Part of that test is to demonstrate the ability to cooperate across traditional boundaries.
We're not used to seeing this played out in Westminster politics, and certainly not in the papers. Partisan reporting allows no shades of grey. 'The Sun says...' usually precedes a statement that allows no wiggle room and implies the readers can't cope with subtlety.
In the five days after the election result the media found themselves in a position of being shut out of the cosy briefings and off the record conversations.
Some reporters (BBC's John Pienaar) took it on the chin and were happy to answer the question "what's going on" with "I haven't got a clue."
Memorably Adam Boulton lost his temper on air. Too many late nights. Too many thwarted predictions.
Others resorted to abuse born of frustration. ("Sort it out you clowns", Daily Star)
Even when it became clear that they had indeed been working hard to sort it out, as opposed to enjoying a bridge rubber in the cabinet office, the media took time to tune in to the new politics.
After complaining about a hung parliament (threat to civilisation), it then became a "love in" (implied threats to democracy).
Journalists started looking for splits between Lib Dem and Tories, implying any difference of opinion is, again, disastrous, or highlighting compromise (also bad, because they've "sold out").
It's interesting that most papers have been falling on some tired stereotypes in trying to get a handle on the David and Nick relationship: it's either a comedy duo or a civil partnership.
No room, it seems, on the front pages to see it as workmanlike respect, or common enthusiasm to tackle an economic crisis.
While David and Nick appear to have had an epiphany over the weekend the rest of us are still trying to catch up. As Benedict Brogan says in the Telegraph, electors and the media are experiencing a kind of time-lag.
What interests me is the way our language will have to catch up too.
For journalists used to reaching for the familiar cliche of left and right there’s been a dawning realisation that we’re not in Kansas anymore.
If it's true that "language equals thought" it's going to be a while before we get our heads in the right place.
Sky News demonstrated the problem nicely during what we must now call “the Rose Garden love-in”.
While David Cameron was explaining the new paradigm before our very eyes - referring deliberately to a "Liberal Democrat-Conservative Coalition" - the on-screen graphic was shouting “Breaking News: Cameron Coalition”. This was a bit like suggesting that someone could get married by themselves.
Sky’s Kay Burley also struggled a bit to formulate questions about the forthcoming Malton election. The ballot paper will include a Lib Dem standing against a Tory, amongst others. “WIll there be a coalition candidate?” she asked of her interviewee, who was polite enough not to suggest that the question totally misses the point.
We’re so used to the media and politicians trying to highlight the faults in others. It now comes as a shock to see the politicians refusing to play that game and highlighting the areas of agreement.
I suspect some in the media feel miffed that they weren’t asked. There is no greater demonstration of the limit of media power than the fact that it took 5 days for a dozen elected politicians to re-draw politics. And the only way they could do that was during a media blackout.
As Nick Cohen wrote in the Observer, part of the problem with all-powerful, winner takes all politics is that it encourages crony journalism. If you think your man (always a man) is going to get in next time, of course you're going to big him up. If you didn’t you’d never get his ear when he was in power.
At a stroke this power partnership has been de-railed. And some papers look silly as a result. (Nick Clegg a Nazi sympathiser, anyone? I can't see the Mail running with that one again.)
Of course it might all go horribly wrong, with Tory and Lib Dem cabinet ministers briefing against each other off the record. But why should we assume that from day one?
An emerging peculiarity is that the most anti-European mainstream party is now part of a European-looking coalition, where skills in finding consensus are important and valued. Certainly more important than cheap points-scoring.
Le Monde reached for its own stereotypes, declaring on Tuesday that "British fair play" had won out in the end.
In fact that’s only true if you ignore the fact the British politics has been about ya-boo tribalism for the last 65 years. During the same period countries like Germany have realised fairness and concensus are better ways of running things, however imperfect.
We’ve just caught up with them. And they thought they were catching up with us. The irony.
(Cultural aside: "British fair play", like pea-souper fogs and bowler hats, is something everyone knows about the Brits. The German word for fair play is actually die Fairneß. They also insist on calling us all "the English".)
So will language change to accommodate the new politics? To quote John Pienaar "I haven't got a clue"
Expect to hear the word 'progressive' more, as Labour tries to work out what it's for. (No, I don't know what progressive is either - but it sounds better than regressive.)
Perhaps we'll adopt 'balanced parliament' from the Welsh and Scots Nats - though I think that sounds a bit too much like a tight-rope walker.
Perhaps 'hung parliament' will disappear as a phrase - tainted by its negative use in the days of old politics. And perhaps it will all seem 'unsurprising', to use Nick Clegg's words.
After all, the German for 'hung parliament' is 'parliament'.
Comments