“If public agencies are to improve service outcomes in the difficult years ahead they will need to forge a different type of relationship with citizens. This is one of the assumptions behind the partnership.”

I couldn’t agree more. I make related arguments on the importance of active citizenship here and here.

This is also the thinking behind Labour’s bold move towards co-operative councils. As the co-operative council model develops, the lessons of the RSA’s partnership with Peterborough City Council and the Arts Council will be valuable.

I’ll be pushing the District and County Councils that serve Westmorland and Lonsdale to take on board these lessons, otherwise my expectation is that public service users in the constituency are likely to have to endure falling service standards over coming years.

“It would be better both for schools and for wider society if middle class parents put less energy in trying to get into ‘good’ schools and more in supporting their children and being active parents in more socially mixed schools (which, as it happens, is what I have done with my two boys). There is a marginally greater risk of a child failing in a more mixed school but people (and media comment) exaggerate this danger hugely; as I pointed out, 90% of the performance of children can be predicted from the resources and support they get at home. But, while going to a mixed school is a small risk for the well-off there is clear evidence that greater social mixing and a wider range of ability in a school are most definitely good for children from poorer backgrounds”.

However, as Fiona Millar and Melissa Benn have well illustrated the truth about state schools is twisted by journalists who educate their children privately.

Decisions about the schooling of children are always best made by the parents concerned but we should all try to see beyond the media froth that Millar and Benn highlight towards the truth that Taylor speaks.  If the left leaning middle classes, who are rightly concerned about social mobility, were all to do this then they would truly be the change that they want to see in the world.

“Right now all our faith has poured out of the old institutions, and there’s nowhere left to put it. We need new institutions to believe in, and fast. Doesn’t matter what they’re made of. Knit them out of string, wool, anything. Quickly, quickly. Before we start worshipping insects”.

Denis MacShane may not be rushing towards his knitting needles. He wrote to Michael Martin in May to say:

“The great historian Macaulay wrote that there was nothing “so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality”. The British public is in one of its fits of morality right now but this will pass”.

Thomas Babington Macaulay may have been an historian but he was once described by John Stuart Mill as an intellectual ‘dwarf’. Perhaps, Mill would not have been so quick to dismiss as ‘ridiculous’ the collapse of trust in institutions like parliament and the City that Brooker lampoons. He was a genuine progressive and may have seen the spirit of our age as a harbinger of something more profound than that which can be dismissed as ‘ridiculous’. He might have agreed with Matthew Taylor, who writes in this summer’s RSA journal, that “our political model is broken”. He goes on:

“The polls-driven, triangulating nature of modern politics, exacerbated by the Westminster electoral system, encourages politicians to promise we can have our cake and eat it too. Having been told that anything is possible if we only elect the right guy, we are quickly disillusioned, and so the gulf between us and our leaders widens again. In my first RSA annual lecture, I spoke of the need to move away from a government-centric model of politics in which we demand that politicians solve all our problems (while all the time expecting them to fail), to a citizen-centric model in which we, the people, try to agree what we want while recognising the responsibilities and trade-offs involved”.

As Taylor writes elsewhere, ”we find ourselves unwilling to be governed but not yet willing to govern ourselves”. This is the essence of our times. This is the next step on what G. W.F Hegel – a truly great nineteenth century historian – called “the long walk through the institutions”. It is far from ‘ridiculous’. Knitting needles may or may not help. But we must think imaginatively and boldly to create the new politics that we need.

The end result of all of this sacrifice? A 20 percent reduction in his total carbon footprint. So, a gain, but enough of a gain to justify all of the pain? There was certainly more pain involved than, I fear, the average Brit could tolerate. Some might shrug their shoulders in the face of this and say: “What the UK does doesn’t matter anyways, as the key to averting climate change is what happens in China”. 

It’s certainly true that it would be possible for everyone in the UK to go through the pain of Ethical Man and for all of the consequent gains to be more than cancelled out by legion upon legion of dirty power plants and similar in China. However, it’s also true that China is less likely to cut back on its emissions while it continues to feel that the west is not making serious attempts to do so, as Ed Miliband recently said:

“China used to think the developed world is not serious. That’s what they were saying [at UN talks] in December. But now they know the US is on the pitch and ready to engage with them. It has made a real difference to what China is saying”.

President Obama seems to be changing the terms of engagement. He’ll only be able to continue to do so, however, if he is able to begin to deliver reductions in US emissions. China will doubtless judge him by his actions as well as his words. How will he deliver such action?

He might expect every American to ape Ethical Man tomorrow or he might think that his government’s decisions are at the crux of things. As Gavin Esler says in the introduction to the video below: Ethical Man’s “experience raises profound questions about how far individuals really can do much and how far government decisions on coal, carbon taxes, plastic bags and the like really are the key.”

Matthew Taylor has discussed government-centric and citizen-centric models of change. Ethical Man, obviously, offers a citizen-centric model but if Obama decides that every American is unlikely to ape Ethical Man, he will prefer a government-centric model. Certainly, there is much that governments can achieve on “coal, carbon taxes, plastic bags and the like” but, equally, citizens live in communities.

What might Ethical Man have achieved if he had attempted his experiment on the scale of a community? The village of Ashton Hayes, Cheshire, has actually attempted something similar; so, the notion isn’t an entirely fanciful one. Ethical Man’s reduction in his direct carbon footprint was a more impressive 37 percent. The difference between 20 and 37 percent is explained by the carbon contained in services that he used – schools, hospitals, etc - which he did not directly control. But, collectively, his community probably did control, at least to some extent, many of these carbon emissions that weren’t under Ethical Man’s direct control.

Surely Ethical Man’s total reduction in his carbon footprint would have exceeded 20 percent if he could have convinced his community to change their behaviour in certain respects? Citizen-centric models of change can’t simply mean the lonely endurance of pain but must also encompass an attempt to change the behaviour of those around you. That, ultimately, must lead to greater gain. It makes me wonder what the citizens of East Dulwich, the part of London where I live, might achieve if they worked together.

If communities across the west did this, then it would be that much easier for the likes of Obama and Miliband to make the case to China. That’s not to say, however, that our leaders won’t need to make some tough choices on “coal, carbon taxes, plastic bags and the like”. It’s simply to say that the pain of being ethical will be minimised and the gain of being ethical will be maximised if citizens can make their communities, rather than simply their households, ethical. Be the change that you want to see, as Obama didn’t quite say.

However, he might reflect upon the second part of Barber’s observation, as he draws up his Budget. Anatole Kaletsky may have him question its wisdom, while Dieter Helm would praise it. An energy crisis may only be six years away, argues Helm. The recent comments of Lord Browne may cause us to wonder about the proper role of energy markets in both keeping the lights on and meeting our climate change obligations. Helm makes a convincing case that government decisions made now will massively bear upon our ability to keep the lights on in six or so years time; with the possibility that we will be diminished in this ability far more real than we might imagine. While Kaletsky joins Samuel Brittan in encouraging Darling to focus on economic growth in 2010, not the state of public finances in 2015. The later only deteriorates without the former, even if focusing on the former involves more borrowing now, which inevitably has implications for public finances in 2015.

The McBride-affair has made the political challenge facing Darling even bigger. But, as Matthew Taylor has noted, there are some “huge choices to be made” on policy. These are such that the policy-making and economic dilemmas facing Darling are, arguably, even bigger than the political dilemmas.  They are certainly more important. This isn’t a time to play political games but to face up, as honestly and as fully as possible, to the real challenges that we face as a country. Ironically, to do so might also be the best political response. This would be to place political strategy above political tactics; the reverse of what Taylor claims is the defining trait of Gordon Brown’s administration.

“On the one side” of the Labour Party, argues Reeves, “stand those for whom the economic crisis demonstrates the need for a more muscular state; on the other, a diverse group”, including Byrne, “who want to use the state to give more power to individuals”. Similarly, Jesse Norman has previously divided Labour into Trimmers, Romantics and Deniers. Remarks from Matthew Taylor and David Miliband are said to define the Trimmers. “Instead of a Government-centric model of change in which we assume our rulers should be given the blame for what goes wrong and the responsibility for making it right”, claims Taylor, “we need a citizen-centric model in which we reinstate ourselves as the authors of our own collective destinies”. In other words: we want powerful people.

Norman associates Jon Cruddas and Tony Woodley with the Romantic tendency. “They regard New Labour as a tool of neo-liberal capitalism, which has deliberately betrayed its working class roots in order to appeal to the middle classes”. Polly Toynbee and Ed Balls are offered up as Deniers. “They argue that the growth of the state under Gordon Brown has been benign, and should be continued and extended”. If we collapse the Deniers into the Romantics, then Norman’s characterisation of the Labour Party exactly parallels that of Reeves. To mix the terminology of Taylor and Norman, the Trimmers favour a citizen-centric approach, while the Deniers and the Romantics advocate a Government-centric model; precisely the distinction proposed by Reeves.

Certainly, Toynbee – “the high priestess of Denial” - appears to continue to defend what might be described as a Government-centric model. While Neal Lawson and John Harris, both closely associated with Compass, like Cruddas, recently argued that “the government’s responses to changed times have been either too timid or, on the few occasions ministers have still affected to be radical, based on the very ideas that are now part of history … running through the supposed remedies for the financial crisis is a discredited belief in light-touch regulation”. Thus, Deniers and Romantics unite behind ”a more muscular state”.

This side of the argument, observes Reeves, has “the upper hand, and understandably so. The government is bailing out banks, car firms, homeowners and charities … A new corporatism is being hailed”. Compass are certainly keen to move UK politics on from the “ideological vacuum” that Howard Davies sees it as being played out in. “Both Labour and the Conservatives need to find a new way of talking about the government’s role in a stumbling market economy”, contends Davies. The left’s response to Davies’ call for “a British version of Gaullism” might come from the likes of Compass, while the right’s may come from Phillip Blond’s red Toryism.

Davies hears that “within government a debate is under way between those who wish to present the state’s new role as a regrettable short-term necessity and others who think a positive long-term redefinition is required”. The Deniers and the Romantics offer up the positive long-term redefinitions of the left, as the red Tories provide the positive redefinitions of the right. At this stage in the economic and political cycles, all of the energy – the “big mo”, as Americans say – is behind these redefinitions. Those who prefer citizen-centric models to a positive long-term redefinition of a more muscular state, such as Trimmers on the left and compassionate conservatives, like Norman, on the right, now lack the big mo.

“Compassionate conservatism”, argues Norman, “seeks social renewal through the devolution of power and responsibility to people and local institutions, through greater personal freedom from bureaucracy and regulation, through breaking up state monopolies to improve public services, and through a renewed emphasis on the rights of the citizen and the rule of law”. This was very trendy in the early part of David Cameron’s leadership but red Toryism seems more in vogue as concern has shifted from “social recession”, once a key concern of compassionate conservatives, to economic recession, now a massive concern for everyone.

Broadly speaking, compassionate conservatives offer a citizen-centric model that demands a much reduced role for the state and Trimmers provide a citizen-centric model that requires a smarter state. But citizen-centric models are offered from the right and the left; just as the Gaullists – Compass and the red Tories – offer competing Government-centric models from the left and the right. Some future trends point towards the Gaullists continuing to hold the big mo but others point in the opposite direction.

The Gaullist ascendency seems confirmed by the inevitability that Martin Wolf now attaches to banking nationalisation. “In 1978, Alfred Kahn, an adviser on inflation to President Jimmy Carter, used the word “depression”. So angry was the president that Mr Kahn started to call it “banana” instead … We are painfully learning that the world’s mega-banks are too complex to manage, too big to fail and too hard to restructure. Nobody would wish to start from here. But, as worries in the stock market show, banks must be fixed, in an orderly and systematic way. The stress tests should be tougher than now planned. Recapitalisation must then occur. Call it a banana if you want. But bank restructuring itself must begin”.

However, the warning from Steve Bundred of the Audit Commission to brace ourselves for huge public spending cuts augers against the Gaullist ascendency. If Wolf thinks that bank nationalisation is inevitable, then it must be a very real possibility. Equally, who am I to argue with Steve Bundred? And what conclusions should be drawn from the conflicting implications for the Gaullist ascendency offered by Wolf and Bundred?

It seems that there may well be some areas of policy – banks, most obviously – where Government-centric models are unavoidable. This does not mean that Gaullist delight should be unconstrained, however, as the finite nature of public funds means that the more public funds are consumed in these areas of policy the more citizen-centric models become unavoidable in other areas. Put simply: Government-centric models, by definition, tend to make larger calls upon public funds, which reduces the level of public funds available to use on other areas of policy, requiring more attention to focus in these areas upon citizen-centric models that typically make smaller calls upon public funds.

The realities of public budgets are not, though, the only reason for advocates of citizen-centric models to have heart. Let’s consider the full quotation from Mill that Byrne brought to mind. “The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it – a state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes – will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished”. We all wish that Fred Goodwin has long ago been made a docile instrument but no real solutions to climate change, anti-social behaviour, obesity and much else besides are likely to be offered by either docile instruments or the state – no matter how benign or enlightened – that renders them so.

Instead, argues Taylor, “for society to progress relies on citizens acting more often in ways which match their values and aspirations and doing more for each other than simply obeying laws. To have the society we want, we need to agree to give more back. This is particularly obvious” – even after the credit crunch and the Gaullist ascendency – “in relation to four current public priorities: protecting the environment, improving public services, living together as strangers, maintaining a sufficiently strong democracy and civil society”. Responding to climate change requires citizens to change the way that they live; not simply change in government policy. The NHS needs active citizens to take responsibility for the future health of themselves and their family; not simply a reaction from NHS staff after a health issue has developed. The response to youth crime includes citizens volunteering at youth centres, as well as government initiatives like anti-social behaviour orders. And, ultimately, citizens get the politics that they deserve. Cynicism about politicians is the default position of our times but if the best citizens do not bother to stand for election, where will this leave democracy?   

As much as all of this stands against the Gaullist ascendency, it seems rather trite and common-sensical. Citizen-centric models, as with so many things, perhaps move further beyond the realms of glib cliche when concrete examples are provided. Here I volunteer personalised budgets. Of their application to adult social care, Demos report: “it changes people’s attitudes towards themselves and their role in the service. People who were recipients, whether passive or complaining, became participants in planning and commissioning the services that support them. The service users that we interviewed said that they became less isolated, depressed, dependent and more optimistic, energetic and confident”. They argue that “this participative approach delivers highly personalised, lasting solutions to people’s needs for social care, education and health at lower cost than traditional, inflexible and top-down approaches”.

In short: making people powerful delivers better and fairer outcomes at cheaper cost. I can’t argue with this. Equally, I draw more Gaullist in relation to the banks with every passing day. Yes, I feel citizen-centric in relation to some things and Government-centric in relation to others. Does this make me a bad or mad person? I should hope not. But call me a cross dresser, if you want. Call it being it favour of what works, if you insist.

The debate about the proper role of the state is certainly getting more interesting. But the least helpful response to this debate is to offer the same answer in every context. Just because bank nationalisation seems more inevitable, it does not follow that Government-centric responses are right in all contexts. Nor does the success of personalised budgets in adult social care mean that citizen-centric models are always the best approach. The challenge is when to go Gaullist and when not to.

Danny Finkelstein suggests that Ed Balls is briefing against Ed Miliband as part of the next war; the race to be the next leader of the Labour Party. Balls, allegedly, wants to be the candidate of the left in this contest, though I can’t see him usurping Jon Cruddas from this position. Given that Labour could well swing leftwards in opposition, as a Blair/Brown backlash occurs against a backdrop of continued economic struggles, this is a position from which Cruddas could be victorious.

This is an outcome which is unlikely to delight either of the Eds, but the extent of Labour’s leftward swing in opposition may be directly proportionate to Cameron’s majority. Labour Party discipline will be easier to maintain if the party feels itself to be closer to a return to government. So the Ballses and the Milibands may best fight their next war (i.e. the Labour leadership election) by focusing entirely upon this war (i.e. the general election). In this much, Prescott is right. But, I think, there is more to be said for Taylor’s suggestion than he thinks. Certainly, the public appetite now is very much for sincere and strategic leadership, not political game playing. While I am not quite sure how one goes about “a unilateral political ceasefire”, Charles Clarke would seem to have suggested a good place to start.

“Surely it would be better both for Labour and for the country if the prime minister were now to announce the date of the next general election (my preference would be 6 May 2010). That would show confidence in the government’s economic approach, rebut any allegation that Labour was trying to manipulate economic decisions for party advantage and remove the rampant speculation around election timing which can erode the clarity and direction of the government’s leadership”.