大象传媒

Is he not forgetting the massive No vote to an elected regional assembly in the North East? Would be very convenient for London to wash its hands of all the outlying regions wouldnt it?

Yes, its very true that "Every time we see a problem, we don't just ask what government can do. We ask what people can do, what society can do? We have start working first there are lots of problems that we can solve. but we are just depends on the Govt.

Of course it is right. Every decision should be taken at the lowest, most local level possible.
Moreover, via the internet, people should be able to influence decisions at any level

JFK becomes JF...C? Zero out of ten for originality, but at least it has proven soundbite quality...

Anyone remember the episode of "Yes Prime Minister" called "Power to the people"? Where the PM realised that in a true democracy, politicians wouldn't stand a chance?

Makes sense, but only as long as it also means reduced bureaucracy and reduced taxes to support a smaller central government!

If it means increased cost overall to support many smaller versions of today's central government, it will be a mistake.

Anything that gets us away from this over-regulating, over-taxing (mostly by stealth) and over-nannying government must be welcomed.
But why am I suspicious that this is all the usual pre-election mumbo jumbo and that nothing will change if Cameron gets in?! I seem to recall that in 1997 Blair made all sorts of promises that haven't been mentioned since.
Cynical? - sorry yes, it's years of listening to deceitful politicians!

I have lived all my life in a place where the Tories have always been in power.
It was a relief to me when 1997 came along and we started to see a different approach and things DID get better.
The local Tories are not the sort of people I want to have deciding what happens.
Let us keep the power away from them.

DC has been in opposition for a year and I can't think of a single policy he's put forward.
Until he puts some detail on these proposals, they are just more words -which they change their minds on the following week.
Cameron will be "out on his feet" when Gordon lands a few big punches next week.

What a load of twaddle.

Of course the conservatives won't want to give more power to communities once they have the whiff of it for themselves! This is a desperate attempt by one conservative party to try to appear different to its opposition conservative party in the hope of becoming ever so slightly more popular.

Now, when Hugo Chavez says he will dissipate power to local communities, we can believe him.

We should expect our poliicians to be leaders and hence to lead in developing policy - they should listen to the public, but not be slaves to it.
Developing policy is akin to shaping the society as David Cameron seems to put it.
Any good leader knows that once the vision and policy is set, it is up to others to achieve - the power of delegation. Cameron's idea that decisions should be as local as possible meets this well known principle and I applaud it.
Treating the electorate as dumb serfs tht need to be controlled at every step is wrong. Labour are not going that far, but certainly 'big Government' espoused by Brown leads us further and futher down that path.
Lets be optimistic as Cameron says and assume that the electorate can be educated and are in control of their own destiny within a policy and rules farmework set by our politicians according to our general wishes, but also using their leadership to take us places where we might as yet be uncomfortale in going.

How dreadful tht in this day and age, you can raise a debate as to whether it is DESIRABLE to have government as local as possible.

Of course it is, and I can think of no better or basic Conservative and indeed conservative philosphy than that to require the individual, family, and community to be self regulating and local in as far as is possible.

Whether that can be implemented in practice, given the apparently relentless trend to centralsiation under Labour and Tories since 1945 is a worthy question for newsnight. (NB No, Scottish and Welsh devloution are not examples of the opposite)

It will take a brave and determined administration to devolve the whitehall machine now.

Whilst at first it seems sensible (not to mention politically expedient) to encourage local and 'community' government, why would anyone want to trust decisions to a society in which the most popular newspapers are The Sun and the Mail, that watch television programmes about boring people doing nothing or attempting to sing, and that believes Tesco have the consumers best interests at heart.

Perhaps if our Westminster representatives were better qualified for the job and were more interested in what best suits the needs of their constituants instead of their own careers, this debate would over before it began.

Other than the opportunity to remove it after five years' pain and suffering there seems little recourse to the voting public to remedy failure of a government to make good on things it promised when it came to power.

As the current government seems to be unable to deal with the wants of the majority by ensuring it is 'in touch' with the people through referenda on large contentious issues and more consultation, a move that keeps the voters involved in the decision-making process is to be welcomed. A referendum would have been welcomed on issues like road pricing, the Iraq war and the European Constitution and there are hundreds of smaller issues that galvanise the public but are lost by the time the next election arrives.

The latest Cameron musings is interesting. I wonder how long it will be before he remembers that there is no such thing as society, and does his usual backflip?

Would that mean to devolve power to local councils? And will that come with enough financial help to allow councils to do what is really necessary in each locality? Otherwise all that talk would be but baloney.

We are having a right old battle here in Dawlish, Devon.
I am all in favour of more power at a local level, but we have to change the way things are now at a local level.
Democracy is a joke.
Consultations as we no it are a joke.
After a general discussion recorded in minutes, (when there was none ) is a joke.
The Mayor has quoted recently in our local paper, after we complained about being gagged:
"We are not obliged by statute to give the public the opportunity to address the council, but we do it to promote democracy and give people the chance to put their point of view to members on a range of topics".

The public have not been allowed to participate for the last four meetings, that is no joke.

Don't we want our best in class politicians in government tackling problems with innovative solutions - instead of devolving power to communities and 'people'? It sounds incredibly wishy-washy, but I guess that's what we've come to expect. Is he another Major in disguise?

I agree with the sentiment - as long as it doesn't become an excuse for Government to opt out.

Take recycling - it was always intensly irritating to be hectored by Ministers about recycling more when doorstep collection was a novelty enjoyed by just a few. Recycling rates actually started improving dramatically when Government required local authorities to provide the service we needed to do our bit.

With climate change we are earlier in the process - being told to cut car use but still with an overpriced, unreliable public trasnport system. Government cannot shirk its responsibility on such big challenges.

The govt wants people to do sosmething to halt global warming but people are so utterly used in this nanny state we live in to having their hand held they dont have any inclination to fend for themselves.Davd=id Cameron is right.Give back power to the people and the knowhow

David Cameron seems to try to say 'the right words'. Yet gives an. impression of an act in a play in his student union. Then takesoff on his bike, his eyes still bulging with his attempt at playing politician.He may TRY to deried Labours last 10 years but he has not been briefed[told what is useful to say which will hide what the Tories did to the working class when they were supposed to be governing this country.Tom.

Hello.

A few things he is refering to would be a help in understanding and so make it easier to comment.

There is no doubt that if you devolve decision making and control to individuals and smaller groups that they can start to take on the responsibility as well as that power. They feel more 'empowered' This is a fundamental tenet of Conservatism. But of course those elected also have a part to play. And there does need to be some form of accountability by independent bodies.It isn't just passing the buck. I think David Cameron is reinforcing the concept of responsibility and choice. Whether people so empowered will act correctly and not take advantage is one of the risks of this strategy. I think it works in certain areas like local schools and hospitals but in national concerns like trains etc the break up into parts was a disaster. Pity that the Conservatives did not elect Ken Clarke. He is more than a match for Gordon Browne. I have my doubts about David Cameron which is a pity. Anything is better than the present lot though! DC's ideas are reminiscent of JFK - no bad thing of course!

So, more local decisions in principle. In practice, no grammar schools but grammar school stream in each secondary school. How is that not a local decision?

Me thinks Mr Cameron would like to have it both ways. He and his team are not able yet to distinguish what really are the state level issues and which are local ones. SO, he goes for polarizing policies - Gordon is about centralization (he says) so Conservatives are about decentralization. Hey presto, there is his distinction.

However, as we see from his example, this is another 'fly by night' attempt and not a well thought out policy.

Yet, it would be a great improvement if the Conservatives were to REALLY listen to the voters. Especially this bunch of the priviledged, white, middle to upper class men! What cheek to attack a feisty Labour woman - find me one like that in their camp !

Is this the 'Anarchists_R_Us Party' Thatcher, Major Blair, Brown, Cameron, what's the difference? Vote for us and we promise to do even LESS for you than our opponents! Is that it?

When are we going to wake up to the fact that 'power to the people' just means that politicians can get away with doing LESS (whilst their backers asset strip what little is left on public service bones)? We've had over 30 years of this rhetoric from both parties, not that I believe there's any difference between them. Wreckers the lot of them.

'Power to the people' means we'll get to pay even more for ever worsening services and there'll be no recourse to regulators as they'll be rendered toothless along the way. How do people wield power? Surely we're all out at work toiling to pay our bills aren't we.

Is this not just more nonsense from the Cameron PR machine? What neither main parties seem to want is Old Labour ways. Anything but Old Labour they seem to say, as that threatens to regulate and protect the public from sharks. That makes business far mare difficult. Old Labour truly understood the basis of diversity. It understood that the weak and the infirm ultimately need protection from predators, and that in time we all get old and need care. It also knew that people aren't born equal and that pretending otherwise is just a veil so people don't see how ugly the predatory free market is. I have to read the small print on everything these days, and I'm still frequently caught out. Looking around - how literate and numerate are most of us? How are we to protect ourselves without regulators and central government/standards?

I see the effects of deregulation and democratisation everywhere and it seems to make life worse not better.

Ten years on from Blair's anthem, perhaps Cameron should be singing along to ...vote for us, "Things can only get worse..."

WOW WOW

MR Cameron sounds like a famous AMERICAN president .
"ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for it" This is "spin" not substance...
and not NEW
cromwell power from people
charles power from god...lost his head !

a famillar senario...The BRITISH public are not stupid and will never elect a conservative government as they dont "trust" them or their charasmatic leader mr cameron.
BETTER THE DEVIL YOU KNOW ! LABOUR

Hope Hariet Harman gets deputy leadership and the scott BROWN listens to her as she is an inspiration to the followers of family values in socialism.As a young
parent BROWN should be given a chance.
My opinion on above "BIG IDEA"
We are today fighting a war on two fronts
corruption and polution

Giving too much power to local government may only enhance the first on the second polution it may be the "wise" thing to do.
peace and love
compton of CHERIN in KINGSTON SURREY

But surely, there is no such thing as society?

To Make communities more viable in decision making seem to be a good idea but the truth is, it is not a new phenomenom, since often politicians make promises in terms of power to the people but the end result dont match these promises while in office. So a more realistic position is to have shared responsibilities amongst all stakeholders.

Of course decisions which affect society should be taken at the lowest economically-feasible level. Devolution isn't a matter simply of handing down decision-making powers to politicians at the Scottish, Welsh, regional or county level, but of continuing the process so that local communities can make up their own mind about issues which affect them.
Of course there are in practice limits to this. At the very smallest level of society, it is easy for groups of people to be dominated by one or two forcible individuals, who may wish decisions to be taken that would be of benefit mainly to those individuals themselves. This is why the 'Nolan' legislation was introduced, to ensure that those with a financial vested interest could not exploit decision-making processes for their own individual gain rather than that of the community. And there is a need to overcome the 'nimby' mentality when there are clear reasons why a wider community should have a say in those decisions.
But overall decisions should be left to the smallest practicable local community. The main proviso is that, whichever level that community represents, ALL those resident within it should be part of the decision-making process.
This stipulation is why this 'great idea', which many of us have been calling for for many years, is NOT a natural fit with Conservatism. Conservatives are fundamentally hostile to the concept that ALL members of a community have an equal right to participate in taking those decisions which affect it, as they consider that some individuals within that community are better fitted than others to arrive at those decisions. I'm afraid this is going to be an insurmountable obstacle for David Cameron in seeking to move the Conservative Party in the direction indicated, much as I would welcome genuine conversion to this idea.

Given the amount of inaccurate information and blather on wikipedia, it doesn't surprise me that the woolly-thinking chameleon rich boy that is Mr Cameron would welcome such an approach.

I, and the other residents of Kingston Upon Hull, know just how damaging a dreadful council can be for communities. Any devolution of power to Hull City Council would be akin to providing a psychopath with a machine gun. He really hasn't thought this through has he, yet again....

JFK beat him to it; pre-vietnam war

"Ask not what your country can do for you: but what YOU can do for your country"

He should drop out of politics and do us all a favour

We have less democracy that the ancient Greeks in 600 BC.

55 million people cannot turn up to a single meeting of course but now we have the internet and a vast proportion of the public can now make their views known via on line petitions. On line petitions could work at local level as well.

MP's are representative but now we just don't trust them to represent our interests, because mainly they run against the general will.

There is a general disgust with highly centralized government (diktat) whether from Westminster or Brussels and a deep feeling and need for localized decision making.

All governments should remember what happed in 1381.

It's nonsense. In practice a complicated and costly irrelevance, as all major policy decisions will remain with central government - or eventually be passed up to Brussels.

The scraps of policy that are decided locally will simply be fought over by a noisy rabble of special interest groups and self-righteous individuals, with too much time on their hands, and we'll be left to negotiate an ever more complex scrum of regulations and red tape.

As for utilising a web 2.0/wiki platform, what'll we call it... YouRule? Yep, it's a winner.

Thankfully for us all, it'll never happen.

I hope he really means it - devolving decision making to the level where the impact is greatest is the only way to re-engage people in democracy in this country. But would a Cameron Government be prepared to tolerate some of the by-products of this - such as much greater diversity in local tax and service provision between one district and another? Personally, I think plurality in provision is a good thing, but others damn it as a "postcode lottery".

No Government is what Conservatives worldwide beleive in, to be replaced by the *GREEDY* American style FREE MARKET
And as soon as the citizens discover as they are now, how corporations (some)have taken over our ELECTED politicians and the corruption and nepotism that goes with it.There is a great deal going on in the world without **DEMOCRATICALLY** elected officials we will have corporate anarchy on a scale not seen since the industrial revolution.Why on earth would the citizens of the world want ie) nuclear complex making thier own laws;military industrial complex without any oversite???????? In Canada we have a current Government that hates what Government stands for yet likes the power that it reaps.

The concept is good in principle, but considering the very individualistics human instinct, the will of the communuty might not be taken at heart; of course representative consultation should be extended before the government has to make a decision in the view of what has transpired from the consultation of diverse sections of the society including the publics, experts, ngos, and religious groups.
The conservative's principle of Hobb's man view of society's animal should consider the capitalist beast this neo-liberalism era has created and not trust the people who hide behind good intentions to embezzle the state and skinned their compatriots.

The concept is good in principle, but considering the very individualistics human instinct, the will of the communuty might not be taken at heart; of course representative consultation should be extended before the government has to make a decision in the view of what has transpired from the consultation of diverse sections of the society including the publics, experts, ngos, and religious groups.
The conservative's principle of Hobb's man view of society's animal should consider the capitalist beast this neo-liberalism era has created and not trust the people who hide behind good intentions to embezzle the state and skinned their compatriots.

We can only make informed decisions based upon our knowledge and aptitude for critical analysis and problem-solving. Otherwise we turn to those we think most likely to have the best answer, or to be good judges of the leaders they listen to, and we reiterate their views and rationalizations to the extent we understand them. It is hoped that in a democracy a majority of people are good judges of the wisdom of the many leaders they choose in this way. To the extent that we believe this majority good-judgement to be true, and that we can be sure that the statistically necessary participation rate within the population is high enough and unbiased, we should let the people have more control over the decisions. (If you missed the reams of small-print between these lines, then please re-read the comment and try to spot them).

We are likely to have most knowledge of things and people in our local community, so local government should be small enough for its constituents to feel they have an influential voice, while accepting that they will not always get their own way. As much power as possible should be given, for local matters, to a non-partisan, small-council, community-involved local government. Many local governments these days are too big.

All levels of government should have service, not power, as a priority. But the service can not simply be through listening and responding to the wishes and demands of their constituents. Because we can grasp a well-articulated, worthy vision, but we do not have the time, knowledge or resources to fully participate in all aspects of information-gathering, analysis, vision, problem-identification, decision-making and implementation for all matters, we need those in the government hierarchy to serve us as high-level judges of wisdom, expertise and competence, by facilitating our useful involvement, and by establishing and improving the system for providing these services in the most fiscally-responsible and transparent way.

One of the ways government can facilitate our involvement is through giving us information and balanced analysis. It is appalling that, in the political power struggle, we are more often given slogan and spin. "Power to the people" is a good slogan. What anyone wants it to really mean, in all its complexity, would take many more words to define. I whole-heartedly applaud the effort to explore this meaning, and the desire to act on any useful enlightenment which comes from it.

Good evening everyone. I am certainly no 'True - Blue' but could we at last be on the brink of democracy?
Under Tony Blair's helm, we had over 1000 pieces of legislation introduced which restricted our personal freedoms. Until proportional representation is introduced we can never have a truly representative government so it may, at least, provide a platform for the people who matter!
If we had been given a say, could we have prevented the bloodshed in Iraq or the dubious practices employed in introducing new pieces of legislation? Geoff Brown, Newcastle upon Tyne.

The only effective ways to return power to the individual are:

1. To reduce the amount of our money that can be spent by Whitehall. This could be achieved by a pre-election, irrevocable commitment to reduce the public spending proportion of GDP from 40% by one percent per annum for the lifetime of a parliament.

2. To progressively remove the delivery of public functions from the public sector. Whilst education and health should be publicly funded except at the margins (as now), the delivery organisations should be privatised and made to operate in a competitive marketplace where choice of provider is vested in the individual, not the bureaucrat.

3. To fully fund local authority revenue expenditure from local income tax.

4. To adopt the principle that "The regulator pays" so that he cost of regulation is funded centrally and not disproportionately borne by business. This to be achieved by businesses being empowered to invoice regulatory authorities for 90% of costs that can be shown to be consequent upon compliance activities

Poor David Cameron,
try as he might to rearrange the deck chairs he will probably go the way of his last three predessors.A dead duck in the water.Totally non convincing in his "supermarket dash" to acru 'new' policies..Smacks of desperation. A second rate Tony Blair
at his best or worse depending on ones view of Blair.Even as as SNP l had hoped Cameron might give the labour party a run for its money.
No way D.C.

I cannot imagine this man, (Cameron that is), ever being our prime minister as he seems to have no policys what so ever other than trendy nonsense that appeals to no one!

What in the name of BLAIR are we giving Rushdie a knighthood for ? He has cost the tax paying public some three million pounds in protection money and written an inane monologue of interest to few so who is responsible for this ludicrous decision. We need to know as they need lynching. Who in Britain can disagree ? RE

When a politican is in trouble the thing they reach for is the 'localism speech', a sure way to get a bit of media attention. But why oh why do the 大象传媒 and other media organisations fall for it. What substantive things has David Cameron actually said in his speech today? Apart from make sure he get's across a few good soundbites attacking Gordon Brown that will play well on the 6 O'Clock News, what's he said that we've not herd before?

Is their anything in Cameron's ramblings that mean if a community wants a Grammar schools/11 plus to return to their area they can? Is Cameron proposing that locally elected mayor's can have vary council tax rates and local business rates? Is he saying the Welsh Assembley should become a Welsh Parliament with full taxation powers? Are their proposals to give the Scottish Parliament more taxation powers and more powers in general? It's interesting how when the Scottish Executive make decesions that are different to rest of the UK or the Welsh Executive do the same the Tories are the first to complain. But does true localism not mean that we will see more and more differences between different parts of the UK? Are we as a nation prepered for that? Given the insane reactions we see daily from national newspapers and the rest of media I somehow doubt it.

When a politican is in trouble the thing they reach for is the 'localism speech', a sure way to get a bit of media attention. But why oh why do the 大象传媒 and other media organisations fall for it. What substantive things has David Cameron actually said in his speech today? Apart from make sure he get's across a few good soundbites attacking Gordon Brown that will play well on the 6 O'Clock News, what's he said that we've not herd before?

Is their anything in Cameron's ramblings that mean if a community wants a Grammar schools/11 plus to return to their area they can? Is Cameron proposing that locally elected mayor's can vary council tax rates and local business rates? Is he saying the Welsh Assembley should become a Welsh Parliament with full taxation powers? Are their proposals to give the Scottish Parliament more taxation powers and more powers in general? It's interesting how when the Scottish Executive make decisions that are different to rest of the UK or the Welsh Executive do the same the Tories are the first to complain. But does true localism not mean that we will see more and more differences between different parts of the UK? Are we as a nation prepered for that? Given the insane reactions we see daily from national newspapers and the rest of media I somehow doubt it.

On first reading, this sounds a lot like an attempt to return to laissez-faire government to me.

I'm not a fan, I don't think it works; is Mr Cameron just trying to be different for difference's sake or does he truly believe what he's saying?

Yes, YES more power to the people, the government has too much power over the people.
We the people need to have responsiblity and not be pandered to by governments. The very second you ask the government and any branch of any government you lose your freedom. The very second you say, "Please can you give me or can you help me" You are giving part of yourself away.
Please people of England do not fall into the same mold as the Americans have. The americans have lost there freedom and will never get it back, as the government of the USA have it. This was not taken by the government it was given to the government.
So yes give the people more say as to what is needed to be done. Who knows better what is needed than the people who any changes if needed are to be effected, by those changes, the people.

David Cameron is the most vacuous politician with not an original thought in his head. He's a great PR man and good at reading speeches prepared by his PR people. Where's the beef? Once again he doesn't tell us how this is to be achieved. What he is really hoping is that, when things go wrong and the local hospital is not providing the service the community expects or local crime rates increase or whatever he can then turn round and say 'sorry, don't blame me, I'm not responsible.' I have news for him, it doesn't work that way. He only has to look at the last council election results where good Labour councils lost power because of the national mood. He will still be blamed.
Let's not forget it was Thatcher's lot that emasculated local government.
Not to worry, like many of his other initiatives this will be quietly dropped.

This man is all talk and style but having read his speech many vague generalisations I cannot see the beef.

It's all very well very rich, aristocratic Eton educated Conservative politicians proclaiming active citizenship, if you have money that's fine but 95% of the British people rely on Government intervention particularly in the areas of health, education, and crime, areas where the Government has been quite successful over the past ten years. Continuous economic growth, low inflation, low unemployment, reduced waiting lists and record exam pass rates means that Mr Cameron has a lot to fear from Gordon Brown cum the next General Election.

It's all very well very rich, aristocratic Eton educated Conservative politicians proclaiming active citizenship, if you have money that's fine but 95% of the British people...............
Exactly!!!
Riddled with snobbery.Superficial and Superior.Inferior Acting.No policy just reactions to the latest Press Stories.........Do me a favour...on second thoughts dont

What a great idea. I also think people should be able to propose legislation over the internet. And hopefully one day we can sack these parasites (politicians) completely.

Ask not what the country can do for me , but what we can do for the country!! Sounds Familiar
come back the tories

Taking government out of government is liberalism, not conservatism. Well, unless the idea is to leave the wealthy and powerful free rein, in which case it is old-fashioned Toryism. Perhaps Cameron sees a political gap where the LibDems, the big Jekyll and Hyde of UK politics, have ignored their uglier side?

Minimal government is extreme US Republicanism - as with the Texas of Bush's fond rememberance, with the elected body sitting only for weeks at the start of every year, and the governor ruling for the rest of the time. One always has to suspect these days, since Thatcher, that the UK Conservatives are influenced by their US Republican "cousins", who were held very much at arms length (at least) by Conservatives from Disraeli to Heath.

Most people, after earning money, maintaining their essential social connections and caring for their loved ones, don't have the time left to do the huge work needed to influence "political" things locally, or nationally. Governments pretty much try to make sure that is the case.

The more "local" politics is made, generally the more difficult it is for those few who have found the time to influence things. For example, devolving NHS funding decisions to Local Health Authorities, folowed by splitting those into multiple Primary Care Trusts, made it almost impossible to monitor vital decisions, never mind improve them. A few dedicated people can infuence a few places, but that's all.

I don't know what issues Cameron has in mind people being able to decide locally, but the low voting figures for local elections (and indeed rejection of regional assemblies) clearly indicate the the British as wise to local politics having no real powers but to "fiddle on the deck of the Titanic", due to national regulations and capped budgets. They largely say they haven't the money or resources to do a fraction of what they have the powers to do, like make the locality better to live in.

Most of the changes I want to see require national (or international) change: the foreign and aggression policies that cause us to be hated overseas and to have to fear terrorism here, and don't promote the wellbeing of humanity; providing and protecting equality, privacy and safety, not least from pollution of our air (from chemicals and tobacco smoke) and food (from additives such as salt); guaranteeing universal and speedy access to appropriate health care and a level of education and information that lifts us out of a climate of ignorance; stopping the homogenisation of our environment in the interests of big business and simplified administration; reversing climate change.

Local Government in the UK is a mirror image the American colonies at the time of the Boston Tea Party. Their cry: "No Taxation without Representation". For at least 30/40 yearsUK Local Government has been "Representation without (real) Taxation".

Between 70% & 90% of Local Government spending is raised through central taxation. He who pays the piper calls the tune!

We need a RADICAL rethink of how to empower Local Government by letting them raise at least 75% of their spending through local taxation (perhaps scrap national Income Tax & make it a local tax?). Certainly we need to go far beyond the Lyons Report!

Only when we devolve responsibility & tax raising powers to local levels will democracy be restored & people again vote in local elections.

If Cameron is serious about bottom up politics and people empowering themselves, what will he do to help increase trade union activism? Will he make it easier for the ununionised to join unions so that they can help themselves get a fairer deal? These are voluntary organisation after all.
Or is what he is advocating, by 'empowerment' just to leave people to thier own devices and letting them sink or swim?

Ask not what the country can do for me , but what we can do for the country!! Sounds Familiar
come back the tories

Isnt that a contradiction

The Peer-to-Peer philosophy enables better communication between otherwise disparate individuals to collaborate. It is an alternative to the Client-Server approach. It empowers the components of the system to become greater than the sum of their individual parts. We need this opportunity. We need to be given social responsibility. Our societies should be organic, not dictated. The housing issue is a perfect example of the problem. DIY stores are going out of business as people are unable to buy houses to renovate themselves. The will is there, but not the means. We don't want to have everything done for us at whatever price. We want to be able to do it ourselves. We want a Do-it-Yourself lifestyle. We don't want to have to pay for someone else to do a bodged job for us. Why should have to accept rented accommodation ? Home ownership is progressive. Rental is regressive. What justification is there for such invasion into our personal freedoms and our right to choose. There are individuals who need the support of the state, they should not be forgotten, but the majority are responsible human beings, and we should be treated with the respect our votes command in a country of democracy. This goes for the European Constitution as well. We do not want Europe to dictate how we should be living our lives.

Big Idea - that's a laugh ..

The perennial Tory refrain, "Let the people take on local governance", and what it really is, is a euphemism for, "We can cut all the 'unnecessary' expenditure by Central Government in the welfare and health sectors, undermine social conscience with the carrot of cuts in the basic rate of tax at any opportunity, then we'll witter on about how uncompetitive British goods are and keep trumpeting doom and gloom from the Institute of Directors so that finally we can force the country into recession, sort the wheat from the chaff, and meanwhile, "We'll take all our pals in the media to lunch when we're in town for the week, and give all our people the high paying Chairmanships, Quango posts and prestige high-salaried 'sunny valley' retirement posts, and then sit back and chortle and choke ourselves in an apopletic fit, ranting on about the chaos that the teachers and other little people cause when they're not being directed by "someone who knows what they're doing".

Yeah, sure. Can't wait for the next Tory government. Full of 'Big Ideas', aren't they?

Recession, anyone?

Local Government is able to cater for local interests. However, central government still needs to define the constraints of local governments. National issues cannot be addressed by local politics. Nimbyism is the perfect example of the reason for this. This needs to be done with national agencies and departments. National rail projects need establishing and national planning strategies need to be devised and be transparent and clear and relate locally to the people it affects. Qango's should be more accountable to their activities. They should work more openly and with central government, industry, and local people. Local Governments need to be more entrepreneurial, and need to be more cooperative with one another for mutual benefit. They should trade with one another. Qango's need to be funded from the local level. Qango's and the police should have less power to pry into personal lives without opposition. They should be more transparent and more accountable for their actions. The individual also needs to play a more active role in important issues, rather than relying on their local government. Good citizenship needs to be promoted. Society will value the benefits of good citizens. Why not promote community orientated enterprise ? The community should have the ability to invest in the issues that are important to them. Scouting for example provides good support for youngsters to be good responsible citizens. Fund such things. And don't forget that a free market on the stock exchange means the people can gain the benefits of a good economy by share ownership. If people have a greater ownership of their personal means, they take greater responsibility for it. Home ownership will promote community responsibility. Responsible behaviour needs to be made worthwhile to people. And not through a risk based system with persuasion by fear. Responsibility should be rewarded, not avoided.

Robert at #52: "What in the name of BLAIR are we giving Rushdie a knighthood for?"

I think it may have been because he wrote a novel demonizing Islam which helped the Israeli/USA/UK 'war on terror'. Such patriotism appears to increase one's chances of getting 'P or a K' these days.

I'm all for letting the people decide but I doubt that the Conservatives really are. We have a prime case coming up with the smoking ban. Let's hear that Cameron will repeal this ban and let Landlords decide whether they allow smoking on THEIR property. If they decide to allow smoking and it is as unpopular as everyone seems to suggest then they will suffer and eventually go out of business. They and their customers will at least have been given the choice.

Will the Conservatives put their money where their mouth is on this? I doubt it. They will take the same "nanny knows best" attitude of New Labour.

This proposal assumes that local leadership will actually listen to its constituents and will not be corrupt. If we dismantle whatever umbrella protections we have, there is no place to turn from such local corruption. How many of us are actually attending Council Meetings and feeling heard when we speak in opposition - even if the opposition is in the majority. Incumbent politicians want to hang on to their seats. The longer incumbents serve, the fewer voters turn out to unseat them. It works if the local Councils work in response to and support of the good of the people and not for themselves. too often that is not the case. No group should be allowed absolute authority - not the council, not the central government. Having both assures some semblance of checks and balances.

I agree. Minimize government. Let it do the essentials, but no more. Why? Because most Western countries are over-regulated already. If we continue as we are, we run the risk of losing our identity as individuals in the never-ending blizzard of legislation. Worse, Western government's traditional solution to nearly all problems is to raise taxes & charges - which, historically, bankrupts nations. The Decline of the Roman Empire is a perfect example.

Yes! People are power unto themselves because they elect people to power.

If you imagine someone giving something to somebody, you must know they are the owners of that possession. Therefore, if people give power to politicians, they are the owners of power beside being it unto themselves.

The best way of looking at the behaviors of power is that a politician must be a common citizen before and after power, and power must remain in its natural place without a slightest change in character and regardless of times.

Any leaders with logical sense must question themselves what would people do when a problem arises instead of what will we, politicians, do when a problem arises.

Finally Cameron is talking about individual liberty and small government!

Does anybody really want more government? Everything government touches turns to disaster: Healthcare, schools, transport, the economy. The list is endless.

Good old fashioned Hayekian Liberalism never hurt anybody, unlike socialism. Incidentally, the economics editor who presented last night's Cameron segment on Newsnight referred to Hayek as "a conservative economist"; perhaps she hasn't read his essay, "Why I am Not a Conservative".

Well, this is exactely the question that has been asken from me yesterday. Here in Bucharest in Romania, in the public autobus I usually travel with.
Only because there were an ungry man to be against my well-known "lobby" for the Re-election of Mr. Traian Basescu for the 19th of May Vote.
As I am nobody else but a largely-known & public person, to be independent politically but with a personal preferance on the PD, I have done anything else, in all my mediatic communications, to make public the intellectual information that I posessed. More generally and less-detailed, just like David from no. 4, top of the page, has done.
In these cds., I have already stated once, it is teached, in all the schools & the libraries in the world, the following matter:
"the democracy" term comes from the 2 greek words, which are: "demos- people" & "kratos-the power".
It is to be a main fact there will be no government not to be influenced by the people's decision: people to permanentely be consulted twds. the opinions in the society.
As there is only the communication(multiple forms of it) to govern the rules of the justice.
Only with the conditions for the people to be aware of the real intelligence in the different situations and in the people.With all their's communications and public information & informings.
As the Communications Science, together with the Justice & Law, have noticed:
the whole proccess in forming the social attitudes only stands on:
1.the historical basis(with the economical, historical, political & social elements, together with those of the personality)
2. the social middle (with its: the problem's characteristics, 6the norms & the beliefs of the individual groups of people, all of the information to be available, that very moment!!! in the society, plus the different situations to have been lived by the people, with all their different experiences(adaptings) in this socializing proccess.
3.now comes the proccesses & the disposings of the personality, generally detailed in the basis of the attitudes( reaching & assessing the problem, the mediation of the prbm., protecting the ego, the different features of the individual: cognitive, behavioral & temperamental features) And the attitudes itselfes : private & personal attitudes twds. the problem, with theirs stereotipical reactions, disposals, the orientatings of these disposals in the private and individual politics; all with the attitudes to be derived from as engaged & not-engaged.

All of these " 1. the history + 2. the society and its middle, to be regarded as a whole and 3. the different personalities in the society, with their unique positions, are to be connected btwn. them by the communications, the political behaviour + the present and actual situation.
The power is to become to the people, but it will only be fully developped if the people may act accordingly.
I am not aware on the political situation in the U.K., here from Bucharest and watching the 大象传媒 Broadcasting, I could only assume your Queen and Mr. Gordon Brown(the Sir to had replaced Mr. Blair), are very smart and owe the strongest values.
They, as our president mr. Basescu is, are to be the listeners of the people's communication. And to translated their needs into action, but only with the people's help.
Who sais, then, "we don't need an education, we don't need a self-control, dark is hazard in the classrooms, teacher leave the kids alone"?
There will be only the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights + the Prot. no.11, to grant the individuals their power to communicate and express themselves.
With the unique condition & rule to be moral and ethical people.
To owe the mere careness twds. each other, that is.

Could it be that David Cameron would introduce a system of soviets ?

Dear people,
It would be lovely if "people" will have sufficient knowleaged and educational formation to run what ever, but the problem is that most people dont even want to "think" nevermind on analising a political party麓s program or etc.
Fot every person that is responsable, honest, knowlegable, etc there are : a 100, a 1000 which are just mass, pleople. And that麓s why politicians tell you that pigs fly and many of that poeple believe it, and vote for them, and when the pigs desent fly,they complain.
Very often I think if the first Greeck democrace was not better. If you know what I mean.

Like many of his ideas its great in theory but in practical terms is unworkable. We have local councils making decisions now and look what a mess some make of it. Instead of trying to invent new systems of goverment he should focus on making the existing structure more accountable for their actions.

"Do not ask what your government can do for you. Ask what you can do for your government." Words spoken by JFK when he became President of the United States? What happened to them? What happened to him and the dream he held? What has happened to the America with whom he shared that dream? Yes, it was Athens who 'invented' Democracy and made it work for a little while. At a time when 'nations' where city-states and the 'demos,' the adult MALE population of the Athenian city-state, knew one another by name and could made decisions face to face in the forum. Athenian Democracy reached its pinnacle of glory and died, both under Pericles. In our own times, Costa Rica engaged in a similar experiment with face to face direct democracy. Until it became unsustainable. In India today there are still small villages where government by consensus is practiced, somewhat. BUT..., in a world of nations where government is ruled by wealth and wealth is controlled by global corporations; in a world where the human population HAS RUN AMOK and excess in all fronts has poisoned air, land and water and all systems are careening towards collapse; in a world such as you and I are living in today, 'democracy,' direct or otherwise, is yesterday's impossible dream and today's fairytale. The best we can work for is a measure of sanity in a world gone insane!

YES THAT IS HOW THE WORD POLITICS IS.ACCORDING 2 SOME SCHOLERS,POLITICS CAN BE DIFINE AS SYSTEM OR PROCESS OF FOOLING AND DECIVING PEOPLE. DUE 2 THAT WE SHOULD NOT WAIT 4 OR ASK THE SO CALL GOVERNMENT 2 DO ANY THING POSITIVE 2 US BCOS THEY ARE DECIVERS PERIOD.

power should be decided by the people who elected the govt. in to the healm of power and not for anybody who goes there to just do what he or she feels irrespective of its adverse effect on the electorates.