David Cameron’s big, open and comprehensive offer to Nick Clegg, rejection of an ‘uninspiring’ Conservative minority government and injection of Liberal MPs into key front-bench positions in the coalition represents a watershed moment for independent thought in British politics.
The PM, derided as “wishy-washy” by the already circling vultures on his own party’s back-benches, has maintained a bold commitment to political principle since the results of Election 2010 were revealed, and it’s the hope of every forward-thinking individual in this country - whether their own inclination leans left, right or centrally - that the coalition succeeds.
As the cabinet configuration reveals itself and the coalition’s plan for the next five years gradually emerges, it’s those who stuck to their guns and independent beliefs in opposition who’re being rewarded. Cameron’s recompense for dragging his party kicking and screaming into the 21st century, while being continually undermined by the Far Right, is the keys to Chequers and a chance to fulfil his considerable potential.
Justified gamble
Similarly, Nick Clegg risked the wrath of his peers, subordinates and the electorate at large by accepting David Cameron’s offer of a full coalition, but his inexorable rise to Deputy PM and the opportunities this affords him more than justify the gamble.
Cast your mind back to last week, and you’ll remember significant evidence of rebels and autonomous thinkers being rewarded at the ballot box
The trend extends beyond this term’s embryonic cabinet. Cast your mind back to last week, and you’ll remember significant evidence of rebels and autonomous thinkers being rewarded at the ballot box.
Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP for Edgbaston, was widely believed to be a sitting duck just waiting to be buried under a Tory landslide. However, her articulate and highly visible stance against Labour’s sycophantic commitment to the European Union constitution won the admiration of voters, and shook them into voting her to victory with a 1000+ majority.
Likewise, Karen Buck, Labour MP for Westminster North, also held her seat in a constituency that one would have staked one’s life savings on her losing to Young Conservative poster girl Joanne Cash. Did Buck’s autarchic decision to remove her son from a failing comprehensive school, description of Labour’s treatment of the elderly as “neglectful” and denunciation of the election campaign as “a ghastly cocktail party” help her to achieve this? The answer is yes, an emphatic yes.
New politics, based upon compromise over conflict, rewards both independence and transparency, a certitude that the largely reform-oriented, Eurosceptic new intake of Tory MPs needs to get wise to immediately if the coalition is to sustain.
Indeed, the as yet cloudy infrastructure of new politics should also colour the Labour leadership contest, which, given new politics’ proclivity for those who think outside the box, would suggest the centre-left should be backing the innovative Ed Miliband ahead of David Miliband, and scratching a line through the Brown/Campbell/Mandelson engineered Ed Balls altogether.
However, in truth, several nuances make matters a little more complex.
According to Diane Abbott, Ed Miliband is held in considerable regard by the party, while David Miliband has never been able to command such respect. New politics touched Labour for the first time though when David Miliband, whether graciously or strategically, sidestepped the opportunity to join its negotiating team during the Lib Dem coalition talks.
Did he foresee the shift toward independent thought that new politics was about to usher in, and make a conscious decision to distance himself from Alastair Campbell, Peter Mandelson and Gordon Brown, the three hoary bastions of old politics? Only Miliband the elder can answer this.
Consequently, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls did form part of the negotiating team, although the whole deal turned out to be little more than facade. By anchoring themselves to old politics in this way, Miliband the younger and Balls may have compromised their leadership bids, although neither has officially declared their participation at the present time. Throw the fact, cleverly concealed by the right wing media, that Ed Balls is actually an especially considerate and affable man into the mix, and the Labour leadership tussle becomes a tough one to call.
Should the maverick spirit continue to be embraced in new politics, the implications for other, more everyday environments such as the workplace, the classroom and sports clubs are mouth-watering. The passive, automaton, nine to five, going through the motions and picking up the cheque employee is in big, big trouble, while the rebellious, innovative, wilful maverick, marginalised for so long in British workplace culture, is coming through and taking over.
