Leading article: Green and unpleasant land

Fear of public incivility is nothing new. As the Edwardians series on BBC4 reminded us, there are aspects of the current malaise that were ever thus. Peter Hennessy's portrait of the 1950s, Having It So Good, reminds us that, not only were the more censorious social norms of the time stifling and discriminatory, they were also ineffective in suppressing insubordination and disorder. When this newspaper was founded in 1990, many people blamed Margaret Thatcher's "no such thing as society" mentality - although the phrase itself was wrenched out of context - for eroding mutual respect.

So it is absurd for David Cameron to suggest that people in Britain today are rude because of things that this Government has done. Still more so to say that this is because the Government has taken responsibility from people and thereby left them powerless. Yet there is no question but that the Conservative leader has identified the right issue. Indeed, it could be argued that he has marked out the new battleground of the politics of the future: that Cameron versus Brown will be fought over the issues of the environment and civility.

It is hard to define and quantify the problem. Rather than suggest that the British are more aggressive in public than they have ever been, it might be more sensible to disentangle the elements of incivility and examine how behaviour has changed. One form is the disrespect shown by young people towards their elders, especially those in authority over them. The other is the anger that seems so near the surface of so many adults, which seems readier to express itself in bad language, the threat of violence or actual bodily harm that it used to be. The phenomenon of "road rage" was first described as "sweeping the country" in 1994. As Cole Moreton writes on pages 8-9, he was only five minutes into his experiment of politely asking people to pick up litter when he was invited to explain his problem with his fists.

There is a crossover between the two pathologies, not least, as we reported last week, the copying of footballers' behaviour, which worries ministers. And if there is a criticism of this Government, it is that it identified the "respect agenda" some time ago but has been slow and "misguided" - the Prime Minister's own word yesterday - in responding to it. We have reported extensively on how misguided his policy has often been: pointing out, for instance, the problem of anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos) demonising young people.

But one of the more constructive approaches is the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (Seal) scheme, which, as we report today, is being extended to secondary schools from September. This is a worthwhile programme, even if, as with parenting classes, it does set some liberal teeth on edge.

It does expose the limits of Mr Cameron's intervention last week, in which he seemed to suggest that it was up to parents rather than schools to teach the "social, emotional and behavioural skills" on which Seal focuses. Surely government policy should be directed towards both? The traditional objection of liberals, that government support for parents and schools in such matters is nanny-statism, is surely out of date.

As Mr Cameron might have said, but did not, liberalism is not merely about licence: it requires a sense of individual responsibility. But that does not come out of thin air: it requires a collective endeavour, at all levels, which includes that of national government.

Interesting? Click here to explore further