With election fever well and truly over, and a new coalition government in place, there appears to the feeling that politics has changed. That the zeitgeist has shifted, and the public and politicians have entered a era of ‘new politics’. This new politics consists of several empty phrases such as ‘renewal’, ‘transparency’ and ‘fairness’, all of which can mean absolutely anything or nothing, depending on the circumstances, and the audience. In this way, talk of a historic and new form of politics could potentially be seen as nothing more than a sleight of hand, in which politics and the mechanisms of politics stay much the same, but are merely rebranded to appear new and shiny. The problem with this being, new things do not stay new forever. Eventually, they grow worn and tired, and need replacing. And so for this to really be considered a drastic change in the ‘body politic’, it must have real substance, real transformative potential that will shape the nature of debate and ideas in the years to come. The stakes are high, and as such we must be cautious before ordaining Clegg and Cameron as the standard bearers for a new kind of politics.

So what is this ‘new politics’? And in what ways is it different? Well first and fore mostly, the two parties have framed the indecisive election result as chance to renew politics, and in a sense, move away from what they call the stale politics of tribalism, to one of consensus- in the national interest. This sounds fine, as undoubtedly after 13 years in government, with huge majorities in the House of Commons, Labour became stagnant, and ran out of ideas and became devoid of any real sense of purpose. This we cannot question. Furthermore, although they cannot be held solely responsible for the crisis of confidence arising from the expenses scandal, nonetheless, it happened on their watch. And so all that seemed wrong with the political process, the vested interests, the sense of privilege, and the disconnect between the politicians and the electorate, all became associated with the Labour government.

However, what concerns me about this conception of a new politics, is that it does not really appear to bring anything new to the party. Indeed, it is very difficult to see what is progressive and new in this arrangement, apart from the novelty of it being the first coalition government for over 60 years. And in fact, there are some alarming signs that indicate that this much heralded new dawn for politics, this politics of change, is in fact a cynical ploy to shut down debate and discourse, and dampen down the dialectic which is so vital to a healthy democracy.

That said, the one thing that is very definitely new to our political landscape is the coalition agreement itself. And I very much doubt whether anybody saw these two parties ending up as bed fellows, but it has happened, much to the chagrin of some elements of both parties. But as expected though, both leaders have eulogised about it being the beginning of a new era of politics in which narrow party interests are put aside in the name of good government. But this all seems rather superficial. Especially when we all know that they have only adopted this arrangement for naked party interests- which we were told was one of the main elements of the now apparently discredited old politics. The Conservatives could not possibly govern long term in a minority administration, and the Lib-Dems, quite simply will never win an election outright, and so this was their first opportunity for more than a generation to be in cabinet. But this is not a value judgement. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with parties wanting to attain power, we should not scorn our politicians for wanting to implement their ideas, I am however merely judging the new politics by its own criteria. And if party interest is a remnant of old politics, then by my reckoning the difference between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ is one of degree and not type.

Perhaps this is cynical. But I think that it is important to examine what this ‘new politics’ is, and what makes it new, as opposed to simply accepting that it just is, because if this coalition really does signal a significant shift in the political landscape, then it is important to understand the potential implications of such a move. For example, has the new politics brought an end to the much maligned ‘tribal’ politician such as Gordon Brown, who are now seen as relics of a bygone era, a reminder of the ‘old politics’? And before we even consider any discussion about the virtues of a new politics, we need to also ask ourselves what the ‘old politics’ was and why it needed to be changed.

The key to the ‘new politics’ idea is that the new government have manoeuvred their way very quickly into a position in which they feel able to argue that the new politics is built around consensus. In which sincerely held conviction and principle, disagreement and competing ideas, are a relic of the political past, and only serve to hinder government and the political process as a whole. And in doing so, they purport, rather sanctimoniously, to transcend the nitty gritty of political discourse and debate, and essentially say that they have been able to put aside their differences for the sake of the national interest. And as such, set themselves against what they describe as the old politics of disagreement, ideology and tribalism- which for me are the lifeblood of informed and progressive debate within a democracy. This is a cynical and expedient attempt to discredit ideologically driven politics and politicians, by accusing them of acting in their own narrow self interest, as though believing passionately in certain values and ideas is backward and reactionary, and has no place in political discourse.

Still, I would go further than this. One can see that the coalition agreement was a difficult one to come by, and instead of being steady and stable, the clear ideological differences between the two parties, means that it is potentially very fragile. Thus, it is politically expedient, and even practical for both parties to seek to dilute any idea of conflict, debate and dialectic, and rebrand politics as an arena of consensus, which contrary to what they may say, is not for the national interest, but rather, for their own party interest, because it ensures that the coalition’s path runs as smoothly as possible. And this again shows that the new politics is no more than a shallow rebranding exercise, devoid of the truly impactful and transformative ideas that politics is so badly in need of.

So to be clear; the ‘new politics’ that we are all meant to be so excited about, consists of empty sound bites that can mean anything and nothing at the same time. At its heart is consensus politics, in which disagreement, conviction and impassioned argument have no place because they are divisive and old fashioned. If this is what the ‘new politics’ has to offer as an alternative to ‘old politics’, then this is indeed a sad state of affairs. A politics devoid of any ideology or discord is no politics at all. The old politics had its procedural flaws; the unaccountable way in which MP’s were able to behave, the disconnect between parliament and the people, and the sense of entitlement are all things that we will be glad to see the back of. But the political arena of ideas is in a deep malaise after 13 years of a Labour government that lost its purpose and direction. And so what we need now is an expansion of political thought and discussion, as this will revitalise politics from the bottom upwards, meaning that any ‘new politics’ worth the name, needs to encourage and enable thorough and wide ranging debate and argument, not discredit it. However, unfortunately, the ‘new politics’ seems to advocate doing otherwise, and so I fear that the optimism for a new way of doing politics, will ultimately be dampened by what will turn out to be a false dawn.