Here’s the RSA’s Matthew Taylor making the case for a pro-social framework for local government.
This bit may seem like a triumph of hope over expectations, but it’s interesting to ask ourselves why that would be:
“Engage local councillors in a redefinition of politics and social change, moving from a government-centric to a citizen-centric model. Support and incentivise councillors to be capacity builders (if this sounds crazy, there are places it is happening).”
Prior to this, he argues that….
To create the future most of us aspire to we need citizens who are… more actively engaged in collective decision making at every level.
Matthew is to be congratulated for this term ‘pro-social’ I’ve started to hear it being dropped into conversations all over the place, but I’m fairly certain that Matthew first mentioned it on his blog about a year ago. (I await correction on this if I’m wrong). So, I’d like to get an idea going in my own puny way. I’m sure that it won’t go a fraction as far as his but here goes:
Don’t aspire to involve people in collective decision making. You will be lying if you tell them that you are going to do it, and no-one will like the outcome. Instead, involve people in describing the problem and drafting proposed solutions.
I’ve outlined the thinking behind this on my own blog over here. What do you think?








A blog about representative democracy, social media and a conversational politics. How will peer-to-peer communications change local democracy? How is representation changing? 










‘Pro-social’. Surprising Paul – I may be old but I honestly can’t remember a time when I and others around me weren’t using this term.
k