There are always potential risks with any political engagement. Whilst the risks are outweighed by the benefits, they cannot be ignored.
The unfortunate use of furniture company, Collins and Hayes, by Amber Rudd in her complaints about companies employing overseas workers rather than domestic ones was embarrassing for the company to say the least. Whilst she did not name the company, these things have a clear habit of becoming known.
They rightly took steps to reveal themselves and get their case across directly. They were then in control of getting their side across. In this case, a damaged reputation could have led to damaged sales and potential rejection by those department stores the company sell to.
The use of the company as an example appears to have come from information provided when Ms Rudd had a visit of the company’s production facilities and showrooms in 2015.
The incident shows that:
- The engagement needs to be ongoing – one-off events or meetings can be mis-remembered or mis-used. That is much harder if the relationship is more frequent.
- The messages are critical – it can be easy to fall into the trap of thinking that a politician is your best friend, that you got on well and that they really understand your issues. That may be the case but will not prevent them from commenting about you in the future. They are politicians and need to be elected. It is not just about the messages though, how they are delivered can be just as important.
- The event needs to be re-lived – following any engagement, especially site visits, think about what was said, asked and ask yourself whether it was dealt with correctly. It is perfectly possible to clarify comments after the event.
- Mistakes need to be corrected quickly – as the company did on this occasion, you should not be afraid to put the record straight. There is nothing worse that mis-information that can then can be re-used by others for years to come.
- Prepare for the downside – whilst there will always be positive messages to deliver and / or policy points to make, the potential risks should also be considered. It is important to think where you and the political audience may diverge. In this case, the use of foreign labour which for the company considered essential proved a problem for a government looking to prove its post-Brexit immigration control credentials.
None of these points are reasons not to engage. The dangers of not engaging are far bigger than the smaller risk of engagement potentially backfiring. Indeed, taking some of the recent announcements from the party conferences you could interpret them yourself or you could actually engage and see what the politicians are up to so you can then do something about it, if necessary.
The Brexit result, the implications for business and the new measures apparently being considered by the Conservative government will leave individual business and their presentative bodies with little choice but to engage politically.
The real change may be that the engagement may need to be more vocal and public if Ministers and other politicians choose to continue down a route of ‘naming and shaming.’