Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:33:00.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Councillors and Interest Groups in Kensington and Chelsea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

John Dearlove
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The majority of studies of local government in England have tended to be either detailed summaries of the statutes that have shaped the structures and functions of local authorities, or else they have been essays upon debatable problems of local government. The heavy stress placed upon the importance of law, and upon the extent of central control, has meant that there have not been systematic attempts to look at local authorities as policy-making bodies in their own right. Instead it has been argued that local authorities act as ‘agents’ administering and executing policies the broad lines of which have been worked out by the Central Government.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , April 1971 , pp. 129 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For similar comments on the nature of the literature on local government in England, see: Finer, Herman, English Local Government, 2nd edition (London: Methuen, 1945), p. ix.Google ScholarRobson, William A., The Development of Local Government, 2nd edition (London: Allen & Unwin, 1948), p. 100.Google ScholarRedlich, Joseph, Local Government in England, edited with additions by Hirst, F. W., 2 volumes (London: Macmillan, 1903), vol. 2, p. 377.Google ScholarStanyer, Jeffrey, Country Government in England and Wales (London: Routledge, 1967), pp. 8–12.Google Scholar

2 See particularly: Robson, William A., Local Government in Crisis, 2nd edition (London: Allen & Unwin, 1968).Google ScholarA West Midland Study Group, Local Government and Central Control (London: Routledge, 1956).Google Scholar

3 For similar comments see, Mackenzie, W. J. M., ‘The Conventions of Local Government’, Public Administration, XXVIII (1951), pp. 345–56, pp. 348–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSharpe, L. J., ‘In Defence of Local Polities’, in Sharpe, L. J. (ed.) Voting in Cities (London: Macmillan, 1967), 1–14, p. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For an example of a study which is an exception to the general rule see, Boaden, Noel T. and Alford, Robert R., ‘Sources of Diversity in English Local Government Decisions’, Public Administration, XLVII (1969), pp. 203–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Rose, Richard, Politics in England (London: Faber, 1965), p. 193.Google Scholar Robson, Local Government in Crisis, chap. IX. Green, Leslie P., Provincial Metropolis (London: Allen & Unwin, 1959). p. 156.Google ScholarJackson, Richard M., The Machinery of Local Government (London: Macmillan, 1958), pp. 255–8.Google ScholarClarke, John J., Outlines of Local Government of the United Kingdom, 20th edition (London: Pitman, 1969), p. 1.Google Scholar

5 Brief references to interest groups in Local Government in Britain appear in the following studies: ‘Active Democracy — A Local Election’, Planning, 261 (1947), pp. 1–20.Google ScholarSharpe, L. J., ‘The Politics of Local Government in Greater London’, Public Administration, XXXVIII (1960), pp. 157–72, esp. p. 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The Greater London Group of the London School of Economics and Political Science (Robson, W. A.) ‘Local Government in South East England’, Research Studies I. Royal Commission on Local Government in England (H.M.S.O. 1968), esp. pp. 22, 32.Google ScholarBealey, Frank, Blander, Jean and McCann, W. P., Constituency Politics (London: Faber, 1965), pp. 380–2.Google ScholarSharpe, L. J., ‘Leadership and Representation in Local Government’, Political Quarterly, XXXVII (1966), pp. 149–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBroady, Maurice, ‘Community Power and Voluntary Initiative’, in Broady, Maurice, Planning for People (London: Bedford Square Press, 1968).Google ScholarRichards, Peter G., The New Local Government System (London: Allen and Unwin, 1968), p. 154.Google ScholarHampton, William, Democracy and Community (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), chap. IX.Google Scholar

6 Birch, Anthony H., Small Town Politics (London: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 165.Google Scholar

7 Sharpe, , ‘In Defence of Local Politics’ p. 1.Google Scholar

8 See for example, LaPalombara, Joseph, “The Utility and Limitations of Interest Group Theory in Non-American Field Situations’, Journal ofPolitics, XXII, (1960), 29–49, p. 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beer, Samuel H., ‘Pressure Groups and Parties in Britain’, The American Political Science Review, L. (1956), 1–23, p. 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarGarceau, Oliver, ‘Interest Groups Theory in Political Research’, The Annals, CCCXIX (1958), 104–12, p. 106.Google Scholar

9 Of course any full discussion of the recipients of group demands in the context of Local Government in Britain would need to take account of the permanent officials of the authority as well as the councillors. In this research, however, attention is centred on the councillors, and the officers have not been interviewed to see how they assess groups and group demands.

10 The following studies all stress, in varying degrees, the importance of studying the formal decision-makers when dealing with the impact of interest groups on authority structures: Zisk, Betty H., Eulau, Heinz, and Prewitt, Kenneth, ‘City Councilmen and the Group Struggle: A Typology of Role Orientations’, Journal of Politics, XXVII (1965), 618–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMilbrath, Lester W., ‘Lobbying as a Communication Process’, Public Opinion Quarterly, XXIV (1960), 32–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMilbrath, Lester W., The Washington Lobbyists (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963).Google ScholarWahlke, John C., Buchanan, William, Eulau, Heinz, and Ferguson, LeRoy C., ‘American State Legislators’ Role Orientations Toward Pressure Groups’, Journal of Politics, XXII (1960), 203–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMillett, J. H., ‘British Interest Group Tactics: A Case Study’, Political Science Quarterly, LXXII (1957), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarGarceau, Oliver, and Silverman, Corinne, ‘A Pressure Group and the Pressured: A Case Report’, American Political Science Review, XLVIII (1954), 672–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarKey, V. O. Jr ‘The Veterans and the House of Representatives: A Study of a Pressure Group and Electoral Mortality’, Journal of Politics, V (1943), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarLongley, Lawrence D., ‘Interest Group Interaction in a Legislative System’, Journal of Politics, XXIX (1967), 637–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCrane, Wilder Jr ‘A Test of Effectiveness of Interest Group Pressures on Legislators’, South Western Social Science Quarterly, XLI (1960), 335–40.Google ScholarScott, Andrew M., and Hunt, Margaret A., Congress and Lobbies (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1966).Google ScholarEulau, Heinz, ‘Lobbyists: The Wasted Profession’, Public Opinion Quarterly, XXVIII (1964), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarTeune, Henry, ‘Legislative Attitudes Toward Interest Groups’, Mid-West Journal of Political Science, XI (1967), 489–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBauer, Raymond A., de Sola Pool, Ithiel, and Dexter, Lewis A., American Business and Public Policy (New York: Atherton Press, 1963).Google ScholarHuckshorn, Robert J., ‘Decision-making Stimuli in the State Legislative Process’, Western Political Quarterly, XVIII (1965), 164–85.Google ScholarZeigler, Harman, Interest Groups in American Society (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1964).Google Scholar

11 Zisk, et al. , ‘City Councilmen and the Group Struggle: A Typology of Role Orientations’ p. 619.Google Scholar

12 The research represents an attempt to outline what Levi-Strauss would call a ‘home-made model’ rather than a ‘constructed model’. See Levi-Strauss, Claude, Structural Anthropology (New York: Basic Books, 1963), esp. p. 282.Google Scholar In Pike's terms the approach adopted relies on the ‘emic’ rather than the ‘etic’ standpoint, see Pike, Kenneth L., Phonemics: A Technique for Reducing Language to Writing (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1947), pp. 8–20.Google Scholar

13 For a discussion of the terms ‘psychological’ and ‘operational’ environment, see Frankel, Joseph, ‘Towards a Decision-making Model in Foreign Policy’ in Gore, William J. and Dyson, James W., The Making of Decisions: A Reader in Administrative Behaviour (New York: Free Press, 1964).Google Scholar

14 Notting Hill Housing Service, Interim Report: Notting Hill Housing Survey (1968), p. 10.Google Scholar

15 The Parliamentary Constituency of North Kensington has consistently returned a Labour M.P. since 1945. Of the four wards in North Kensington, only one has been ‘safe’ Conservative, whereas two have been regarded as ‘safe’ Labour, and (until one was lost to the Conservatives in 1968) have only returned Labour councillors back until the inter-War period. The remaining ward in North Kensington has, in the eight elections since 1945, been won by Labour on five occasions, and the Conservatives on three occasions.

16 Almond, Gabriel A., ‘A Functional Approach to Comparative Politics’, in Almond, Gabriel A. & Coleman, James S. (eds.) The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960), pp, 3–64.Google Scholar

17 Almond, , ‘A Functional Approach to Comparative Politics’, p. 34.Google Scholar

18 Key, V. O. Jr, Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups, 4th edition (New York: Crowell, 1958), p. 23.Google Scholar

19 LaPalombara, Joseph, Interest Groups in Italian Politics (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1964), p. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar (my emphasis).

20 Truman considers that ‘an excessive preoccupation with matters of definition will only prove a handicap’, and he quotes A. F. Bentley favourably when he stated, ‘Who likes may snip verbal definitions in his old age, when his world has gone crackly and dry’. Truman, David B., The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf, 1951), p. 23.Google Scholar

21 Some indication of the number of associational interest groups in Kensington and Chelsea is provided by the following information. In the council's estimates of ‘grants to voluntary associations’ for the year 1968–1969 provision was made to some fifty or more organizations. The council provides representatives on over eighty ‘outside bodies’. The list of ‘organizations’ and ‘clubs and societies’ drawn up by borough officials includes almost 200 groups. One organization active in North Kensington has calculated that there are some 150 groups and voluntary bodies active in that part of the Borough.

22 The Council of the Royal Borough is composed of sixty councillors and ten aldermen. Respondents were at first randomly selected for interview, but when it became apparent that shortage of time prevented the possibility of interviewing all councillors and aldermen as was intended, there was a special attempt to interview all chairmen and vice-chairmen. There was over a 90 per cent response rate among those contacted, and over 70 per cent of the Conservative representatives were interviewed (South Kensington 74 per cent, North Kensington 69 per cent, and Chelsea 64 per cent. 80 per cent of the aldermen were interviewed).

23 Two councillors specifically mentioned that the list was a good cross-section. One councillor felt I had drawn attention only to those groups that ‘hit the headlines’. Three councillors felt I should have included certain other groups on the list, but only three additional groups were cited, Red Cross, Chelsea Society and the North Kensington Community Centre.

24 The term ‘helpful’ was chosen because it was seen as being a fairly neutral term which would allow councillors to talk about the groups they ‘liked’ and ‘disliked’. In fact the question was seen by councillors as a chance for them to evaluate groups as ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

25 Two new councillors said that they had been members for too short a time. One councillor said all were helpful and would not discriminate. One very senior councillor said that he did not know enough to answer. One senior councillor just did not want to distinguish. The May or would not answer as he pointed out that he had to avoid controversial opinions during his year of office, although he was advised that interviews would only be used in statistical form and that there would be no reference to specific respondents. One alderman said all groups were helpful except the ‘political’ ones which he would not identify. One new councillor said it was necessary to give ‘context’ and would not discriminate. In fact of the above eight, two did go on to offer specific assessments of the groups. Of course, not all the responses to this question consisted of evaluative statements as to the ‘helpfulness’ of the groups. Factual statements on the groups and on group activity were made, and questions were sometimes asked of the interviewer.

26 See the comment by Zeigler, , Interest Groups in American Society, p. 276Google Scholar ‘those groups whose goals do not conflict with legislators’ perceptions of the public interest will be more effective than those groups whose goals do conflict with such perceptions.’

27 Eulau, Heinz and Eyestone, Robert, ‘Policy Maps of City Councils and Policy Outcomes: A Development Analysis’, American Political Science Review, LXII (1968), 124–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Chairmen were selected for special attention because they were the persons who were most influential and involved in the making, and maintaining, of council policy. One of the questions asked of respondents in fact sought to get them to identify those on the council who they saw as of particular importance in the making of major decisions. Most respondents answered by referring to the importance of the chairmen, and the chairmen of Housing, Works, and Planning Committees were singled out by some councillors as being of especial importance. The subject of “The Influentials’ is treated more fully in another paper. Chairmen of the first council were singled out for special attention, because the case material on group activity and council behaviour relates to the period of the first council from 1965–1968. All interview statements cited in this section were made by councillors or aldermen who were chairmen on the first council.

29 For a fuller application of this idea of differing conceptions as to the ‘proper’ role of government see: Williams, Oliver P. and Adrian, Charles R., Four Cities: A Study in Comparative PolicyMaking (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially chapter I ‘The Study Approach’.

30 There had been continual concern on the part of groups in Notting Hill that Powis Square was not available as an amenity to residents. This concern culminated in a petition to the council requesting them to buy and run the square as a playspace. After delays and demonstrations the square was eventually acquired by the council.

31 Williams and Adrian, Four Cities. ‘The typology characterizes four different roles for local government: (1) promoting economic growth; (2) providing or securing life's amenities; (3) maintaining (only) traditional services; (4) Arbitrating among conflicting interests.’ (p. 23). The authors call type (3) ‘caretaker government’.

32 Frequently councillors in replying to this question referred to the possibility of more than one method of communication being acceptable. Where councillors did mention the possibility of more than one method being used, they either volunteered or were prompted to suggest which method was ‘best’. Not all councillors did consider that more than one method was proper, and these responses are added to those methods that were identified as best by those councillors who did refer to the possibility of using more than one method, to provide column one — ‘the proper method’ to contact the council. The number of items in this column is, of course, equal to the number of councillors that were asked the question.

33 Bonilla, Frank, ‘When is Petition “Pressure"?’, Public Opinion Quarterly, XX (1956), 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 ‘New’ refers to councillors that were first elected in 1968.

35 One of the questions asked of respondents sought to get them to assess the value they attached to various information sources that could have been used by them when making decisions. Generally councillors stressed the positive value of the information provided by the officers and other councillors, and stated that information provided by interest groups was usually regarded as suspect. The tendency to attribute particular value to ‘internal’ information sources and to be particularly suspicious of ‘external’ information sources was especially marked in the case of chairmen. ‘The Information Sources’ of councillors is treated more fully in another paper.

36 By ‘demanding’ groups, I refer to those groups which raise demands which, if met by the council, would cause the council either to take on new commitments or else reverse existing commitments.

37 There is no weighting of the helpful statements. ‘Very Helpful’ and ‘Helpful’ assessments are both counted as one. ‘Unsure’ statements are, of course, not included.

38 See table 4 for a comparison of chairmen/non-chairmen assessments of groups. It was not really the object of this paper to deal entirely with the differing assessments of councillors on each of the dimensions of ‘groups’, ‘policies’ and ‘styles’. It has been mentioned that the position on the council does affect councillor assessments of groups. There is no doubt that different councillors have differing views as to the policies which the council should and should not be pursuing, but this will not be dealt with here. Instead, attention has focused on the chairmen as it is they who are particularly important in the policy-making activities of the council. Interestingly there is no significant difference in chairmen and non-chairmen assessments of the ‘proper’ and ‘improper’ input styles.

39 Not all groups from the list are included in this categorization, as there are a number which it is more difficult to type in this way. Task force, for example, is an ‘output’ group, but it is regarded with rather less favour than certain of the other output groups because it is less ‘established’ and was more aggressive in promoting itself.

40 The chairmen's definition of what constituted ‘public’ problems would be rather more narrow than this statement would suggest, and an important part of their policy predispositions lies precisely in what they define as a problem which warrants ‘public’ as opposed to ‘private’ solution.

41 For example, when the Notting Hill Housing Trust was first formed in the early sixties, it was regarded with extreme suspicion, but this is now no longer the case and today it is regarded as a worthy and helpful body. In one sense the history of Western government could be written in terms of the expanding conceptions as to what government should be doing, and there is no doubt that in Kensington and Chelsea there has been a certain preparedness to contemplate government moving into new areas. Although I have not hard information on this, I am inclined to suggest that in recent years councillors in Kensington and Chelsea have tended to become rather more intolerant of ‘public’ styles of demand presentation.

42 Councillor (and especially Chairman) assessments of the helpfulness of groups are based in part upon previous cases of council interaction with the groups. Assessments of a group will change if the nature of the interaction between the council and the group changes. For example an unhelpful group may come to be regarded as rather more helpful if it changes its demands and style, such that they are more acceptable to councillors.

43 The ‘usual’ combinations were identified as: (a) ‘helpful’ group with ‘acceptable’ demands and a ‘proper’ communication style; (b) ‘unhelpful’ group with ‘unacceptable’ demands and an ‘improper’ communication style. The other possible combinations of the three assessment categories are as follows: (c) ‘unhelpful’ group with ‘unacceptable’ demands and a ‘proper’ communication style; (d) ‘unhelpful’ group with ‘acceptable’ demands and a ‘proper’ communication style; (e) ‘unhelpful’ group with ‘acceptable’ demands and an ‘improper’ communication style; (f) ‘helpful’ group with ‘acceptable’ demands and an ‘improper’ communication style; (g) ‘helpful’ group with ‘unacceptable’ demands and a ‘proper’ communication style; (h) ‘helpful’ groups with ‘unacceptable’ demands and an ‘improper’ communication style. The term ‘acceptable’ demand refers to the demands that fall within the framework of the councillors policy predispositions, whereas the term ‘unacceptable’ demands refers to those group demands which run counter to the councillors’ conceptions of what they feel the council should be doing.

44 The project was organized by the Notting Hill Community Workshop and the Notting Hill Social Council and was centrally concerned with housing conditions and play facilities in North Kensington. The project was regarded with extreme suspicion by many of the leading councillors.

45 A body closely associated in the councillors’ eyes with George Clark and the Notting Hill Community Workshop.

46 Blondel, Jean et al. , ‘Legislative Behaviour: Some Steps Towards a Cross National Measurement’, Government and Opposition, v (1969–1970), 67–85.Google Scholar

47 See especially the reference cited in Braibanti, Ralph, ‘External Inducement of Political-Administrative Development: An Institutional Strategy’, in Braibanti, Ralph, ed. Political and Administrative Development (Durham N. C.: Duke University Press, 1969), p. 52, footnote 128.Google Scholar

48 Blondel, , ‘Legislative Behaviour, p. 68.Google Scholar

49 Davis, Otto A., Dempster, M. A. H. and Wildavsky, Aaron, ‘ A Theory of the Budgetary Process’. The American Political Science Review, LX 1966, 529–47, especially p. 543, and footnote 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 Research in other contexts is to some extent suggestive of a similar pattern to that which has been identified in Kensington and Chelsea. In New York, for example, it has been noted how ‘established’ groups can gain access by ‘low-keyed strategies’, whereas the ‘newcomers’ (groups that are similar to the unhelpful, or demanding, groups in Kensington and Chelsea) ‘must rely on high pressure tactics’. See A. J. Bornfriend, ‘Political Parties and Pressure Groups’ in ‘Governing The City: Challenges and Options for New York’. Connery, Robert H. and Caraley, D., eds. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, XXIX 1969, 55–67.Google Scholar Weiner in his discussion of interest group activity in India notes how the government likes output type groups and quiet methods of demand presentation and views with disfavour aggressive demanding groups (p. 188). Moreover it is also noted how certain group demands ‘are overlooked on ideological grounds’ (p. 215) Weiner, Myron, The Politics of Scarcity (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962).Google Scholar For a more general discussion see Gamson, William A., Power and Discontent (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1968).Google Scholar