Who remembers the 2003 Big Conversation? It was Blair's attempt to divert attention from his invasion of Iraq earlier that year and draw the public into a discussion of such weighty issues as whether councils should have greater power to ban workplace smoking or if rowdy city centre pubs and clubs should have to contribute towards policing costs. Seven years later, nothing remains of it except for an internet domain, now unoccupied.
Why, then, when looking for a name for a debate about the future of CILIP, as the organisation approaches its tenth anniversary in 2012 and the 120th anniversary of the Library Association's Royal Charter in 2017, should such an unpropitious name be chosen? Apart from its infamous history, the phrase fails in two ways:
Big: What meaning does the word big have? A debate in which each of CILIP 18,490 members participates? Or every one of the more nebulous group of 40,000 members of the 'CILIP community' of 'members, consumers, subscribers and stakeholders'? I draw both these figures from the 2008 Annual Report. I doubt it. I think that big is merely a piece of puffery.
Conversation: this too has become a meaningless vogue word, mostly used by politicians, advertisers, marketing people and other riff-raff.
It's a pity, for a debate about the future of CILIP is desperately needed. I think the first task of the Project Board, now being recruited (see the Expressions of Interest section at http://www.cilip.org.uk/about-us/people/president/pages/big-conversation.aspx ), should be to change the name.
