.jpg)
Last week, the WA team and many of our clients and contacts gathered for a lunchtime briefing event on UKIP, looking at the party’s rise and its impact on the Conservatives and Labour. We were particularly lucky to hear from Dr Rob Ford, arguably the country’s leading expert on the party and its rise, Dr Marcus Roberts from the Fabian Society, and Paul Goodman, editor of Conservative Home.
With such a good panel, the event was stuffed full of hard data and rich anecdote. Trying to reproduce it all here would be impossible, so, instead, here are three observations about the party and its impact on this election and the next, and in particular, the interesting implications it might have for public affairs and lobbying.
1) We should think about UKIP through the prism of the 2020 election, not 2015. UKIP’s 2020 strategy is slowly coming to be better understood by the Westminster bubble. It is simple – anchor the party as a permanent feature of the UK’s politics, and cement itself – through the 2015 GE and through council elections – as the opposition in as many constituencies as possible in the North, South and indeed in Wales. (As an aside, few are talking about it, but, as panellists noted, research suggests Labour has lost c30% of its support in Wales since 2012. The 2016 Assembly elections could be interesting.) In the North in particular, it hopes to capitalise on Labour’s neglect of its core, loyal base that is to a large extent a result of the Blair era focus on marginal seats. A glance at trends in Scotland shows what can happen when Labour neglects its base because it doesn’t expect the rise of an insurgent party. UKIP carries none of the toxicity of the Tory brand in the North, or indeed in Wales. Breaking through to become the key opposition in scores of constituencies is a perfectly possible aim for the next parliament, and a major platform for 2020.
.jpg)
2) The impact of this trend on the politics in the next parliament shouldn’t be underestimated. This parliament is the most rebellious of the post-war era. Imagine the next – with a tighter hung parliament, and the likelihood of much deal by deal wrangling over legislation. Now consider 50-100 seats in which the incumbent – whether Labour or Tory – feels under serious threat from an insurgent and free-speaking UKIP. Are these MPs going to loyally vote with their party leadership (and in the current circumstances, if feels unlikely many MPs will feel gratitude to their leaderships for their own seats) or will they adopt a more autonomous approach? Our money is on the latter.
3) There is still a sense of snobbishness about UKIP, which helps no-one. UKIP has never been taken fully seriously by much of the Westminster bubble, mocked and looked down upon by commentators and political practitioners who have nothing in common with the demographic accounting for UKIP’s core support. An increasingly professionalised political class has looked with something akin to disdain at the self-confessed unprofessional approach that UKIP has so often taken, not realising that it is precisely that sense of amateur authenticity – a refusal to toe the line, to regurgitate a party mantra ad nauseam – that has driven much of Farage’s appeal.
The mainstream parties have been poorly served by this inability – or refusal – to understand what is driving UKIP’s rise. Equally, the public affairs and business community would do well to wake up a little and think more clearly about what UKIP means for them. UKIP is very likely to become a party of material significance for UK politics, at a local and a national level, beyond simply its presence in the polls and in the European Parliament. UKIP politicians and members are not part of the establishment. Engaging successfully with the party will require some serious consideration, the starting point for which should be a respect for its aims and its people, befitting the fact it is taking c15% in the polls. UKIP is not going to be a flash in the pan – the public affairs industry should stop treating it as such.