The Cameroons are a much more ideological bunch than previous generations of Tories and are much more likely to read outside the traditional conservative texts and, when they come across an attractive idea, jump upon it. In recent years, as well as PBA (as, I believe, policy wonks are supposed to call it) the Tories have jumped on such ideas as liberal paternalism* and flat taxes. However, unlike these other ideological dalliances Cameron’s desire to see a Post-Bureaucratic Age is turning into a fairly lengthy affair – indeed,Steve Richards noticed this in 2007.

If we are to assume that this isn’t a gimmick (and I think that we should do so) this is (a) something that those who describe themselves as either big L or small L liberal is should welcome (b) potentially a sea-change idea in British political life.

The Cameroons want to attack Whitehall aggressively and, as a result of this, decentralise power. Labour have traditionally talked about the redistribution of wealth whereas the Conservatives are proposing a redistribution of power – they argue that the heavily centralised state of the 20th century is not necessarily appropriate for the 21st. This should be music to liberal ears and, indeed, some will wonder if Cameron hasn’t stolen their hymnbook. Michael Gove sums it up characteristically well here:

‘In every area of life the future rests not with the exercise of massive power from one central point but the enabling of growth through constant innovation and adaption. We can no longer control society as a diplodocus controlled its tail, from one tiny brain that is immeasurably distant from the action’

Many academics now talk about ‘Monitory Democracies’. A Monitory Democracy is how some other democracies around the world organise themselves. Power-monitoring and power-controlling devices (or ‘checks and balances’ to use old fashioned terminology) spread both across and through the entire political system.

This hasn’t happened in Britain. Look at Australia and see their integrity commissions which can ruthlessly expose corrupt politicos, civil servants and, even, the police. Canada has the Federal Accountability Act. I’m not sure if Cameron intends to go down these particular routes but ripping the power from central bureaucracy seems to be the heart of this philosophy.

So what does that mean?

This will mean more City Mayors with more powers, local control over schools, housing, hospitals and policing. The more radical plans would see the end of nationalised state benefits to localised welfare-to-work schemes. This will not get the pubs and bars of Liverpool and Gateshead chattering but it is a fundamental and mammoth shift from the status quo. If Cameron pulls it off, quite simply, Britain will be changed beyond recognition.

What are the problems? Firstly, ripping the power from the mandarins will be problematic. Secondly, as d’Ancona points out, will people buy it? Whilst we all moan about centralised power, ”too many bureaucrats and too much red tape” and many people instinctively like the idea of local provision and power in local hands, there is the nagging doubt that this is false bleating. When actually offered the chance to run a local school (or play a part in running it) many will say ‘too busy’, ‘don’t know how’, ’someone else can’ and so forth. As a society we are very used to having many things free at the point of use with no concomitant effort on our part – will we rise to such a challenge?

If PBA needs the people of Britain to stand up and be counted, to start taking an active part in the provision of the services that matter to their lives and to overhaul an out-dated system, it will also need a change in politics. If a local school isn’t performing, the Education Minister will need to keep his or her sticky beak out even if that means some negative headlines. If the public are to be encouraged to run schools and are trusted to do so they must be allowed to make some errors.

This, I believe, may be the big battleground in the coming years and one that will come to dominate political discourse in the UK. So, are we with the bureaucrats or with the post-bureaucrats?

Big L liberals may be annoyed that the Tories have nicked their localism ideas. The question that always occurs to me here is: If it is a good idea, why does it matter?

RCM

* And a critique of liberal paternalism here.