Jon Bright (London, OK): During yesterday's Future Britain launch, which OK is supporting, I found my mind wandering, obscurely, to the pub. Was I musing on the problem Guy Lodge poses below? Was I considering a vital aspect of British identity? Perhaps I just needed a drink. But there was a connection.
Everyone knows that pubs in Britain require you to go to the bar, while in most other countries you'll be served at your table. Doing so is a chore so it's convenient (as well as polite) to offer to buy everyone else a drink when you do - next time, you'll be spared the hassle. Known, of course, as buying rounds, this custom results in two things: people often have at least as many drinks as the number of people in their group, and the group tends towards drinking at the pace of the fastest drinker. The logic of the process, in other words, produces an outcome (that everyone drinks more than they otherwise might), which is not necessarily connected to the intentions of anyone participating in it.
Future Britain has picked up on the power of process - indeed yesterday it was all anyone talked about. In three hours a variety of speakers were of almost one voice around at least the following: if the process of constitutional change is not one that involves the public in a meaningful way, it will produce something that no-one feels they own. And this will be a failure.
Far less consensus was found, though, on the means of public involvement. Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy was for giving them power both to shape the questions and then vote on the answers. Roger Smith of JUSTICE, amongst others, worried what this degree of public involvement might mean in a climate of reaction and fear. Public apathy (rather than the wrong sort of involvement) seemed an even bigger concern. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty pointed the finger at politicians - if Gordon Brown speaks, the world's media will listen. I'm not so sure.
The media didn't give Brown's reforms much full or accurate coverage, as Anthony Barnett notes below. Some may see this as cynical, a keener interest in 'views' and celebrity gossip than the important matters of politics. I see it as the result of yet another process: the slow strangulation of the business model of 'traditional' media outlets by the almighty juggernaut of the internet. Whatever the cause, mass public involvement without media interest seems unlikely.
A feeling of being stuck then, was generated slightly - everyone agreed what to do, no-one agreed on how to do it. "But do these conversations feel reminiscent of what happened in Canada?" Pam Giddy asked Robert Sharpe, there to outline how constitutional change was achieved elsewhere. "Absolutely" he said firmly, the final word said on the day. It felt like a great way to end - even if we don't quite know what we're doing, perhaps there is still hope for us yet! Someone buy that man a drink.
