To (mis)quote Winston Churchill, rather than having got to the beginning of the end, we might have just reached the end of the beginning. By the time many of you read this we will have struggled through one of the longest and tightest election campaigns for many years. It has, at times, been difficult to distinguish between the rhetoric of each of the main political parties. Each is so committed to ‘families’, ‘working families’ and ‘hard-working families’, putting Britain where it could be, might be and should be, it is hard to know who you are and where you are.

I hesitate to say that we will have a government by now. The polls suggest we will have various groups discussing various things, with a view to forming a government. It is through that process that we will see whether the various commitments made are ones that will be carried out. Perhaps manifestos are no longer promises to the electorate; rather they are negotiating documents that set out the so-called ‘red lines’ in firm, clear language, with the ‘give aways’ in softer tone, to be used in post-election haggling.

Where does this take us in employment law? Last month we ran articles from the three main political parties in which they were asked to set out their policies in relation to employment law. What was produced met with a mixed response from you. Many felt that the exercise was little more than an opportunity for each party to engage in puff and propaganda, rather than serious policy debate. There is an element of truth to that, but there is always a risk during an election campaign in giving politicians space.

What we could discern was that two parties have an issue with employment tribunal fees; all want more skills and higher pay; some favour more regulation and others less. Interposed between some loose policy announcements was a good deal of finger-pointing, face-pulling and raspberry-blowing.

Therefore, what you might take from all this is that we start with a paucity of tangible, solid commitments. From that we move into a period of horse-trading in order to see who can work with who and how. We then get into a discussion about priorities and timetables. And all of that before we get onto ‘events, dear boy, events’.

That point might be taken to mark the end of the beginning. What comes next seems far more difficult to predict.

There is the prospect of a referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the European Union. Leaving aside the claims from some quarters regarding us being ‘governed from Brussels’ and 90% of our laws coming from the continent, it is clear that a significant proportion of employment law has an EU connection. This means that in any period of negotiation over a reformed membership of the EU, or if a referendum produced a vote in favour of leaving, the implications for employment law would be huge. None of the political parties – even those advocating an exit or referendum – have addressed this.

There is also further devolution down the pipeline in the UK. There was much discussion on social media about the Scottish Government having the power to abolish tribunal fees and the potential for creating wandering claimants, looking for a jurisdiction with lower or no costs. The result of the election may increase the pressure for similar devolution in other parts of the UK, or for further referenda on independence, or a move to a federal system of government.

Whatever stage we are at, employment law will remain as changeable and challenging as ever.

Alex Lock, DAC Beachcroft LLP