In an Increasingly Polarised Age, Consultation Can’t Sit on the Fence
We are operating in a very different political and social environment than even a decade ago. Trust in institutions is fragile, dissatisfaction with the status quo is widespread, and politics — nationally and locally — is increasingly polarised. For anyone involved in delivering change in the built environment that affects communities across our regions, towns and cities, this matters more than we sometimes like to admit.
Yet too often, consultation is still treated as if it exists in a neutral, technocratic space. It doesn’t. And pretending otherwise is one of the biggest strategic mistakes organisations can make.
Politics is about values, whether we acknowledge it or not
At its core, politics is not primarily about projects, policies, or data. It is about values. Every decision reflects a set of beliefs about what matters most: the greater good or individual freedom, rigour or convenience, long-term outcomes or short-term comfort.
Policies and projects flow from those values. Consultation should, too.
When engagement is framed as a purely objective exercise, we overlook the reality that decisions are already shaped by a values-based perspective. That doesn’t make consultation illegitimate. But it does mean it is not neutral, and it is certainly not a referendum.
Being honest about this is not a weakness. It is a strength.
The shift from the centre
One of the most striking trends in recent years has been the decline of the political centre, and the rise of political representatives and perspectives more clearly expressing a position towards the poles of the political spectrum. In local government, this is increasingly visible through fragmented mandates. The past decade has seen election results trending towards parties typically considered on the ‘fringe’ and away from the more established, mainstream parties. Growing numbers of councillors for the Green Party, Reform UK and Independents have seen more councils move to No Overall Control.
People feel the current system isn’t working for them. They want clearer choices and stronger narratives that reflect their own lived experience and world view. They are increasingly sceptical of parties seeking broad appeal. They want a clearer expression of values; a nailing of colours to their mast.
In this context, consensus for its own sake is not only unrealistic; it is often counterproductive.
Consultation is not about concensus
One of the most persistent mistakes in public engagement is that consensus equals success. It doesn’t. And it is an increasingly rare commodity in a polarised world. The search for it also risks paralysis and inaction. A continuation of the status quo.
Trying to smooth out disagreement in the search for consensus can result in bland messaging that fails to resonate with anyone. Worse, it can reinforce cynicism and erode public trust: people sense when organisations are avoiding difficult conversations or seeking a shield behind process.
Effective consultation starts by being clear and confident about the ‘why’: What are you trying to achieve? What problem are you seeking to solve? And which values are you prioritising?
This clarity gives people something real to engage with. It invites challenge, yes — but we see that whatever. What it delivers is trust in the message, motivation — whether you agree with it or not — and credibility. Those who oppose understand what you are proposing and why; they are invited to express the basis for their disagreement and why their needs should be prioritised instead. Those who benefit can see far more clearly that they are the focus of a scheme, helping to maximise support.
Data informs. Emotion mobilises
Data matters. Evidence matters. But data alone rarely changes minds.
What resonates are stories that connect policy decisions to everyday life — stories that make visible the human impact of inaction and the moral case for change.
If we take the example of a public transport scheme, describing the aim as being to deliver better, safer travel for everyone is unlikely to connect with people and convince. A more compelling, values-based message is needed. For example:
“One third of people in our area don’t have access to a car or van, but public transport isn’t reliable. This means many people can’t do the things most of us take for granted, like get to doctor appointments, take children to school, and get to work on time. We need to change this.”
Getting off the fence
In a more polarised environment, the instinct is often to retreat — to soften language, delay decisions, and hope for consensus. Consensus isn’t a bad thing. It’s preferable. But it shouldn’t determine decisions. Leadership looks different now.
Leadership means making a case. It means being upfront that consultation is about shaping how a decision is delivered, not whether the underlying values are negotiable. The aim of consultation is to consult, not to take instruction. It is the seeking of feedback that may shape views and decisions, but not determine them.
Not everyone will agree — and that is not a failure, it’s normal.
If we want consultation to rebuild trust rather than erode it, we need to stop pretending it is neutral, even if this pretence is not stated but implied. We need to articulate our values clearly, explain the change we are seeking, and invite people into an honest conversation.
By Leigh Bramall, Director for Transport and Sustainability at Counter Context.
