Two fingers to Cameron's polite society

David Cameron's speech last week calling for greater civility in everyday life made me want to blow him a very impolite raspberry. Not for the intention (echoed by the Government's announcement of civility classes in schools) but for its sheer paucity of imagination. Cameron announced his speech as a "simple argument", and he got that much right. It could be accurately summed up thus: "People are ruder and more inconsiderate than they used to be. Civility is more important than politicians acknowledge. We are becoming decivilised.

"Well, I say we. What any government can do is limited. We can give teachers a bit more power. We can make noises about getting married being a good thing. We can try and foster community feeling by devolving power to local authorities. We can do things like set up Young Adult Trusts to teach the responsibilities of adulthood. But the more the state treats you like children, the more you behave like them. So you have to take responsibility for yourself.

"This means, um, we have to ... um ... have a revolution in attitudes towards civility more generally. Yes, that's it. So swearing in public should be unacceptable. So should being rude to bus drivers. Not sure how we're going to make it happen but it would definitely be a good thing. Thank you."

I am satirising, but the details are depressingly accurate. However, at the end of his speech, Cameron does stumble upon something important. And as a good member of the community (he lives about half a mile from me) I'm going to offer him some neighbourly advice.

The moment of revelation for me came when he said "A lack of trust pervades society today. We are shrinking into ourselves. " This is the gold nugget at the heart of the dross. Moreover, it is not the only important idea hidden in Cameron's speech. The idea of emphasising localisation in order to develop individual responsibility is the skeleton of a good idea which, if it had an ounce of imaginative flesh on it, would be positively useful.

Also, the general theme that we are becoming more uncivil and fearful than ever before strikes deep chords not just in the Tory shires, but even in the most liberal of hearts, mine included. However, the question Cameron signally fails to answer is, what to do?

Cameron's solutions - contending that social mores need to be reconfigured by the rolling back of the state - is stale, self-contradictory and echoes John Major's 1993 "Back to Basics" speech. Likewise, the idea of local authority devolution may well be a good thing on its own terms, but there is no reason to believe that it will have any effect on levels of trust or civility.

There are solutions to the very real problems that Cameron has identified. It's just a shame that none of them seems to have occurred to him. "Neighbours ... [need to understand] that it is their responsibility, and not just the council's responsibility to look out for each other and keep their community in order," says Cameron. He's right - but what should be done?

The answer to this is staring me, literally, in the face. It is the internet and the PC revolution, which could act as a far more powerful catalyst than the devolution of power to local authorities. It raises the practical possibility of micro-management of local communities and neighbourhoods.

Thus the World Wide Web should be complemented by the establishment of a Street Wide Web. A plan should be put into place to enable every street in every town to have its own website. The sites could even be set up by local government in the first place, thus performing the municipal functions that Cameron would most like to see - not nannying, but enablement and encouragement.

The SWW could engender a revolution in the way neighbourhoods relate to one another, in a manner that embraces the ideals both of privacy and of neighbourliness. Websites could display information, family photographs, items for sale, community news, gossip, car-pooling information, child-care possibilities, recommendations of local workmen - the possibilities are endless. House parties, book clubs, local pub and restaurant reviews might all feature.

If there has been a burglary in the street, or a mugging, other residents will find out immediately and know to take precautions. Or if someone is spotted letting their dog mess on the pavement, the rest of the neighbours can organise through the website to collectively exert peer pressure on the culprit. Being faced with 10 neighbours on your doorstep complaining is a more difficult situation to ignore than the appearance of a vulnerable lone complainant.

This may seem a middle-class perspective on the problem, but it's a start. Besides, an awful lot of homes in every income group have a PC nowadays, and sooner or later they'll be as ubiquitous as the TV. The nature of the Web information will reflect the character of the neighbourhood, whether it's pit bulls for sale or second-hand Bugaboos, cocktail parties on the terrace or piss ups at the pub. But the principal of maximising coherence remains the same from Peckham to Pimlico.

The great thing is, you can get to know and talk to your neighbours without actually having to meet them. You would, crucially, begin to see them imaginatively as real human beings with stories and histories rather than just threateningly anonymous faces behind curtains or on the street.

The existence of an SWW alone might be enough to institute a revolution in local consciousness. And it could actually lead, on many occasions, to real-life face time over an old-fashioned cup of tea. The SWW would massively increase a sense of neighbourhood solidarity and break down barriers between isolated individuals.

Apart from intra-street activity, there could be links to the local police and council, clubs and community organisations. But above all, it would create a focus of identity not centred simply on the family and the individual but on the street, and, ultimately, the neighbourhood. It would be easy for the SWW to link into wider neighbourhood websites and up to the level of local, and even national, government. That really is democracy and community in action.

What about fear, the other great bugbear of neighbourhood life? We treat our neighbours not as "friends you haven't met", as the Americans would say, but as potential threats. This starts in childhood, where kids are routinely told not to talk to strangers and that every person on the street is a potential paedophile. This affects children and their parents alike, leading to a climate of suspicion that evolves into anti-social behaviour. It's part of the "shrinking into ourselves" that Cameron identifies.

Cameron should suggest a poster campaign, something visually clever with the strapline "Do Talk To Strangers". The poster would point out that the chances of your child being abducted by a predatory paedophile are about the same as their being killed by a poisonous snake, and suggest that people, on the whole, are trustworthy and safe to communicate with.

Finally, if I were Cameron, I would fund further advertising campaigns that would promote the principles of liberal interventionism and personal responsibility. This would launch another simple slogan: "Just Say Something". The campaign would take on anti-social behaviour by suggesting not that an individual "have a go", but "just say something".

The collective effect of adults en masse standing up to children and anti-social elements could be enormous. If everyone, at the same time, started to take the risk of suggesting to a bunch of vandals that scratching the glass on a Tube train window isn't a very nice thing to do, or that dropping litter in the street is selfish and unpleasant, a whole climate of behaviour could begin to shift. Kids would begin to understand that we're not afraid of them anymore - and the implications of that could be seismic.

So there you are, Mr Cameron. David. Dave. You are welcome to my ideas, and I offer them freely in a gesture of local community solidarity. And also because I'm sure that no other politician will be desperate enough to take them. They're just too obvious, simple and cheap, and by promoting trust rather than fear, I doubt that there are any votes in them.

Interesting? Click here to explore further