THE BLOG
17/06/2013 10:44 BST | Updated 14/08/2013 06:12 BST

Has Ukip Got ANY Talent For Government or Are They Quite Simply the 'Paul Mckennas' of Politics?

As an apolitical system and project-focused healthcare campaigner and writer, as well as an executive search professional, I find it inconceivable that the Bow Group could contemplate a Tory Party deal with Ukip as this gives the impression that this wet-behind-the-ears organisation is capable of making the decisions and executing the complex projects that constitute leading a country.

I have over eight years experience conducting searches for multinational corporations across the world and I have researched Ukip profiles and in my opinion, they have an extremely unsuitable set of bios for governing any country. The current economic problems require the UK to possess a cohesive and mature organisational structure comprising individuals with recent heavyweight, blue chip-standard experience or comparable evidence of the strategic thinking and intellect necessary to undertake a key role in the most important organisation in this country. Ukip appears to be pitifully light on all fronts - the organisation mostly comprises a mish-mash of humdrum provincial bios that bear little relevance to the HR requirements of a dynamic national organisation. I'm sorry but there are too many of the likes of teachers, those of retirement age and those working in parochial organisations etc and this simply will NOT do in this day and age. Nigel Farage has one of the slightly better CVs but to be perfectly honest, the short-termist, gambler-style thinking which is typical of traders is evident in the fact that Ukip is light on substance of how they actually plan to run the country. Has it any heavyweight, cohesive strategy whatsoever, or has Farage simply replaced a 'day trading' strategy with a 'day politics' strategy?

Alright, Ukip garnered a lot of recent support at the polls but I believe this is entirely based on the fact that Ukip has largely defined its brand around policies that reflect identity. In fact, it is clear why this strategy has been employed as history has proved it to be a very effective national pick-me-up and panacea to anyone's despair, but in isolation is a vacuous and short-term antidote to serious problems. To draw a parallel with office life, you only have to consider the conflicts that develop between departments and companies during mergers - particularly those which put jobs under threat. Change management professionals are employed for this very reason - they utilise various strategies to motivate employees so the atmosphere reverts to normal, but it is up to an experienced management to formulate a company's strategy with which to secure its future. And of course families are given to closing ranks during crises - a country is no different - it is all about regaining a sense of control and tragically it was a tactic very successful employed by Herr Hitler during the 30s depression. It goes without saying that economic depression becomes personal during long periods of unemployment and poverty, which manifests in feelings of loss of will, loss of hope and thus loss of identity. But it takes more than a restoration of identity to run a country - much, much more and in my opinion, Ukip just aint got it - they simply hypnotise the electorate into believing they have. In fact,'UK Illusionist Party' are political conjurors of a really quite ruthless species. You could say they are a textbook example of substance-less 'politi-cult style marketing tactics' and the luck of the devil of being in the right place at the right time.

Therefore, it is really quite bizarre that the think tank (or shall we say sink tank), the Bow Group, can possibly have organised this 'deal or no deal' debate - it is tantamount to M&S suggesting a JV with the old Woollies. In fact, these 'codger-tators' such as Major couldn't have attempted to do more damage to the 'blue chip' blue Brand than if they'd formed a group called 'Westminster Life' and sung the red flag on the steps of the Commons. What were they thinking of?! And what makes it even worse is that there are TWO years to the next election so there was no excuse - the Tory member jitters can hardly have reached the mass confusion stage of a collective basket-case style nervous b-down. No, I believe this debate is the preposterous and embarrassing product of minds programmed by completely outdated political thought processes devoid of the modern blue chip-style breadth and depth of thinking required to analyse and address the atrocious systems problems that exist in this country. The NHS is a prime example of a system in crisis and for which Dr Phillip Lee MP and his Senior Researcher and healthcare strategic analyst, Eva Kagan have put together robust plans that will guarantee its future via a network of state-of-the-art Super Hospitals. However, the Tory Party's advertising machinery appears to have gone off the rails and Bow Group madness and arrogance means policy white noise has reached crisis levels, so project plans of REAL value such as Dr Lee's Super Hospital plan are not getting a decent hearing by joe public - they're simply lost in an insipid-looking policy soup.

Finally, the Bow Group's ludicrous judgment leaves me in absolutely no doubt that robust screening and decent salaries in aid of recruiting the right MPs are crucial to the effective operation of a the national machinery of government and thus our future. Furthermore, the Country should do everything to rid itself of these inane think tanks that conduct senseless debates capable of grossly misguiding the electorate and thus risking the loss of everything we have, not just our identity. So my advice to Dave is nil desperandum and my advice for the Bow Group is a loud and unreserved NIL BY MOUTH!