On Monday I saw my old boss Pauline Neville-Jones (now a Conservative  peer leading on Security) give a presentation about Conservative Party security policy.

Some good ‘classic’ points (down with multi-culturalism, up with the border security and associated changes in Whitehall needed to defend a Free Society), but I was left hoping for redder meat on Core Philosophy: a greater exploration of what ‘security’ actually means these days.

We seem to be moving into a new mode where the spontaneity and intensity of action count more than than basic principles, if any.

See eg Greek riots. And designer disruption at Stansted airport:

This was, in the words of one campaigner, “designer direct action”, and those taking part were adamant that there was no time to lose in tackling the peril of climate change.

Tilly, 21, explained: “If we fail, it will be the people on this runway, and our children, who’ll live with the consequences.” … yesterday’s protesters were “not the sort of people who usually go in for activist stuff”, adding that they were “educated, scientifically literate, passionate and eloquent”.

In other words, silly spoiled brats causing all sorts of costs to hundreds if not thousands of fellow citizens – and expecting to bear no consequences?

Plus there is a growing capacity and openness towards online community collective action of all shapes and sizes.

See eg HelpHound which aims to create a dynamic relationship between customers and business. It is growing fast and thus an increasingly influential factor in how businesses present themselves and deal with poor performance.

Or The Hub, a glitzy new community:

… people from every profession, background and culture working at ‘new frontiers’ to tackle the world’s most pressing social, cultural and environmental challenges.

Or all the others.

These groupings have swarm-like characteristics, mobilising large numbers of people very fast in favour of one cause/idea/demand or another.

What is Government meant to do with such phenomena, which are undoubtedly democratic in some non-trivial sense yet unofficial and unpredictable?

Is government itself merely a legacy information-flow deficiency problem?

Not a subject any political party seems to dare to open up.

But is the sheer incoherence of what government is trying to achieve these days sustainable?

And what if it isn’t?