The Big Conversation

Crossed wires accidentally start genuine big conversation as thousands swamp independent non-government website

The conversation about the direction of government in the UK is off to a flying start - but not on the New Labour website. Thousands of visitors have swamped the website of The Big Conversation, whose name and concept have been borrowed by New Labour for its highly publicised new PR offensive. Here, in contrast to New Labour's site, all contributions are visible, revealing a picture of public opinion that has not been censored or retouched.

"Since New Labour didn't converse with us before Google directed the nation to our site, it rather took us by surprise," said Jamie Roy, founding director of Planetary Tribe, the research consultancy which launched The Big Conversation website in 2001. "But after my initial annoyance I quickly got very excited indeed. By getting its wires crossed, the government has inadvertently jump-started the genuine Big Conversation - not the closed email box offered on its own site, but the real thing."

In five days the site (www.thebigconversation.org) has received more than 5,000 visits and more than 1,000 contributions - a common sample size for a Mori or Gallup poll. Preliminary analysis of the brief survey of respondents' opinions reveals that:

• Most (over 60%) think that a national conversation is a good idea.
• However, over 70% think that politicians will not / probably will not listen to them.
• Over 90% think it is very important (82%) or quite important (9%) for such a conversation to be free from political control.
• Most feel very proud (34%) or proud (29%) to be British.
• A majority (a shocking 54%) do not feel represented by ANY political party.

At present covering such topics as tuition fees, Iraq and foundation hospitals, The Big Conversation is designed to evolve according to the interests of its participants. In addition to containing the standard features of an internet forum, the website includes a mechanism whereby the degree of agreement or disagreement to comments posted by visitors can be gauged - a feature that could be particularly useful to politicians.

"We will also carry out and publish more in-depth analysis," said Mr Roy, "although the sheer volume of interest is placing a considerable burden on our resources, particularly as the site is not run for profit. After such a fantastic boost I just hope we can find the wherewithal to keep up with all the data that's coming in."

On New Labour's appropriation of his initiative's name, Mr Roy said: "They can't plead ignorance, as we recently carried out a big research project for the Department of Health, using The Big Conversation website, for 18 months. But the important thing is that this has had a positive outcome, as it has put this conversation - which really is a radical and innovative idea - into the public domain."

He concluded: "If there is one thing that has come out of the response so far, it is that The Big Conversation must be free from political control and censorship. Otherwise it is just a big con. So we know we are providing the public with exactly what they want, which is being confirmed by the way the word is spreading. Although he's done it by accident, starting the real Big Conversation could be Tony Blair's legacy to British politics."