A SENIOR adviser to Tony Blair has drawn up his blueprint for a Britain of the future in which citizens talk through their disputes in televised debates and chat with their neighbours in Brookside-style closes.

According to David Halpern, more cul-de-sacs are needed, along with more park keepers and national televised debates on the thornier issues raised by Coronation Street and EastEnders. A European football team could help to foster a sense of European identity, with games against teams from South America and Africa.

Halpern’s proposals rest on the idea that “social capital” — the trust and shared values that help societies to function effectively — can be increased with help from the government, individuals and local communities. He has outlined his plans for a Blairite utopia of the future in an early draft of his book Social Capital, which will be published by Polity in August.

Halpern, a Cambridge University academic who is a member of the prime minister’s strategy unit, said last week: “The book is about our social fabric. This ‘glue’, sometimes called social capital, which is to do with our relationships with other people, turns out to matter much more than we thought.” But critics said that by becoming more involved in building social capital, the government would be acting like a nanny state.

First up for improved social capital under Halpern’s plans are families. Teenagers would be taught about parenting at school, with advice for parents on how to “interact with the young child” and how to be a better parent. More state support could be given to parents through the tax system.

When children were older they would be given adult “mentors” and asked to act as mentors to other children. This would be extended to young parents who would be mentored by older parents, while “business angels” — experienced or retired businessmen — would offer their help to entrepreneurs struggling with business start-ups.

Cities, towns and villages would have more cul-de-sacs — which Halpern claims encourage greater neighbourliness — and fewer through roads. Alleyways which criss-cross areas — down which muggers and burglars can escape — would be sealed up.

Park keepers would reappear, perhaps on open land bought by residents who would club together to buy it. One of their jobs could be to ensure children were not injured in the “upgraded local parks and play areas”. Halpern also urges “making it easier for residents to hold street parties” along with the creation of a friendly “cafe society” — hitherto a rarity under Britain’s grey skies.

Motorists are unlikely to enjoy such a rosy time in Halpern’s new world. In many areas pedestrians would be given priority while drivers would face reduced parking and more bollards.

“Neighbourhood councils” could employ wardens and have the power to hand out mild punishments — Halpern notes that some crime can be reduced by locals “shaming” offenders. Neighbourhood councils could even raise some taxes. One proposal is for an “emergency button” on mobile phones which, when pressed, would alert the nearest three mobile phone users that the owner was in distress and needed help.

Lists of neighbourhood e-mail addresses would be created so that neighbours could arrange to help one another with gardening, school runs and childcare duties. Companies would appoint “champions” to foster links between firms and local communities.

Doctors, given that lonely, overworked people sometimes exhibit psychosomatic illnesses, could introduce their patients to one another and encourage them to make friends, rather than offer them prescription drugs, in the hope that they might “hit it off”.

Encouraging volunteering is a key plank of Halpern’s proposals, along with “community service credits”, which could see free bus tickets given to people who collect litter.

“A contemporary shared moral discourse” is suggested, which could be developed through televised public debates on issues raised in soap operas. There could even be “national deliberation days” when the entire population would talk about important public issues. Citizens’ juries comprising members of the public would regularly advise government and companies.

Halpern, who emphasised that his plans were not government policy, said the financial cost of implementing them had yet to be worked out: “Most of them are not necessarily phenomenally expensive. It’s about strengthening the social fabric, so that some other things which are potentially very costly don’t happen. It’s just that we’ll have more pleasant lives if we do something about it.”

Robert Whelan, deputy director of Civitas, a centre-right think tank, was sceptical: “Social capital is a very important concept but it’s generated by people, the government can’t do anything about it.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• The bright side of this winter rain
• Story behind the picture: Snow Leopard, 2008
• Times Charity Appeal: The Place2Be