The Big Society is important in two ways. Firstly – and least interestingly, to most people – because it really is important to David Cameron. Secondly, and much more importantly, because it is a radical idea with huge potential to transform our lives.

I was veering towards agreeing with Nick on his point that we should simply stop talking about The Big Society and just get on and enable it, and talk again nearer an election. But this afternoon I’ve changed my mind. I spent the afternoon at the Big Society Network’s reception for Nexters – a programme to support the best innovations in social enterprise and technology that enables people to make the best of their lives.

I’ll come back to some of the ideas they featured – there are some amazing things.

I’ve written before about the need for – in shorthand – a sort of Google Map of big society ideas, so that people with an urge to get involved can see what is going on in their area, and can see where people who’ve done something similar have learnt lessons.

Every time I go to any Big Society event, I meet a number of people who are essentially doing the same thing. Now if all you’re interested in is making a name for yourself, having lots of the same project running is fine but not really scalable and probably involves a lot of duplicated effort and wasted funding and goodwill, and probably isn’t making the most of whatever their idea is.

As a dedicated localiser, I am reluctant to say this, but I think the time has come for some serious thinking to be done about how to encourage small enterprises to merge to maximise their effectiveness. Not everyone can set up the next big thing, and having lots of people chasing the same resources is a recipe for inefficiency. I have worked with a few charities and foundations, and one thing that has struck me over and over again is that at some point, the funders need to acknowledge that an organisation is too small to have any real impact, or that their model simply doesn’t achieve what it’s supposed to, or that the outcomes are not sufficient to justify funding.

Additionally, there has to be an acknowledgement that, yes, some ideas fail but it’s worth trying something that isn’t yet tested. Someone I talked to today said that in his corporate life, he asks his Board to keep an eye on his failure rate, and if fewer than about 30 per cent of his decisions aren’t successful, he considers that he’s not being brave enough – which I thought was an innovative and very different approach to the way we tend to do things in politics.

The other key thing that needs to happen – and it’s started – is that people need to be inspired and encouraged to do things. Not talking about the Big Society as a concept for the next three years is not going to encourage greater involvement – quite the reverse in fact. So the Big Society Network and Number 10 are absolutely doing the right thing in identifying great ideas and great people and spreading the word to people who don’t yet know, because if something becomes a cultural norm, it becomes entirely natural and second nature and we (nearly) all end up doing it without thinking about it too hard.

I repeat – again – what I’ve always said about the Big Society. It’s not just about volunteering, it’s not just about public services, it’s not just about nudging people into better behaviour. It is all of those things, but most importantly, it is about enabling all of us to live the best lives we can. And that is absolutely the most important mission of any government.

Is this a case of politicians being consumed by the civil service/national security apparatus, is it a case of the Establishment closing ranks, or is there really a case for control orders?

I loathe control orders. I think that they play into what terrorists want – they want us to abandon our way of life, and feel fear, and they want to be able to portray us as prejudiced against them.

I have had this argument over and over again – mostly with people who work in politics, because non-political people don’t seem to mind either way.

That is, I think, an instructive fact – if you’re basically not likely to be subject to one, you probably think they are on balance perfectly fine as it’s always going to happen to someone else, and people subject to these orders are probably guilty of something, as why else would they be subject to them? That’s probably a fair enough assumption. But it’s not the job of politicians to just go with the flow. They are there to make judgements for the good of all (or as many as possible).

So during my arguments over control orders, my basic thesis is this: as with allowing torture, whether we allow our fundamental approach to be overturned must be based on what kind of country we want to live in. If we want to say that our liberal, democratic, free society is the correct kind of society, then we cannot and must not say “except for you, you and you”.

My arguers come back with “What would you do instead?” Personally I’d allow intercept evidence, tell people why they’re under the order, prosecute or deport as the case may be. But the reasons that control orders were introduced in the first place are instructive as well.

They were introduced because we wanted to abide by the Human Rights Act – we don’t deport people to places where they could be tortured. There are shades of grey in this – it’s up to other countries what they do inside their borders, and judges’ activism has probably stopped the UK from deporting some people to some places where they would be fine. But – I like that we are a nation that refuses to condone torture.

They were introduced because there are some things you need to keep secret – obviously there are cases where setting out all the evidence would betray informers, police and secret protocols. Again, though, there are shades of grey. But if we’re going to allow our security services to electronically eavesdrop and so on, surely we must try to use that evidence to prosecute?

They were, finally, introduced because there are some people who are absolutely determined to do us harm. I don’t know what the answer to this is: on the one hand, they are completely wrong and make no case for anything beyond causing that harm.  On the other, they are human beings as well and we should pride ourselves on being an open society with free speech and all that that entails. That does not mean, however, that we should allow criminal behaviour – we should prosecute it.

Matthew Parris was as expressive as ever on Any Questions last week. He said that he trusted Nick Clegg on this because if, having seen the evidence, he became convinced of the need for something that keeps people we cannot charge or deport off our streets, then that was good enough.

As Sean wrote this yesterday, the rigours of being in government are testing, both for Lib Dems and for Tories. But I do think there are some over-riding principles, and one of those must be that we make every effort to prosecute rather than just use a control order.

While in an ideal world I would abolish control orders, I do understand the dilemma that the government has: what do they replace them with? I’m sure that it is only with deep misgivings and a profound belief that there is absolutely no alternative that the announcement when it comes will maintain some form of them.

This is not a post of rights and wrongs. It is one of shades of grey. The world we live in is not clear-cut, and we elect our politicians to make the best judgements they can. It is easy for me to say control orders are a disgrace – I don’t have any responsibility for anything. But politicians are elected to use their best judgement on what is best for us all; and no-one has yet come up with all the solutions. Least of all me.

In a rather contradictory way though, I wasn’t allowed into the Freedom Zone until I’d handed over my contact details… Odd, I thought.

Anyone with strong views on the introduction of ID cards can apply to be part of the “conversation” and join one of the National Identity Service’s public panels:

You can either email publicpanel@ips.gsi.gov.uk or call 020 3356 8174

I asked them to tell me where they got my details. Eventually they put me through to a supervisor who said it was off a database but she wouldn’t tell me where from or what sort of database or any more details other than the fact that they had my name and phone number.  Apparently this refusal to say where they got my details from is to protect my privacy.

I have also had a series of texts in the last few weeks offering me £5,000 compensation ‘for your accident’. No such accident.

If I give anyone my phone number or email address when searching for quotes or information online, I always tick the opt-out of further information box.  I fully accept that I give out a certain level of information by doing this sort of thing online (and that it would not be hugely difficult for someone to track me down through this website, for example) but it really does make me cross when companies ignore my request to opt-out and continue to sell my details, and then won’t even give me enough information to take it up with whoever is responsible.

After I put the phone down, I read this article in the Guardian about the ongoing inquiry into press standards. While I know that it’s not the same thing, I think the point raised by the new Information Commissioner remains.  There is enormous potential for unscrupulous companies or individuals to misuse information, and as far as I can tell, any sanctions are pretty puny. I generally can’t see the point of jail sentences for financial crimes as I think big fines and relevant community service are actually more socially useful, so I do disagree on that point. However, as things stand, the benefits outweigh the risks, so it does appear that more needs to be done by the government.

This is just one of the reasons I am against ID cards and the database behind them – imagine if the database existed at the moment. How incredibly tempting would it be for the government to try to plug one of the many black holes by selling it…

It is, first of all, yet another reannouncement – the cards have never actually been compulsory (except for airside workers in Manchester and London, and for foreigners).

Secondly it’s an acknowledgement that the funds just aren’t there.

Thirdly it’s an acknowledgement that the government doesn’t really know what their purpose is – it used to be combating terrorism; then benefit fraud; then underage drinking then probably something else.

And fourthly, it’s a flexing of the power Alan Johnson currently holds.

What it’s not, however, is the abolition of ID cards and/or the National Database. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy loon, it’s not the card itself that is the big worry; it’s the database.

When I lived in France, I had to have a residency card, which had my photo, name, address, date of birth and nationality on it. I don’t really have any great objection to that; it served as a secondary piece of photographic ID, and I only ever had to produce it when I would have had to do so here (for example, as official proof of address at the Post Office or at France Telecom). I imagine that, had I ever been stopped by the police, I would have been asked to show it but again, I don’t think that providing evidence of who you are in the event of being arrested is really a problem.

My big problem with ID cards and their database is two-fold. Firstly, (unlike France) the UK is not a country where things have to be authorised – the assumption is that you’re allowed to do something unless you are expressly prohibited. Our tradition is much more liberal and free than countries where you’re not allowed to do something unless the law specifically permits it.

But my most major objection is this. Look what the state does when it’s given too much power. Look what Poole Council did using anti-terror laws – they went after people trying to make sure their child got a good education. Look what Labour does with its massive majorities – makes bad laws, wrong decisions and nearly bankrupts us. As I have often argued, the relationship between us as citizens and the state has shifted and is now the wrong way round.

Concrete proposals to restore power to people are a good start. But I suspect an even better one might be to go through and simply repeal law after law after law.

I’ve actually watched this film (last time there was a fuss about it). It’s not good as entertainment and it certainly doesn’t have a story. But it’s an interesting exercise both in cinematic terms, and as a lesson in selective quotation and reputation management.

Anyone can select phrases from anything to make it sound bad or good.  Think of those theatre posters with ‘left me breathless!’ when the original quote said ‘left me breathless at how bad it was’.  Full understanding only comes from the context and indeed how something is put into action – how people interpret words and what actions they take based on that interpretation.

I think there are three lessons we should draw from this row: firstly that freedom of speech must be defended in a non-partisan, straightforward and even-handed way.  Secondly that if we disagree with something, being an ostrich, sticking your head in the sand and ignoring it is not the answer – as I argued in this post on the BNP.  And finally that unless we acknowledge that personal motivation is the most significant factor in behaviour, we will not even begin to resolve these sorts of problems.

The 15 June has been declared the day to copy all your emails to Jacqui Smith in protest against her plans to create a database of all emails, phone calls and web history of every single person in the UK.  Which for some reason is called the ‘Interception Modernisation Programme’.

This isn’t breaking any laws (though I’m sure she’ll try to find one) and it doesn’t do any harm (though I’m not sure I’d want to have her read everything) – it’s citizens taking direct, peaceful action to protest against a badly thought-through and invasive proposal which won’t make us any safer.

You can sign up here: www.ccjacquismith.co.uk 

Despite the ravings of various people, I don’t see much wrong with it. True, he doesn’t say all that much of substance. It’s too reliant on religion as the one true path for my taste – but then I also think that the Pope’s recent comments on homosexuality were just as blind to reality.

I’m not defending Ahmadinejad’s views on the Holocaust or any of his other prejudices, but I absolutely believe that there is a duty on broadcasters to provide information to allow us to make up our own minds AND a duty on all of us to try to see past our own prejudices.

It is a bit strange that a country’s president has agreed to what is effectively a commercial broadcast on a (sadly) minority channel. But doesn’t it say a lot that the knee-jerk response to this is to call for the privatisation of Channel 4, a ban on Ahmadinejad’s broadcast and for advertisers to boycott the channel? Surely if there’s one thing we pride ourselves on, it’s the freedom that we all have to choose. And think on this – he is able to broadcast this in the UK but would probably not allow such freedom in his own country. I’m assuming that there will be some coverage of this event in Iran…

As for the rest of us: there is an off button, you know.

The proposals have been comprehensively discredited.  Brown and Smith have not produced a single shred of evidence that the extension of detention without charge would do anythingto prevent terrorist attacks.  They have completely failed to show how a Bill that would have acted as a hammer blow to traditional liberties would have any positive effects in the fight against terror.  Senior Police Officers, MI5, MI6, former Home Secretaries and an assorted range of experts have made clear that there is no case for extension.  The Government clearly felt that scare tactics alone would be enough to force this terrible piece of legislation through Parliament.

Hopefully the Government will now learn that liberty is not an optional part of the British constitutional make-up but stands at its very core.  This administration should no longer attempt to tear up Magna Carta based on a dubious premise and zero evidence.  Traditional freedoms have been diminished to such an extent over the past eleven years that we have to hope that last night’s vote was the beginning of the end for this pernicious and steady erosion of liberties.  We should hope that last night marks the beginning of a turning of the tide against those in Government who feel that freedom is somehow divisible and liberty is somehow negotiable.