
Pilkington, K. (1998) Issues in British Politics, MacMillan: London
Although the term 'pressure group' is fairly new, there is historical evidence citing The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade as being responsible for abolishing the slave trade back in 1807. Nevertheless, it was the Anti-Corn Law League's success in 1846 in overturning legislation that benefited landowners at the expense of the rest of society that set a precedent. By showing that the poor and weak can triumph over the rich and powerful while at the same time establishing a model for doing so (Jones and Norton, 2010).
In the modern world, society has become increasingly complex and diverse which is reflected in the myriad of pressure groups today. Groups develop to defend and/or promote interests that may be affected by certain government policies. However, the relationship between these groups and governments are not always, perhaps not even usually adversarial. Ministers often lack the relevant information or expertise to draft wise policies, or indeed the authority to ensure that they are implemented effectively. In fact, the government needs the support or at the very least acceptance from these groups, to help legitimise policies and ensure their success. As the case of the 'poll tax' in 1990 showed, if groups involved in a new law refuse to cooperate and instead organise against it, that law can become unenforceable (Pilkington, 1998).
Pressure groups play an important role in the several stages of the policy process. Initially it may be them who raise an issue and put it on the political agenda. Then when the government sets out policy options for discussion (Green Papers) and proposals for legislation (White Papers), pressure groups may lobby back-benchers and civil servants. Finally, in Parliament, groups may influence the final form of legislation (Jones and Norton, 2010).
At the top of the agenda for most pressure groups is gaining access to the key policy makers – ministers and civil-servants. Grant (1985) describes groups that are consulted regularly as 'insider groups' while those who cannot gain access Whitehall are the 'outsider groups'. To come in from the cold and be one of the 'insiders', groups usually have to show one or more of the following traits: They have authority, demonstrated in the ability to organise the majority of their members. They are a reliable source of information and expertise. Their group's objectives are compatible with those in government. The objectives of the group are in line with the sympathy of the general public. They have a reliable track record and ability to fit in with the procedures and ethos of Whitehall. They possess powerful sanctions by having the ability to shut down or heavily disrupt society.
From this we can clearly see why for an individual with particular concerns, supporting pressure groups are more effective than supporting political parties. Parties cover many issues and the concern of the individual can get lost in the complexity of their many policies whereas the single-issue interests of the pressure groups ensure that their concerns remain at the top of the agenda of groups so heavily embedded into the political process.
References
Grant, W. (1985) 'Insider and outsider pressure groups', Social Studies Review, September 1985
Jones, B. and Norton, P. (2010) Politics UK, (7th ed), Pearson Education Ltd: London
Pilkington, K. (1998) Issues in British Politics, MacMillan: London
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Why are pressure groups seen as more effective than political parties in achieving popular aims?
Pressure groups are made up of people concerned with the protection or advancement of a shared interest. Unlike political parties which have policies covering many issues, pressure groups wish to influence government only on specific policies.
Although the term 'pressure group' is fairly new, there is historical evidence citing The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade as being responsible for abolishing the slave trade back in 1807. Nevertheless, it was the Anti-Corn Law League's success in 1846 in overturning legislation that benefited landowners at the expense of the rest of society that set a precedent. By showing that the poor and weak can triumph over the rich and powerful while at the same time establishing a model for doing so (Jones and Norton, 2010).
In the modern world, society has become increasingly complex and diverse which is reflected in the myriad of pressure groups today. Groups develop to defend and/or promote interests that may be affected by certain government policies. However, the relationship between these groups and governments are not always, perhaps not even usually adversarial. Ministers often lack the relevant information or expertise to draft wise policies, or indeed the authority to ensure that they are implemented effectively. In fact, the government needs the support or at the very least acceptance from these groups, to help legitimise policies and ensure their success. As the case of the 'poll tax' in 1990 showed, if groups involved in a new law refuse to cooperate and instead organise against it, that law can become unenforceable (Pilkington, 1998).
Pressure groups play an important role in the several stages of the policy process. Initially it may be them who raise an issue and put it on the political agenda. Then when the government sets out policy options for discussion (Green Papers) and proposals for legislation (White Papers), pressure groups may lobby back-benchers and civil servants. Finally, in Parliament, groups may influence the final form of legislation (Jones and Norton, 2010).
At the top of the agenda for most pressure groups is gaining access to the key policy makers – ministers and civil-servants. Grant (1985) describes groups that are consulted regularly as 'insider groups' while those who cannot gain access Whitehall are the 'outsider groups'. To come in from the cold and be one of the 'insiders', groups usually have to show one or more of the following traits: They have authority, demonstrated in the ability to organise the majority of their members. They are a reliable source of information and expertise. Their group's objectives are compatible with those in government. The objectives of the group are in line with the sympathy of the general public. They have a reliable track record and ability to fit in with the procedures and ethos of Whitehall. They possess powerful sanctions by having the ability to shut down or heavily disrupt society.
From this we can clearly see why for an individual with particular concerns, supporting pressure groups are more effective than supporting political parties. Parties cover many issues and the concern of the individual can get lost in the complexity of their many policies whereas the single-issue interests of the pressure groups ensure that their concerns remain at the top of the agenda of groups so heavily embedded into the political process.
References
Grant, W. (1985) 'Insider and outsider pressure groups', Social Studies Review, September 1985
Jones, B. and Norton, P. (2010) Politics UK, (7th ed), Pearson Education Ltd: London
Pilkington, K. (1998) Issues in British Politics, MacMillan: London
Although the term 'pressure group' is fairly new, there is historical evidence citing The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade as being responsible for abolishing the slave trade back in 1807. Nevertheless, it was the Anti-Corn Law League's success in 1846 in overturning legislation that benefited landowners at the expense of the rest of society that set a precedent. By showing that the poor and weak can triumph over the rich and powerful while at the same time establishing a model for doing so (Jones and Norton, 2010).
In the modern world, society has become increasingly complex and diverse which is reflected in the myriad of pressure groups today. Groups develop to defend and/or promote interests that may be affected by certain government policies. However, the relationship between these groups and governments are not always, perhaps not even usually adversarial. Ministers often lack the relevant information or expertise to draft wise policies, or indeed the authority to ensure that they are implemented effectively. In fact, the government needs the support or at the very least acceptance from these groups, to help legitimise policies and ensure their success. As the case of the 'poll tax' in 1990 showed, if groups involved in a new law refuse to cooperate and instead organise against it, that law can become unenforceable (Pilkington, 1998).
Pressure groups play an important role in the several stages of the policy process. Initially it may be them who raise an issue and put it on the political agenda. Then when the government sets out policy options for discussion (Green Papers) and proposals for legislation (White Papers), pressure groups may lobby back-benchers and civil servants. Finally, in Parliament, groups may influence the final form of legislation (Jones and Norton, 2010).
At the top of the agenda for most pressure groups is gaining access to the key policy makers – ministers and civil-servants. Grant (1985) describes groups that are consulted regularly as 'insider groups' while those who cannot gain access Whitehall are the 'outsider groups'. To come in from the cold and be one of the 'insiders', groups usually have to show one or more of the following traits: They have authority, demonstrated in the ability to organise the majority of their members. They are a reliable source of information and expertise. Their group's objectives are compatible with those in government. The objectives of the group are in line with the sympathy of the general public. They have a reliable track record and ability to fit in with the procedures and ethos of Whitehall. They possess powerful sanctions by having the ability to shut down or heavily disrupt society.
From this we can clearly see why for an individual with particular concerns, supporting pressure groups are more effective than supporting political parties. Parties cover many issues and the concern of the individual can get lost in the complexity of their many policies whereas the single-issue interests of the pressure groups ensure that their concerns remain at the top of the agenda of groups so heavily embedded into the political process.
References
Grant, W. (1985) 'Insider and outsider pressure groups', Social Studies Review, September 1985
Jones, B. and Norton, P. (2010) Politics UK, (7th ed), Pearson Education Ltd: London
Pilkington, K. (1998) Issues in British Politics, MacMillan: London
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)