(Image shows a white woman's hand reaching over a paper notebook to a laptop, holding a pen.)
This piece will be discussing the UK Local Authority Elections which took place on May 7th 2026; in that sense, it is "political."
However, political positions and political judgements will not form part of this post. In the course of my work identifying the overall problem (it usually only is one problem, just with many presentations) facing organisations, teams, and individuals, and working through the worst-case-scenarios to effective solutions, I've worked directly with serving Conservative councillors whose views very much aligned with the most right-wing positions in that party, and active members of Extinction Rebellion; my personal politics are irrelevant, the politics of the people I'm working with are irrelevant; there's a problem. My job is to solve it. Sometimes, political attitudes add to the problem, but they have never actually been the problem itself.
Some people - many people, realistically - in the UK feel that "the right thing" happened; maybe it did; my wariness around that stems not from the shouting from the sidelines that's happened courtesy of supporters of Reform, but from the fact that most of the local authorities they were already controlling have ended up declaring bankruptcy under their leadership; that would be an equal level of problem if the most progressive, inclusive party Britain has ever seen had sent councils they controlled into bankruptcy, too. Politics isn't the problem; the way politics can affect peoples' ability to accurately observe, recognise, and address a problem is - and that's true of the left, the right, and the centre.
The problem currently is that Labour "don't understand how this happened."
I'm going to be writing the rest of this piece as though Labour were The Productive Pessimist's client. (They're not, currently - if they, or anyone else, would like to be, please get in touch - theproductivepessimist@yahoo.com)
. What Labour perceive as the problem:
. Bigoted people who "just don't understand reality" voted for people who told them they weren't bigoted, they were completely justified in the way they felt.
. People don't have the ability to understand complex, nuanced messaging, so they didn't listen to what we were saying.
. People are gullible, and so were easily taken in by fly-by-night charlatans.
. If young people and the loony side of the left wing hadn't been charmed by Polanski, none of this would have happened.
. People are overwhelmingly anti-Semitic, actually, and they just want Israel to be destroyed by Hammas.
However, political positions and political judgements will not form part of this post. In the course of my work identifying the overall problem (it usually only is one problem, just with many presentations) facing organisations, teams, and individuals, and working through the worst-case-scenarios to effective solutions, I've worked directly with serving Conservative councillors whose views very much aligned with the most right-wing positions in that party, and active members of Extinction Rebellion; my personal politics are irrelevant, the politics of the people I'm working with are irrelevant; there's a problem. My job is to solve it. Sometimes, political attitudes add to the problem, but they have never actually been the problem itself.
Some people - many people, realistically - in the UK feel that "the right thing" happened; maybe it did; my wariness around that stems not from the shouting from the sidelines that's happened courtesy of supporters of Reform, but from the fact that most of the local authorities they were already controlling have ended up declaring bankruptcy under their leadership; that would be an equal level of problem if the most progressive, inclusive party Britain has ever seen had sent councils they controlled into bankruptcy, too. Politics isn't the problem; the way politics can affect peoples' ability to accurately observe, recognise, and address a problem is - and that's true of the left, the right, and the centre.
The problem currently is that Labour "don't understand how this happened."
I'm going to be writing the rest of this piece as though Labour were The Productive Pessimist's client. (They're not, currently - if they, or anyone else, would like to be, please get in touch - theproductivepessimist@yahoo.com)
. What Labour perceive as the problem:
. Bigoted people who "just don't understand reality" voted for people who told them they weren't bigoted, they were completely justified in the way they felt.
. People don't have the ability to understand complex, nuanced messaging, so they didn't listen to what we were saying.
. People are gullible, and so were easily taken in by fly-by-night charlatans.
. If young people and the loony side of the left wing hadn't been charmed by Polanski, none of this would have happened.
. People are overwhelmingly anti-Semitic, actually, and they just want Israel to be destroyed by Hammas.
Of course, not all Labour politicians will think all of these things as individuals, but across the party, all of these views are probably being very actively expressed.
What the elements of the problem are:
. Labour didn't listen to businesses when they talked about the pressure they were already under before rate hikes, VAT hikes, national insurance hikes, and minimum wage increases came in.
. Labour didn't listen to businesses, organisations or individuals about the incredible harm that the Supreme Court judgement would cause many people, not just trans people. (Most of the people who've fallen foul of "biology determines access" have actually been cisgender women who don't match someone's personal idea of "what a real woman looks like.")
What the elements of the problem are:
. Labour didn't listen to businesses when they talked about the pressure they were already under before rate hikes, VAT hikes, national insurance hikes, and minimum wage increases came in.
. Labour didn't listen to businesses, organisations or individuals about the incredible harm that the Supreme Court judgement would cause many people, not just trans people. (Most of the people who've fallen foul of "biology determines access" have actually been cisgender women who don't match someone's personal idea of "what a real woman looks like.")
. Labour wasted a lot of time, money, and attention resource jeering about "How Reform are going to f-k everything up!" and "What the Tories did when they were in power!" On the occasions when they did point out their own achievements, they did so without objective evidence, as a standalone statement that they expected people to just take at face value.
. Keir Starmer has undeniably been quietly re-establishing links with Europe, without a mandate to do so.
. Keir Starmer has refused to acknowledge the dangerous and outright unlawful behaviour of Donald Trump, and reposition Britain in relation to America in the light of a very different situation in that country's leadership.
. Some people actually are bigoted, and would vote for any party that told them they'd never have to see people they personally didn't like in "their country."
. Many people are frightened, and feel that things are being "taken away from them" purely because of their gender, the colour of their skin, or their opinions about global political issues; when particular parties assured them that those things would be returned, they felt reassured, and voted for those parties because they genuinely hadn't done anything wrong, and their perception was they were being punished for invented "crimes".
The Top Three Problems:
. A lack of regard for genuine issues that were raised by businesses, organisations, and individuals.
. A refusal to explore nuanced ways to include everyone's position without harming anyone's rights.
. A lack of awareness of the real-world impacts for those in the lowest tax bracket.
. Keir Starmer has undeniably been quietly re-establishing links with Europe, without a mandate to do so.
. Keir Starmer has refused to acknowledge the dangerous and outright unlawful behaviour of Donald Trump, and reposition Britain in relation to America in the light of a very different situation in that country's leadership.
. Some people actually are bigoted, and would vote for any party that told them they'd never have to see people they personally didn't like in "their country."
. Many people are frightened, and feel that things are being "taken away from them" purely because of their gender, the colour of their skin, or their opinions about global political issues; when particular parties assured them that those things would be returned, they felt reassured, and voted for those parties because they genuinely hadn't done anything wrong, and their perception was they were being punished for invented "crimes".
The Top Three Problems:
. A lack of regard for genuine issues that were raised by businesses, organisations, and individuals.
. A refusal to explore nuanced ways to include everyone's position without harming anyone's rights.
. A lack of awareness of the real-world impacts for those in the lowest tax bracket.
The Actual Problem:
. An inability - or refusal - to communicate effectively.
Deep-Diving the Problem:
. An inability - or refusal - to communicate effectively.
Deep-Diving the Problem:
Communication is as much about listening as it is talking, and at multiple points, around very different decisions, Labour didn't just not listen to everyone who had an interest and a position, they actively excluded stakeholders from decision-level discussions. Businesses were not consulted on VAT and rate rises, nor on the impact an increase in National Insurance contributions would have on them alongside every other cost increase they were expected to absorb. Advocacy groups for transgender and intersex communities were not allowed to even present their positions before the Supreme Court. Support organisations working in community with the least well off weren't asked how welfare changes and cost of living increases were affecting their client base.
Comunication isn't giving everyone you listen to what they tell you they want; it's about taking on board what everyone has said about the impacts they're facing, and the limitations to how much they can work around, and developing a proposal that achieves your objectives whilst recognising genuine concerns and limitations, and, wherever possible, removing barriers for stakeholders when that can be done without erasing the purpose of the action you've decided to take.
Some people will have to compromise on their own positions, while a very small minority might not be able to be included at all; when this is the situation, all parties should leave feeling they have been heard, and understanding why their needs couldn't be met fully, or at all.
Labour appears to have decided what they were going to do, announced it, then "U-turned" to claim they were "carrying out a consultation" when they got the inevitable backlash from highly impacted groups who hadn't even been made aware they were about to be hit with something new, yet the "consultation" seems to often have been in name only, and not actually influenced an adjustment to the eventual proposal.
Communication is about giving clarity; there is obviously going to be considerable confusion about "Why are you claiming we can't afford to support disabled people making new welfare claims, but that exact same amount of money can be given to new able-bodied claimants, when there aren't enough available jobs for the number of unemployed people we have? Why are there discussions about the 'affordability' of the State pension when we're funding hotel accommodation for asylum seekers, gearing up for potential military engagement, and funding the back office for a Digital ID system no one wants, and that you don't seem to be being honest about why it's being brought out?" Labour haven't brought clarity to any of these issues - in fact, they haven't even addressed them.
Communication is about reassurance; every single aspect of 'communication' Labour have engaged in has only made people feel more unsafe; businesses no longer feel confident in being able to welcome trans clients, even when they have single-occupancy toilets and changing rooms, so the issue of "people feeling uncomfortable" doesn't arise. Individuals no longer trust that they can speak in affirmation and solidarity to and on behalf of Palestinians, including Palestinian friends and family they may have, without being branded terrorists. No one feels confident that they can challenge aggression from Israel without being told they're "anti-Semitic."
A point of convergence between those who voted Reform and those who voted Green might just be that both groups of people want to be able to have, and express, opinions without being told that, no matter how innocuous those opinions are, they are racist.
Can the motivation behind asking about whether particular areas have the resources to support an unplanned influx of people, or raising concerns about how many people from a specific culture are involved in s**ual ab*se, be racist? Of course it can. Commentary about why there are so many hairdressing salons and car washes can be racist - or it can just be a genuine point of frustration and inquiry.
Can the motivation behind supporting one group of people visibly and vocally be the desire to intimidate and express racism towards people that group are in conflict with? Of course it can - but it can also just be humans recognising other humans being harmed, and reaching out in solidarity and kinship.
What Happens Next?
We don't know how Reform will govern - they're so new, they've never really been in government before. Where they have been in local government, they've governed badly - perhaps they've learned from that.
People say a lot when they're not having to make the decisions - the game looks very different from the sidelines than it does from centrefield.
Labour need to start communicating, in the fullest and most expansive sense of that word. They need to start with genuinely listening.
If Labour were clients of The Productive Pessimist, their Action Plan would look something like this:
. Send your MPs out into community for a minimum of a month - August, since Parliament is desolved then anyway. They are to hold "listening sessions" in easily-accessible community spaces in every possible area, without gatekeeping or establishing barriers.
. Create an open, monitored email address that any member of the public can write to, where messages are passed to front bench Ministers for their awareness, and where pertinent, personal responses are provided within 30 days.
. Explore how benign support for Palestine's struggles can be allowed as free speech, and recognised as distinct from both sympathy with Hammas' choice of response to threats from Israel, and anti-Semitic sentiment.
. Rein in policing of protests in support of Palestine - manhandling elderly people, male officers seemingly dogpiling to pin down female protestors, etc, will always come across badly; the people who have attacked synogogues have not been among those we see being dragged away from anti-genocide protests. Proportionate police action and presence should, in fact, apply to all protests.
. Accept that Access to Work is not fit for purpose, and, in place of higher Universal Credit or PIP, make the annual "pot per claimant" amount allowed under Access to Work each year available to disabled claimants, provided on a pre-paid card, so that the Department for Work and Pensions retains oversight of how the money is being used; a requirement for either a weekly remote appointment or a monthly in-person deep dive review is also established.
. Reform of Universal Credit should centre around providing financial and mentorship support into self-employment, with a focus on the self-employment leading to the establishment of a business of the size and revenue that can support a sizeable element of well-paid, full-time employment for others.
Comunication isn't giving everyone you listen to what they tell you they want; it's about taking on board what everyone has said about the impacts they're facing, and the limitations to how much they can work around, and developing a proposal that achieves your objectives whilst recognising genuine concerns and limitations, and, wherever possible, removing barriers for stakeholders when that can be done without erasing the purpose of the action you've decided to take.
Some people will have to compromise on their own positions, while a very small minority might not be able to be included at all; when this is the situation, all parties should leave feeling they have been heard, and understanding why their needs couldn't be met fully, or at all.
Labour appears to have decided what they were going to do, announced it, then "U-turned" to claim they were "carrying out a consultation" when they got the inevitable backlash from highly impacted groups who hadn't even been made aware they were about to be hit with something new, yet the "consultation" seems to often have been in name only, and not actually influenced an adjustment to the eventual proposal.
Communication is about giving clarity; there is obviously going to be considerable confusion about "Why are you claiming we can't afford to support disabled people making new welfare claims, but that exact same amount of money can be given to new able-bodied claimants, when there aren't enough available jobs for the number of unemployed people we have? Why are there discussions about the 'affordability' of the State pension when we're funding hotel accommodation for asylum seekers, gearing up for potential military engagement, and funding the back office for a Digital ID system no one wants, and that you don't seem to be being honest about why it's being brought out?" Labour haven't brought clarity to any of these issues - in fact, they haven't even addressed them.
Communication is about reassurance; every single aspect of 'communication' Labour have engaged in has only made people feel more unsafe; businesses no longer feel confident in being able to welcome trans clients, even when they have single-occupancy toilets and changing rooms, so the issue of "people feeling uncomfortable" doesn't arise. Individuals no longer trust that they can speak in affirmation and solidarity to and on behalf of Palestinians, including Palestinian friends and family they may have, without being branded terrorists. No one feels confident that they can challenge aggression from Israel without being told they're "anti-Semitic."
A point of convergence between those who voted Reform and those who voted Green might just be that both groups of people want to be able to have, and express, opinions without being told that, no matter how innocuous those opinions are, they are racist.
Can the motivation behind asking about whether particular areas have the resources to support an unplanned influx of people, or raising concerns about how many people from a specific culture are involved in s**ual ab*se, be racist? Of course it can. Commentary about why there are so many hairdressing salons and car washes can be racist - or it can just be a genuine point of frustration and inquiry.
Can the motivation behind supporting one group of people visibly and vocally be the desire to intimidate and express racism towards people that group are in conflict with? Of course it can - but it can also just be humans recognising other humans being harmed, and reaching out in solidarity and kinship.
What Happens Next?
We don't know how Reform will govern - they're so new, they've never really been in government before. Where they have been in local government, they've governed badly - perhaps they've learned from that.
People say a lot when they're not having to make the decisions - the game looks very different from the sidelines than it does from centrefield.
Labour need to start communicating, in the fullest and most expansive sense of that word. They need to start with genuinely listening.
If Labour were clients of The Productive Pessimist, their Action Plan would look something like this:
. Send your MPs out into community for a minimum of a month - August, since Parliament is desolved then anyway. They are to hold "listening sessions" in easily-accessible community spaces in every possible area, without gatekeeping or establishing barriers.
. Create an open, monitored email address that any member of the public can write to, where messages are passed to front bench Ministers for their awareness, and where pertinent, personal responses are provided within 30 days.
. Explore how benign support for Palestine's struggles can be allowed as free speech, and recognised as distinct from both sympathy with Hammas' choice of response to threats from Israel, and anti-Semitic sentiment.
. Rein in policing of protests in support of Palestine - manhandling elderly people, male officers seemingly dogpiling to pin down female protestors, etc, will always come across badly; the people who have attacked synogogues have not been among those we see being dragged away from anti-genocide protests. Proportionate police action and presence should, in fact, apply to all protests.
. Accept that Access to Work is not fit for purpose, and, in place of higher Universal Credit or PIP, make the annual "pot per claimant" amount allowed under Access to Work each year available to disabled claimants, provided on a pre-paid card, so that the Department for Work and Pensions retains oversight of how the money is being used; a requirement for either a weekly remote appointment or a monthly in-person deep dive review is also established.
. Reform of Universal Credit should centre around providing financial and mentorship support into self-employment, with a focus on the self-employment leading to the establishment of a business of the size and revenue that can support a sizeable element of well-paid, full-time employment for others.
Comments
Post a Comment