It is often suggested that politicians avoid having to make difficult choices for fear of the electoral implications. Shifts in the way that policies are made and implemented give credence to this but a shift away from politics does not mean that lobbying is any less important.
Changes to the way in which policies are developed have been taking place for some time, they have not come about just as a consequence of coalition government. It should also be stressed that not all the changes are intended as a cunning wheeze but can and often do actually lead to better policy outcomes and are more reflective of the need for increased transparency.
One of the main changes has been the rise in public consultations. Although the Coalition has recently introduced a new set of consultation principles which are ‘more proportionate and targeted’, the fact remains that any major policy initiative needs a period of public consultation. This, at the very least, can provide politicians with some evidence when making a final decision and / or allows them to follow the publically popular route. The trouble is that consultations are not referendums and using some in this way just undermines the validity of others.
Politicians also often rely on independent commissions to look at ‘difficult’ issues, the recent airport expansion commission is an excellent example. This at least secures some additional time and can be used to demonstrate that decisive action has been taken. The results of the work of such commissions can be ignored by government so their establishment does not mean that a policy decision will be reached. Often such commissions actually come to the same conclusions as departmental officials who have also looked at the issue.
‘Tsars’ have been popular with government as well with around 100 having been appointed under the Coalition. They are independent policy advisers who ‘report’ to Ministers and are put ‘in charge’ of an issue area. Initial agreements with Ministers are often informal and according to critics the process lacks transparency. The benefit for Ministers is that they can be ‘blamed’ or dumped if the going gets tough.
However, these changes do not always remove the need for a political decision to be taken. They may simply delay the need to take a decision past a critical point, ie the next General Election.
Independent authorities are looking as though they may be popular going forward as well, especially in the realm of infrastructure development. The first half way house has been Infrastructure UK but, for instance, Sir John Armitt’s report wants to go much further and, in effect, give a new body responsibility for designing the country’s infrastructure needs over the long term.
None of this means though that lobbying and public affairs activity is lessened in value. In fact, it can be more valuable.
All these bodies and organisations still need ideas and input into policy development. Many seek to contribute and those that do not should not be allowed to drift off to make pronouncements that have an adverse impact. Government retains a fundamental role but may, on occasions, need to be reminded of this.
Often political decisions still need to be made. At the end of the work of a Commission, its report still needs to be implemented or ignored by government and they need to understand the basis on which that decision is to be made.
In addition, reputation remains absolutely key to constructive relations with those involved in policy making. This means building relations over a period of time, input and solutions-based submissions. None of them operate in splendid isolation despite their independence.
It remains critical to understand the policy making process, how the bodies interact with others and what the timescales are – the basic building blocks of a public affairs campaign. Despite what structures and processes are put in place it remains the case that lobbying plays an important role.