Invitation to Democracy Drinks

Dear OGN members!

I am forwarding this invite to the first ever *Democracy Drinks. *It’s a social meet-up for talking all things public participation, organised by Involve.

  • When: Tuesday 11 June, from 6pm
  • Where: Two Chairmen pub (upstairs), 39 Dartmouth St, Westminster, London SW1H 9BP (Nearest Tube: Westminster / St James’s Park)
  • **RSVP: **
    drinks are for those who work in the field, use public engagement as part of their role, or are simply curious to know more.

They will be a chance to hear from invited speakers, meet new faces (and old ones) over a drink, and chat about participation.

We’d be really delighted if you could join us. Do RSVP at the link above.

Warm regards,



Since Involve have declared they are not interested in

  1. our innovative, unique App which

  2. helps any number of decision-makers (contributory participation) as well as

  3. any number of those affected by such decisions (interpretive participation) to be

  4. sure their best choice is always made (unity and commitment), and

  5. all in a universally transparent way (public accountability), then

our attendance would be counter-productive. Pity Involve’s ‘decision’ on this matter was not transparent, but that is typical of decision-making in general. As it is, we’re none the wiser, not even better informed. Mistakenly, the ‘accepted wisdom’ seems to be that transparency doesn’t extend to the decision-making process itself. Yet, that is the crux of the matter. And, you’d be surprised how such a methodology would impact on FOI.

Kindest regards

Michael La Costa

Suitably untitled

Informed Choice – ic!


What are you talking about Michael? You can’t solve democracy with an app. People change things not gadgets. Attacking involve is not going to build trust in your device.

+1 for Ruchir.

Michael, your comment was unconstructive, aggressive and not welcoming for any discussion, which seems like the opposite of what you try to promote.

I have no idea what is the context about Involve’s relationship with you, but this is not the way start a discussion…

Pleased to have a reaction, but the thrust of my email was to show there is a better form of democracy to be had not a ‘solution’ to democracy, whatever that is. One based on collaboration, not the conflicting system we tolerate today which seems to be fragmenting into smaller parties and not beginning to address the real difficulties - participation, transparency and accountability. All three involve people, not gadgets.
Kindly note, the App is called “informed Choice - ic!” and your comments would be all the more surprising if they were indeed informed. Perhaps you may care to learn more about this methodology which Professors of Decision Theory have proclaimed to be “ingeniously simple”?

Apologies for delay in responding, but events overcame my best intetions. However, we beg to differ - as, irrefutably, this “controversial” way has at least started the discussion. Whether or not it continues will be a measure of your curiosity.
The “unconstructive, aggressive” comment presumably refers to those made of “Involve” and not the five bullet points (our “promotion”). Furthermore, given that the “Involve” in question is the “think tank” that purports to put “people at the heart of decision-making” (not the employment engagement entity) then please rest assured there is no ‘relationship’. It simply highlights the irony of their purported mission especially in the absence of any better alternative than ic! which, uniquely, does exactly what they are striving for.
If real, OPEN government is to gain traction, then decision-making processes have to be addressed. We contend it should be done in a consensual way, not by perpetuating the conflicts and emotive fog of hyperbole which contribute nothing to improving the quality of decisions. Discoveries abound of the nuggets thrown up by genuine transparency. Disruptive - yes, Positive - yes. Improvement in quality of life - yes. Give peace (consensual solutions) a chance!

This topic has been ‘closed’ because the conversation is not relevant to the original post.