The new Government is certainly prepared to make some bold statements, some would say 'brave' in the Sir Humphrey sense.  And none of those statements would seem much bigger than Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne's promise last week to,

"start a period of external engagement between the Government and all parts of society ....., in order to obtain the best ideas from those most involved in and affected by public services".

There is no bigger issue in British political and economic life just now, and here is the Government promising, not just to consult, but to engage.  We like that.

I'm told scepticism, even cynicism, is a very British trait.  Perhaps so, but if you have a strength, play to it...!  So, the sceptics amongst us (and we are often they) will say, show us the hard substance of this proposal, and in truth just at the moment it's hard to see real substance: The accompanying 'Spending Review Framework' sets out the scale of the problem, a timetable for addressing it and, under the heading 'We're all in this together', delivers a side of A4 on the consultative process that says....err, not a lot.  We are promised 'talented individuals' to provide expert advice, and a 'series of events' over the summer to 'discuss and debate' among 'a range of people'.  "Invitees will include members of think tanks and interested groups, academics, representatives of local government, business and trade unions, and public sector experts and watchdogs such as the Audit Commission." (we'll let you know if we're invited, if you tell us the same!) Oh, and a series of events in undefined sectors.  And its relationship to real decision-making? The relationship between this process and the supposed venue for decision-making (the so-called Star Chamber of senior Ministers) is also left unclear.

In other words this is not yet a well defined process, or at least not yet in public.  Can you smell a conspiracy yet?  But here's the rub.  If this is a genuinely open and dynamic process, a true reaction to a new form of Government in troubled times, actually I wouldn't want too much certainty just yet. 

We know that true engagement is dynamic, complex, messy, and even at times 'chaotic' in the sense that a lot of different things, some diametrically opposed to each other, will happen at once.  Embracing that approach, even with the apparent benefit of having observed Canadian experience, won't make those factors go away, nor should it.

So, you quite literally pay your money (tax, not bribes, I hope) and make your choice: Do you suspend your cynicism about our political system and our politicians, allow the possibility that something different is happening, that it may have real effect, or that it is at least a real attempt at such change, or do you see these words as mere idealism that will be worn down by the tide of real events and grubby politics, or, worse, see them as window dressing, as designed to sugar the pill.  In short, do you choose scepticism or hope?