I can only wonder at what horrors would be alleged to occur at these parties – if that is the right word – if I made my observations more dedicated and maintained them for a longer stretch. Thankfully I have better things to do.

Nonetheless, I have to ask: What is going on? Can the honour of non-chattering class status be bestowed on me? I do hope so. Or, alternatively, is all of this chattering classes stuff just a term of lazy journalism and thinking?

If the clattering classes do exist, perhaps, we’d all be better off if they could take out their frustrations at “murder cafes”, rather than having their frenzied wrongs spill out at their so-called ”dinner parties” (Is food even served? Aren’t parties meant to be fun?) The “murder cafes” concept is explained 5 minutes 20 seconds into the video below, which also contains many ideas that David Cameron might want to take up as he takes forward the promised beefing up of his policy platform in the new year.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE5sxADDhew]

It’s worth a look. He advocates a policy on inheritance tax – also, wrongly, known as the death tax – that I previously been sympathetic to myself. This is to “hypothecate the revenues from inheritance tax to the new Child Trust Fund. In true Baconian fashion, the wealth of one generation would thus be used to fertilise the growth of the next. It might also make inheritance tax more popular, or at least less disliked”.

This hypothecation is fundamentally just: redistribution, via the Child Trust Fund, from those who are born into wealth to those who are not. It also challenges the misconception that the death tax tag encourages: that the person being taxed is the person who has died, rather than those who stand to inherit unearned wealth.

The death tax language perfectly framed the inheritance tax issue from the perspective of George W Bush’s Republicans, while the linking of inheritance tax and the Child Trust Fund nicely frames these policies from a Labour perspective. Framing policies in ways that speak to your values allow beachheads to be created – Policies that are easily understood by the public but which cut to the core of your governing philosophy. Selling council houses performed this function for Margaret Thatcher. The minimum wage did the trick for the early Blair years. Labour desperately needs to quickly establish other beachheads. Le Grand’s idea might be a good way to start.

“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.

“To the extent that there is a wider lesson to be drawn by the Government it is about how to improve the way in which people bring up their children.

“Of course it is reasonable for Ed Balls to propose changes to social services departments – but social workers only get involved when something goes wrong. There must be more that can be done to stop it getting to that stage”.

She argues that, “this is, in fact, something the Government realised early on. One of Labour’s first decisions, when it was elected in 1997, was to set up Sure Start, a programme designed to help parents, particularly those in deprived areas. There are now 3,000 Sure Start centres, combining child care, health advice, employment training and parenting support for 2.3 million families. Labour has promised to create 500 more by 2010 at a cost of more than £1 billion a year”.

It’s nice to see someone other than Polly Toynbee extolling the virtues of the excellent Sure Start scheme in the mainstream press. However, Sylvester argues that middle-class parents are increasingly being shut out from Sure Start services. This risks them becoming “ghettos for the poor”, which she is keen to avoid.

This brings to mind the semi-famous maxim from Richard Titmuss that, “services for the poor were always poor services”. Titmuss wrote these words as part of a passionate defence of universalism in welfare provision; the notion that welfare services should be provided to all, not targeted upon select groups or areas. Only when social services are aimed at the community as a whole and so are seen as benefiting everyone, can they “foster social integration and a sense of community”.

There probably is a case for means-testing in the allocation of some social services but the principle of universalism seems attractive in the context of Sure Start. Indeed, this seems the essence of the long-term strategy behind the scheme. It must be hoped that it is this strategy, rather than “the ghettos for the poor”, which becomes a reality. If this were to make us a nation of expert parents, infused with “a sense of community” and only too happy to pay the taxes required for universal provision of the service, then the inevitable difficulties in recruiting social workers that recent events have precipitated will hardly matter. Of course, it would be preferable if social workers were in sufficient supply but improved parenting would cut more directly to the core of the challenge facing us than any number of social workers could.