Reason for Being

Added by Karin Gavelin, last edited by Karin Gavelin on Jan 24, 2007  (view change)

THE STRATEGY CONSULTATION IS NOW CLOSED.

Many thanks for all the excellent and useful comments. We are currently planning how the final strategy will be published, which we expect to happen in spring.

If you have any further comments or queries, don't hesitate to get in touch: karin@involve.org.uk.

Reason for Being

Involve believes the challenges of our age can only be met in a society in which we work together to find shared solutions to shared problems. Civil renewal requires more than constitutional change; we have to overturn the economic, social, cultural and psychological barriers that currently obstruct our democracy. These barriers prevent citizens from contributing to the development of society, and damage the capacity of our government to achieve its ambitions. Our public realm needs structures and strategies that can enthuse and empower every individual and every community to participate. What makes Involve different is that we focus on the principles and practicalities of making this happen, providing fresh thinking about what to do and showcasing effective methods of public participation.

What do you think about our Reason for Being?

  • Do you agree with the statement above?
  • Is there anything you do not agree with?
  • Is there anything you think is missing from the statement?
  • Is there anything you do not understand?

Let us know by clicking on 'Add Comment' in the bottom left corner of the screen.

You can comment anonymously, or let us know your name by writing it in the comment box or by first registering on the wiki - click 'Sign Up' in the top right hand corner of the screen.

Click here for the next section

Return to the Strategy Homepage

Consultation Links:

Labels

 
(None)

Comments (6)

 

  1. Nov 09, 2006

    Daniel Start says:

    I like it. These kinds of vision statements can get a bit rhetorical, but the tw...

    I like it. These kinds of vision statements can get a bit rhetorical, but the two messages I take away are: we're about doing, trialing, piloting things - a bit like a do-tank, or a hot house. We needmore doing, less thinking? Or a combo. I also take away the image of a clear distance / dichotomy between the constitutional (and institutional??) and the societal / individual. Perhaps you could mention that one of the 'reasons for being' right now is the exciting potential of technology and new media as the connector between the two (everything from new online political parties, to text-in reality TV voting).

  2. Dec 07, 2006

    Tom Burke says:

    I agree. I think that this reads very well clear why and the focus on barriers i...

    I agree. I think that this reads very well - clear why and the focus on barriers in society and in people is a nice link.

  3. Dec 08, 2006

    Anonymous says:

    Not sure doesn't miss the citizen to citizen perspective citizens can be involve...

    Not sure doesn't miss the citizen to citizen perspective - citizens can be involved with each other "to find shared solutions to shared problems", etc.

  4. Dec 08, 2006

    Anonymous says:

    There was a comment a while ago in David Wilcox's blog I think which said how th...

    There was a comment a while ago in David Wilcox's blog I think which said how there was a need for 'resources' about community involvement to be written from the point of view of ordinary citizens - very little is - mostly written from the point of view of professionals, etc.  - Think this hits the nail on the head.

  5. Dec 21, 2006

    Anonymous says:

    I find the idea of "overturning" current practices a rather big one. I think it ...

    I find the idea of "overturning" current practices a rather big one. I think it is a more usual process to adapt, develop, or progress something which is as imperfect as "our democracy".  In fact each of us will hold different parts of that democratic process as good, and other parts as less than good, and I am not sure that we can overturn the process, without a better level of understanding and agreement.

  6. Jan 02, 2007

    Michael Shepherd says:

    I'm not sure that we should be concerned about damaging "the capacity of ou...

    I'm not sure that we should be concerned about damaging "the capacity of our government to achieve its ambitions", shouldn't we be thinking more of shaping the ambitions of government?  I accept the importance of the notion of the public realm, but perhaps we should include something about connections to government. 

Add Comment