Randomly Selected Article or Link

Having succumbed to this fad for petitioning Tony Blair over anything from the size of underpants available in Marks & Spencer to whether we renew our nuclear strike capability, I got the news that my petition had been accepted - so please - read it, at the address below, and if you like it, sign it. Let's see how far it can get. It's not as sexy as not banning fox hunting obviously, but many times as important though I do say so myself.

Your petition has been approved by the Number 10 web team, and is now available on the Number 10 website at the following address:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/AbolishDCLG/

Your petition reads:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abolish the
Department of Communities and Local Government and allow local
people to decide in consultation with the local representatives
they elect to do the job how best to run their localities

Local government has been subject to far too much tinkering,
target setting and control by central government for decades.
If government is by the consent of the governed then surely
that consent, for local affairs, is given in elections to local
councillors. Instead of handing down a menu from on high of
how local government will be permitted to operate, allow real
innovation and local consultation to decide how to run and fund
their local communities.

Thanks for submitting your petition.

-- the ePetitions team

Courtesy of the Libertarian Alliance blog, I am drawn to a commentary on the Libertarian Party UK blog about an article by someone called Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. at mises.org (how's all that for being damned by the company I keep, or in this case the blogs I read!) about the relationship between the "state", the politicians who try to make us believe they are "running" it and the people in whose name they are supposed to be doing so.

It introduces me at least to the idea of the "personal" and the "impersonal" state.

The personal state is where the regime in power for the time being is synonymous with the state. Most obviously this is an absolute monarchy for example. The monarch is the state. When the monarch dies the regime dies with them and another replaces it. It may be largely the same but it is still a personal fiefdom if you like of the monarch in charge.

In the impersonal state, the predominant form for the past several centuries (ironically in Britain probably traced to the "Protectorate" or at least the Restoration), the state, its bureaucracy, apparatus and most of its policy direction go rumbling on from one regime to the next. The leader is the manager not the owner, if you will.

He says the political system, of parties, elections and so on, are a chimera, making us believe we are in a personal state. That is we elect a manager who cocks up somehow we just elect another one and everything will be different. But who is really in control?

I'm sure most of us active in politics used to chuckle at "Yes, [Prime] Minister", but we all know there is more than a grain of truth in the message that the bureaucracy just rumbles on, sometimes even deliberately frustrating the will of the current elected managers, knowing that if they hold out for long enough another lot of managers will come along who may be more to their tastes.

And I don't mean that this is a personal thing - that there is some conspiracy between individuals wielding power in smokey rooms and dark corridors. It's just the way the thing works in a big state. Look at the comment the other day by a Labour minister that she thought that by the time of the next General Election the ID card system would be so far down the line that it would be impossible for any new government, even one elected purely on a platform of opposing ID cards, to stop it.

Okay, I think, I hope at least, we can take that example with a large bucket of salt - after all, unless it's been designed by Cyberdine Systems to become "self-aware" on or before 5th May 2010, there will still be an "off switch" on the mainframe! But you get the idea. And if you've been a local councillor, you see it every day in the workings of your council bureaucracy - the same old surly faces, sometimes frustrating the ideas of the politicians and so on. We have come to know some of that as the "can't do" culture.

Rockwell's conclusion is that the political "game" is futile. Ideas can move the world, but they can't shift the bureaucratic apparatus of the state at the same rate. And I have to say, since I combine my party political presence with real action on alternative structures such as Community Land Trusts and social enterprise, that bears out. Indeed, whenever we need the imprimatur of the state, such as in planning issues and so on, the byzantine apparatus seems to do its utmost to frustrate or delay us.

I tend to disagree. Obviously, I suppose, since I remain involved in party politics. But I do recognize that for all the "change" we talk about, Nick Clegg talks about, Obama talks about, whoever talks about, it does seem that most things will just grind on the way they always have. We will complain about them. We may even blame Gordon Brown or someone else for them personally. But if we continue to play that same game we will never really change them.

I am in politics because I believe those big ideas can be introduced through the political system. So did our political forebears like Lloyd-George with his 1909 budget - he at least had the balls also to go head to head with the establishment that rejected his big ideas but still, essentially, lost. I don't advocate violent revolution, though at times it seems that little short of that will actually achieve the change necessary. But I do want us to grow the cojones to be radical, to propose the "ideals" not the "manageables", to aim high and be different. And to demolish this all powerful leviathan and start from the ground up again.

I return again to the idea that we are in an age of epochal change. Of the unprecedented ability for us individually to communicate with others all round the world. We have to begin to ask just how much of that "impersonal state" we need any longer. Cobden had it about right when he said that "peace will come to the earth when people have more to do with each other and governments less." Politicians, let humanity grow up. Realize your limits. Let go and do something productive for a change instead!

...imagining a Wireless Oxford.

I'm surprised at how good a service they offer on the Oxford Tube, wireless wise. I'm off to a day conference on "Wireless Cities" where I'll hear from other areas miles ahead of Oxford about how they plan to unwire their cities/districts, courtesy of the people that brought us the Oxfordshire Community Network, Synetrix.

EDIT:...but I'm absolutely appalled at the thought that most of my journey companions do this every day. I truly hope they are handsomely rewarded for this monumental waste of their lives...:)

So, I gave in, and went at had a look at the Number 10 petition site. Well, I was one of the early adopters of the first attempt just after 1997, to set up a Number 10 discussion board, in the days when the interweb ran like a lump of tangled wet string.

So, having signed a few petitions - don't implement ID cards, legalize cannabis and other usual suspects, I decided to try my hand at creating one. It's not been approved yet, and you can be sure I will publish the signature page details if it is, but, in "pre-release form" one might say, here it is:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abolish the
Department of Communities and Local Government and allow local
people to decide in consultation with the local representatives
they elect to do the job how best to run their localities

And in the "further information" box, this:

Local government has been subject to far too much tinkering,
target setting and control by central government for decades.
If government is by the consent of the governed then surely
that consent, for local affairs, is given in elections to local
councillors. Instead of handing down a menu from on high of
how local government will be permitted to operate, allow real
innovation and local consultation to decide how to run and fund
their local communities.

Keep your eyes open for it and go sign it if it tickles your fancy.

Technorati Tags: localism, politics, electoral reform