If you have any issue with government or policy, all too often the path of least resistance is to try to act in a conciliatory way and devise a solution in partnership. This approach obviously has many attractions and can work. Very often it is the right tact to adopt at the start of a campaign. Government should at least be provided with the opportunity of solving the problem once it has been availed of all the facts.
This approach also often suits senior management who do not want to be seen as ‘taking on’ government for fear of the potential fallout if they annoy anyone that matters. The fear of regulation and potentially direct action from government are powerful incentives to work with them. But this ‘fear factor’ should not pre-dominate.
However, this type of thinking can prevent real action from being taken when it is needed. That means tackling government head-on and being prepared to face them down.
The tactics around this are very different from normal lobbying and an organisation needs to be very sure of its ground. There is no use acting in a more aggressive way only to then find that the basis of your argument is flawed, the evidence isn’t there or that the wider support that may be needed is completely ephemeral.
Taking the examples of the campaigns against the sell off of the forests, pasty tax, health reforms, Bookstart funding, child benefit and you see well organised campaigns that used the media to great effect. These campaigns took the fight to government and utilised widespread public support. The reversal of the West Coast Mainline rail franchise decision showed what could be achieved in a straight fight based not on commercial sour grapes but on a flaw in the appraisal system, ie it was not a fair fight. Many of these campaigns also faced a very constrained timescale so this, no doubt, was factored into the campaign as well.
Parliament too is often treated with a level of reverence that is not always right for the issue. Take Select Committees, under most circumstances, it is right to work as constructively as possible with them, especially in oral hearings. However, there is no doubt that many Select Committees are now taking the fight to organisations and believe that whatever demands they make have to be met. This is not the case. It may be that Select Committees genuinely believe that they can make demands but for those involved saying ‘no’ is most definitely an option and may be the best option open to them. Politicians are not always right and do not always have the full facts available to them when they make statements. They have also been known to use Parliamentary Privilege to stand up in the House and make statements about named people and organisations. Under these circumstances, a public fight back is often the only remedy.
If the more confrontational approach is adopted then it is critical that the reasons are explained and made clear to all involved, especially amongst officials who are likely to get caught in any crossfire. There also has to be an awareness and realisation that if politicians are backed into a corner are likely to come out fighting so a robust defence has to be mounted, often through the media.
If government is to be tackled head-on that approach demands a level of consistency and total commitment. Any slight deviation or back tracking will be used against the organisation. There has to be a total and unified commitment to the programme and all it entails. Any deviation will be taken as a sign of weakness and will strengthen the hand of government.
Sometimes a robust and aggressive approach will work. Organisations should not roll over and have their tummies tickled.