The first few months of the Coalition Government have been frenetic - driven it seems by a belief that almost everything associated with the last government was wrong in some way.  Alarm bells are already ringing that too much has already been bitten off than can be inserted into the mouth, never mind chewed? 

More disturbing though is the apparent (surely unwise) assumption that things are going to go much more smoothly under this Government than under the last, just because it is ..... well, them.

What other conclusion could be drawn from the way governance and public accountability are being dealt with as huge sections of public services are being redesigned.  Local authorities may be celebrating their success in winning the democratic deficit argument with Health, with much more responsibility for health shifting across to them, the duly elected.   But reliance on representative democracy alone - the "we make tough decisions on your behalf" model - is not going to be up to the task of handling the disruption and conflict inherent in social and institutional changes already under way.  More for less alone means choices on which there will be no consensus. And mediation they will most certainly need, as local elected representatives will find out the moment they touch a much-loved service.

The related cull of quangos shows up the wider problem of premature optimism and also highlights the dangers of obsession with momentum - the current desire to get things done quickly in a visibly different way to the last Government.  This week came a set of announcements about regulatory, standards and governance bodies made without any consultation and with no apparent involvement of the public or public bodies or anyone else for that matter.   And how thin is the underlying thinking about how standards will be safeguarded and tough conflicts ahead mediated, in the absence of the bodies concerned? It is surely not enough to say functions will transfer to another body without testing if the inherent processes will in fact carry the burden of responsibility.

A different strand of such thinking is evident in proposals for the planning system - an apparent pushing down of decision-making to a local level which appears to give power of veto to just about anyone in the neighbourhood.  On the face of it such ideas, driven by a desire to prove a point, underestimates the need for robust processes for conflict resolution which really improve the world around us. Localism on its own is not enough for making divisive decisions stick. 

The answer lies in much more open, continuous and convincing participative models of involvement wherever the public and institutions touch.  Fontis proposes a new deal on public services to be created through collaboration, co-operation, participation and mediation of conflict.  There is too little evidence of respect for these fundamental principles in what the Coalition is doing.  It is more than a missed opportunity.  It is storing up trouble for itself and for us.