The anorexic telephone directory, communication style and the Big Society.

I hear a thump on the floor - some post through the box. It is the new edition of the BT directory.

Nothing of note, until I pick it up and notice just how thin it is. Business, classifieds and residential – all for less than a centimetre. There was a time when the tome gave me several inches of extra height when a ladder was not around.

So what’s going on? Well, the aneroxic listing shows we are now celebrity ex-directory or we just want to avoid being contacted by someone who might give us grief. Perhaps the geographical boundaries have changed. Comparison with last year’s offering suggests not. Other currents are at work.

The mobile phone in its numerous manifestations is taking its toll of its terrestrial cousin. Apparently, 25% of US households already get by with no landline. If one does have both facilities, it can be a shock when the traditional variant actually rings. It is probably an aged relative. If the answering service is activated, we probably ignore it when we get back, knowing that if someone really wants us they will use the mobile.

Most people under twenty have probably not experienced answering a phone connected by an umbilical cord to the wall. They would have no idea of what to do in a public callbox. Communication is now, anywhere, anytime and literally on the move.

This has crept on us and the implications for society and our communication styles not yet crystallised. The traditional phone was an in-house shared facility and switchboard. Families were aware of who was talking to whom even if the content was hushed. This was a strand of family connectivity which has been knocked away and our communication now becomes more individualistic than ever. Phone conversations are now individual events, a bit like our grazing habits on the food front.

The phonebook was an opportunity to scan who constitutes the local community. We may not have read it for fun, but at least it gave you an idea of who was around and what they did. Electronic on-screen versions do not provide the same sentient experience.

So next year the paper version will be wafer thin. In the meanwhile, our own personalised directory on the mobile lengthens. We have censored and chosen who we talk to. Not having a public listing, the opportunities for others to talk to us have been reduced. Is this the Big Society?

Let us make our politics less sanitised and a little more dangerous.

Blog posts are ephemeral, but occasionally it can be worth revisiting one already written. Here is an update of one from a year ago and written after the General Election.

As a teenager, I recall visiting Downing Street and putting my hand on the famous door. A tangible connection to history perhaps. Returning in my thirties, I was confronted with a wrought iron security gate. I felt saddened at the restriction.

'So what?' you might ask. Well today, we see a street turned into a giant outside broadcast backdrop for the media circus. A metaphor for the distance between the electorate and the political elite, with the Fourth Estate filling the vacuum and filtering what we are to know. We have a political disconnect and the geography of our most famous street exemplifies what has gone wrong. Politicians are now physically more secure behind these gates, but insulated from the approbation and heckling of the public.

The distance between government and the public is as great as ever. The former's misreading over the public perception of forest sales, the Big Society and banking bonuses are cases in point.

The political elite needs to meet real people with all the unpredictability that comes with it. Stop using audiences as patsy backdrops and contrived photo ops to legitimate "consultation". Now that would be real communication. AV electoral reform may signal a return to hustings, MPs widening their appeal, decent oratory, unsanitised debate and politics which is more lively and unpredictable. Now that would be a way of getting more people to vote.

The Big Society and bankers' bonuses - an exercise in hypocritical communication.

Bankers’ bonuses and the relaunch of the Big Society are strange bedfellows, and yet this week they will both hit the media headlines. Contradictory messages from the government - and what will the electorate make of it all?

The Big Society espouses a set of values where giving, voluntary work, charity, community spirit, " we are all in it together" and social responsibility are the drivers. They are the apex of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs ie self-actualisation and fulfilment. Contrast this with the imperatives of our bankers, where financial reward for work done and risks taken are the key words. Bonuses, taking and self-interest are likely to be the word associations that come to mind. Borrowing the language of Maslow again, we are talking of self-esteem, achievement and status as the bankers’ drivers.

The Big Society was a rather metaphysical entity when it first hit the lexicon in the 2010 election. It may be a little clearer now, but the electorate will be confused as to the values of a government encouraging volunteering, localism, social entrepreneurship and giving, yet still condoning the toxic behaviour of banks.

With Egyptian politics recently, western democracies were caught between desiring stability ( aka strong government ) and supporting self-determination. They sent out confused messages, as they tried to catch up with public opinion. In our domestic context, that is what is happening with bonuses and the Big Society.