It is often suggested that the fight has gone out of British politics. That we are living in a period of consensus and that the adversarial approach which dominated until around the early-1990s is dead and buried.
That may be the case for some issues but for those involved in public affairs campaigns, there often remains a need to 'take on' government and engage in a fight.
The suggestion that adversarial politics is at an end appears to be a very Westminster village view of the world. Actually if you look at a local level there are a number of real fights taking place over genuine issues of principle. Look at the debate over HS2, post office closures, changes to local services and provision and you then start to see a very different picture. Individual citizens remain highly motivated at a local level and this can then spill over into the national political debate. Issues can escalate from the local to the national if not handled properly.
In such cases this should be a key area of focus for public affairs practitioners to identify and manage.
The political parties look with envy to the likes of the National Trust, CPRE, NGOs etc who are able to motivate large numbers of people in support of a campaign. They themselves are often broad coalitions of interests so this motivation is not always a straightforward task but they have the potential to use their large numbers to lobby government directly, attract media interest and engage in effective social media campaigns as well.
Some politicians, locally and nationally, have tried a number of ways to try and draw the sting of such organisations. A method used in the Netherlands and mentioned recently in a business breakfast we held with Sir John Armitt, is to literally invite interested parties 'to the table' where they can thrash out a solution. The only prerequisite to being at the table is a commitment to be willing to compromise.
Too often in the UK, policies and projects are presented without sufficient thought about why they are being developed. This forces a reaction against the proposals and increases the level of politics involved. In essence, if people feel that the relevant decision-maker, ie Government, is not listening to them then it will inevitably force a reaction.
Consultations are another way in which proposals can be worked up but they often have the air of a pre-determined outcome about them (which can lead to them being challenged in the courts). This again increases the potential for conflict and an adversarial approach – the exact opposite of the aim of the consultation.
You often need to fight for a long time to get any change and have to make a nuisance of yourself. This can often annoy MPs. For instance, if you look at the recent appearance by Mary Portas at the Communities and Local Government Select Committee you will see a group trying to savage someone making an effort to deliver policy improvements. Charities have also come into criticism for encouraging people to use a template email to 'bombard' their MP. There are always pitfalls and sensitivities in campaigns.
Even for the most political of operators it can take time and continued effort to secure change. It has taken Michael Heseltine most of his political career to get the Government to adopt a devolutionary approach and give local bodies the powers he thinks they should have (even if the funding to go with those powers are nowhere near the scale he recommended).
So far from politics being low-key, consensual and agreements being reached, there is still a lot of life left in it and serious debates and campaigns to be developed. It is not consensus all the way.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.