http://london-underground.blogspot.com/2009/02/here-comes-everybody-mobilising-tube.html

Thanks for putting the challenge out to me, hopefully my post got a few people thinking & it did actually get a response from TfL’s communications office, who liked it and enigmatically said “great food for thought”.

Just what do you want me to say?

To recap, the first paragraph of the above article states:

Much as I support the Convention on Modern Liberty, I am very conscious of the fact that there are two dangers inherent to an initiative such as this. The first is that all it leads to is talk and a thousand people sitting in a hall munching on sandwiches. Linked to that is the danger that all it leads to is despair; that the problem seems so big and so intractable that people simply end up withdrawing altogether.

I’m struggling to work out how you interpret this as an attempt to “shut down debate” on the danger of the Convention winding up being a talking shop. Really struggling.

My proposed solution – that people need to get creative and use this as an opportunity to promote activism – you appear to be dismissing out of hand in favour of demanding “proper” answer. I don’t know how I can give you an answer that will satisfy you – I don’t control the convention; the only control and influence I have is to perform this role in coordinating the carnival. And the carnival isn’t about dictating what outcomes will emerge – it is about encouraging individuals themselves to take action.

I’m sorry you consider that to be a cop out, but it is what it is.

Bottom line: is Republic interested in contributing to the Carnival or isn’t it? I would humbly suggest that contributing to it might be a more constructive use of time than continuing to manufacture this argument. Up to you.

When people criticise my work I don’t tell them to stop being negative, I address the concern and give a decent reply.

What makes you think I’m looking for evidence of a conference? I was looking at an event I’m hoping will be something useful and engaging. I’m still hoping that. It was, after all, just one line in a post I added which was primarily about the issues at hand.

Rather than brushing it aside and putting it down to my ‘negativity’ (I’m not remotely negative thank you very much, my jobs requires considerable reserves of optimism) why not answer the point by saying something about what the aim of the convention actually is.

This wasn’t a criticism of you, your post, your carnival idea or anything else you do – it was simply a point about the convention. A simple observation.

I’m really trying not to be patronising but if you are looking for evidence that the Convention on Modern Liberty will be a conference, you are going to see a conference.

I go to at least two of the three party conferences every year. They are all talking shops. But they are also an opportunity to spread ideas, build networks and motivate people. If no-one is thinking about making the most out of the opportunities to do those things we won’t make the most of them but, well, the article at the top of this page is all about avoiding that. So what’s your beef?

I just don’t understand the point in talking things down. Sorry if that is defensive, but maybe you should need to check on your own negativity.

Forgive me for saying so but that’s a slightly patronising and defensive reply. I didn’t say either the event or the carnival were a waste of time, in fact my principal point was simply that action should be aimed at the route cause, not the symptoms.

My comment about it being a talking shop was based on looking at the programme and speaking to the organisers, one of whom actually told me one of the sessions is an academic discussion on what happened 300 years ago! That’s not going to do anything to help the current situation or inspire action, as interesting as the discussion might be.

Like you, I’m fully engaged in taking action. My concern is that this convention will do little more than provide an opportunity for lots of talking. Prove me wrong!

As yet I’m not particularly optimistic about this convention. It does seem to be aimed at talking rather than acting.

Graham, the crucial issue is (to paraphrase) not what the convention will do for us, but what you will do for the convention.

My philosophy about the whole venture is that it is exactly what you make of it.

From a strictly pragmatic approach for example, you can look at the Carnival on Modern Liberty in two ways: either read it and then dismiss it as a waste of time for failing to address the issues that matter to you, or participate in it and thus widen your audience.

Talk about there being a danger that the convention will be just a talking shop is just… talk.

There don’t “have” to be speed limits on the roads at all, not in the inflexible and incontestable sense. Speed limits are on roads due to a general calculation of risk based on likely environmental factors. If some of those factors aren’t there then the speed limit is to stringent, if there are too many or extra environmental factors then the speed limit is too loose.

It is a legally enforceable guide, at least that’s how the police used to operate about it…now speed cameras make the limit some kind of magic barrier where everything under is ok and everything over is not, substituting police that can actually make a rational judgement about dangerous driving.

The analogy was that this is how mindless surveillance dumbs down the intricacies of our actions and creates criminals out of people that are not actually doing anyhting wrong given the circumstances, thus infringing on our liberties.

The reason is that our constitution is not designed to protect and serve the people, it is designed to enable the state to rule and control.

What is needed is a serious drive to bring about a new constitution, one based on popular sovereignty and the rights of the people. We must create a new relationship between the people and ‘their’ government.

This essentially means we need a republican constitution, one which enshrines the notion of popular sovereignty and which limits the power of government and parliament.

As yet I’m not particularly optimistic about this convention. It does seem to be aimed at talking rather than acting. However, if that’s to be addressed then the action must be aimed at the system which allows such excessive power to be held by the PM, not be distracted by the details of what Brown is up to from one day to the next.

Sorry, I don’t agree with this at all. There have to be speed limits on roads so I don’t have a problem with them being enforced. There are certainly strong arguments against more sophisticated systems where our movements would be constantly tracked but I don’t see how basic speed cameras represent any fundamental contravention of our liberties.

Precisely. If we can save the internet from regulation, we have rather a lot to play for as more people start using it.

One thing to remember is that politicians are voted in to power on up usually 20% majorities in turnouts that can be anywhere between 40% and 60%. The majority of the public don’t need to get on board because to ask for that is to also agree that our governmental institution isn’t representative (which it isn’t, but that’s another point).

My concern is that we could be portrayed by Brown et al as a group is out of touch with much of public opinion.

We already have been! (and it was ever thus.)

That’s why we must change public opinion (or buy some hempen rope).

But there is hope!

I think the public are coming round in narrow ‘practical’ (if that’s the right word) terms as opposed to theoretical or hypothetical terms in many cases where there is cause for concern.

For example, they don’t tend to think about privacy per se but how their personal information is held and who has access to it. An increasing proportion are against the national identity scheme, the majority think the data held will be inaccurate and unreliable, they don’t trust any government to keep it confidential and not improperly divulge it, the vast majority think there is a real risk that individuals working for the government will improperly divulge the information, the majority are unhappy that their own information will be stored (despite the majority being in favour of a scheme) in such quantities. People are largely for CCTV but object to microphones listening to their conversations. They object to DNA being held on the national DNA database if the person was acquitted or not charged. They object to their movements being tracked. These are good things that we should build on.

What I want to do is relate other liberty related issues to ordinary people – why the public should also care about the presumption of innocence, habeas corpus and the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, freedom to protest, freedom of information, and so on. I’m not sure the majority will ever ‘get it’, unless something really dreadful happens, but we don’t need the majority, we just need sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile for our representatives to start voting against proposals that infringe our liberties.

Thanks for talking me down. Though, my own experiences of writing to my MP suggests it’s a complete waste of time. (Mine seems to have some sort of minor role in government, so he only replies with government approved platitudes). Maybe you’ll have better luck than me.

I agree completely that we need to be a bit more anarchistic. The French seem to be up for a demo at the drop of a hat. And they don’t take shit from their government.

I take it the free media you are talking about is the internet? ‘Cause it sure isn’t the dead tree thingy.