The rise of UKIP has got many thinking about whether and how they should engage with the party. Some consider them to be a SDP-style 5-year wonder; others think they represent choice in the political marketplace. For those in public affairs we need to work out whether to recommend engagement, how and when.
UKIP are doing well in the polls, won the European election, won the Clacton by-election and may well win in Rochester and Strood, the 2015 General Election is lining up nicely for them.
For various tactical reasons, UKIP may prefer Labour to win than the Conservatives but the party could find itself as a potential coalition partner or being able to help the traditional parties out on a case-by-case basis. It looks rosy for them at the moment.
BUT DOES THAT MAKE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PARTY ESSENTIAL, AN OPTION OR TO BE AVOIDED?
Talking about his experience at the recent UKIP conference, Tim Montgomerie of the Times compared it to attending the Conservative conferences of old before all the hangers-on turned up. I assumed he meant lobbyists which is what the Independent did actually say. Although having loads of journalists and media at the conferences on the other hand appears completely acceptable.
There are organisations, such as the Countryside Alliance, who already take the UKIP conference seriously. They held a debate at the conference in Doncaster but otherwise the fringe was a little on the thin side. The party already offers commercial and fringe packages as well as corporate passes. 38 Degrees were there. Stop HS2 were there. A few more ‘mainstream’ corporates attended and started to tip their toes into the water but have not yet made any major moves.
Some people attended to see what it was like and consider what their recommendations should be in future. There is also the chance that UKIP, just like the other parties, have found that the conferences provide much needed income.
Whilst Rupert Murdoch may have met Nigel Farage for dinner and discussed Douglas Carswell’s defection with him, there remains quite a step from this to more widespread corporate engagement with the party.
Those in public affairs are though having to start taking possible engagement with the party seriously. But to simply suddenly emerge and engage, risks being seen as opportunistic.
Organisations should ask themselves whether their issues chime with UKIP and what is to be gained from engagement. Also, the risks need to be considered. Will others take great offence and do you risk existing good contacts in other parties by engagement with UKIP? It should also not be forgotten that whilst UKIP may have policies that feature heavily in the General Election campaign and in any potential coalition negotiations they are a party that wants withdrawal from the EU and that should not be ignored.
UKIP too though needs to extend the hand of friendship and make themselves more business friendly. Mind you, the waters are not warm for charities with Farage already having suggested that charities that lobby should not receive government grants.
As an anti-Westminster politics political party, UKIP has to decide what sort of engagement it feels it wants to have, especially if they have any degree of power after the General Election. If engagement with Murdoch is acceptable does that apply to others as well?
There is no one answer to the issue of UKIP engagement, it will work for some and not others but the at least has to be a level of consideration.
Of course, there is always the option of waiting for all those disaffected Conservative MPs, and maybe a few others, to change sides. That would provide you with an instant network of UKIP MPs!