Jesse writes for the Hereford Times.

A new government in a new parliament is always an opportunity for political renewal. But how vigorously that opportunity is taken varies wildly.

Sometimes, as in 1945 and 1979, you can see a clear and enduring change of direction. At other times, such as in 1997, there is as much continuity as change. There is some truth in the claim that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were "Thatcher's Children", after all.

People often measure political change by the size of a majority and the duration of a government. But what really matters is impact. 

Over the last 30 years there has been a deplorable tendency for governments to try to look active through the sheer volume of new legislation they create, as though the solution to all problems was more law, and the weight of law mattered more than its quality. 

This has generated so much complexity that, as my late father-in-law the judge Tom Bingham said in his brilliant book "The Rule of Law", it is sometimes impossible to say with any certainty what the law as laid down by Parliament actually is. 

In this context, the new government's 40-Bill King's Speech is not encouraging. 

But perhaps even more important is tone, on all sides. Is it partisan or open, hostile or confident, hurried or measured? As recent weeks have shown, tone becomes especially important at times of public conflict and disorder.

Politicians of all parties have a huge obligation here: to conduct themselves in a way that mixes proper passion for good government and effective law with a sober recognition of their difficulty and complexity.

And this is an obligation that extends to us all. Our human environment is like, indeed part of, our natural environment. We can improve it, or we can pollute it. We can keep the temperature steady, or we can raise it.

The person who posts anonymous abuse or provocations on social media, or denounces others in chat rooms, is raising the temperature of the water. The politician who fulminates against their opponents, or who dog whistles to their supporters in order to mobilise anger and resentment, does the same. 

This is not to say for one second that there should not be vigorous protest against injustice, or public anger at malfeasance and wrongdoing. But politicians and people alike can use this moment to set a new direction, of courtesy and engagement and respect and tolerance.