‘Politics is about to get interesting,’ wrote Malcolm Rifkind MP in 2003. He was commenting on the election of Michael Howard as leader of the Conservative party and suggesting that the ‘grown-ups are taking control of the Conservative party again’. If the election of Michael Howard was ‘interesting’, then arguably the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party – and therefore the official leader of the opposition – is absolutely fascinating.

Whatever one’s political leanings (and ELA is non-political) it is apparent that clear blue or red water is filling in the widening gap between the two main political parties at Westminster. This will mean much more clearly defined choices for an electorate, allegedly fed up with all politicians seeking to occupy the same centre ground, with very little to distinguish them or their policies from the other lot.

What does this mean for us as employment lawyers? Looking back at the April 2015 issue of ELA Briefing, little hint was given as to what would actually be on the agenda, even a few months after the general election. The Conservatives were going to focus on ‘stripping away regulation’, apprenticeships and skills. No mention of the National Living Wage, for example. The Labour party suggested that ‘decent minimum standards are good for business’, giving an emphasis that may not feature so prominently in current discussions around the shadow cabinet table. The Liberal Democrats suggested a review of the tribunal fees they had helped to bring in, something sort of, but not quite, being done under the current Government.

Employment law sits at the heart of the collision between social policy, economic policy and business regulation, with a bit of European law thrown in for good measure. This week, for example, the non-Labour-leadership headlines have been dominated by employment law issues. Will the introduction of the National Living Wage wipe out businesses and destroy jobs? Do the proposed changes to picketing and balloting amount to the sort of measures one would expect under a fascist dictatorship (Tory MP David Davis’s views)? Will a vote for a British exit from the European Union free employers from the dead hand of regulation? Will the proposed abolition of tribunal fees in Scotland lead to jurisdiction tourism?

A move away from the mushy middle of politics may be more exciting and will certainly lead to more heated debate, as each party takes up positions that are as much defined by what they are against as what they are in favour of. Two dangers exist, however, as politics becomes more defined and more polarised.

The first danger is that in seeking to support one interest group more strongly, one inevitably acts in a more partisan way to the detriment of another interest group. A fair and reasonable balance needs to be struck between what can be competing interests. That balance allows for a workable and respected, functioning regime of employment regulation. If things become unbalanced, the risk is the system is perceived as being unfair and arbitrary, with the disaffected group finding a remedy elsewhere.

The second danger is rushing to find an answer or policy. The demands of 24-hour, rolling news reporting and the need to react and present a position can lead to muddled and ill-conceived policies.

Politicians don’t exist in a vacuum, however, and neither does policy. Each of us has the opportunity to get involved in these debates and we should take the opportunity to do so, whether through political parties, employee and employer groups or through ELA. Employment law is about to get more interesting.

Alex Lock, DAC Beachcroft LLP