Add a “steelman round” to every public consultation

The problem: public consultations often turn into a contest between slogans, where each side describes the other at its worst.

The proposal: before any decision, the consulting body publishes a summary of the strongest arguments for each position, written or approved by people who hold them. Participants then respond to those summaries, and the final report says which arguments changed the outcome. Steelmanning is the practice of presenting an opposing view in its strongest form.

Who acts: the consulting body drafts; representatives of each position check the summaries; an independent facilitator makes sure the process is fair.

Costs and trade-offs: it takes extra time and effort, and some groups may find it hard to agree on a fair summary of their position. A short, strict format and a neutral editor help.

First step: pilot it on one local planning consultation and ask participants afterwards whether they felt their view had been fairly represented and whether they understood the other side better.