Log3
🧽 A Closer Look at a Recent Post from Reform UK Seaham¶
Reform UK Seaham recently published a Facebook post addressing some of the feedback they’ve received since being elected. It’s a passionate statement — but it also raises a few important questions about tone, expectations, and the role of public scrutiny in local democracy.
While I don’t think the councillor is aware of this blog specifically, the post does appear to criticise the kind of scrutiny and questioning that I personally engage in — including the emails I’ve sent as a constituent.
Let me be clear: I am not evil. I am not "sniping." I am engaging in local democracy by doing something very ordinary and very reasonable: asking questions. When I see language or a post from a councillor that I find confusing, concerning, or unclear, I email to understand the motives or reasoning behind it. That is not an attack. That is participation — something every constituent has a right to do.
Here is the full text of the post:
"After being elected we have got straight to work on multiple fronts and you will see the results when they land.
Obviously some things take more time than others.
Despite helping people and trying to make a positive difference, it’s shocking to experience individuals and political parties sniping at every opportunity.
Evil people who are now showing their true colours going out of their way to try and slow down the work required.
Every success equals multiple negative e mails or comments that are simply not necessary at times.
This tactic is not working and keep digging!! 😎
As a democracy and council we are accountable to the people and when a local government is formed it requires team work from all members to achieve the common goal.
I am appalled by some of the behaviour by opposition groups, their supporters and proxies. Would we behave this way? NO.
We will remain motivated, positive, focused and accountable.
We will not be diverted into school yard uneducated debates, this community is too important.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result has a definition.” 😳😳🤣
Let’s walk through the post, carefully and constructively.
🛠️ Opening Positivity¶
"After being elected we have got straight to work on multiple fronts and you will see the results when they land. Obviously some things take more time than others."
This is a reassuring start. It acknowledges the complexity of local governance and promises visible outcomes in time. So far, so good.
❓ Introducing the Problem¶
"Despite helping people and trying to make a positive difference, it’s shocking to experience individuals and political parties sniping at every opportunity."
At this point, the tone shifts. Feedback is framed as "sniping" — which might be how it feels from inside the council chamber, but it risks dismissing genuine concerns. In any political role, pushback is not only normal but essential. It’s how ideas are tested and improved.
⚠️ Escalating Language¶
"Evil people who are now showing their true colours..."
This is a troubling line. Labelling critics as "evil" suggests moral condemnation, not disagreement. It’s a strong word to use about people who may simply be raising concerns about local decisions or priorities.
Such language can have a chilling effect on public engagement — especially when directed at residents who are trying to get involved in local issues. It's worth considering whether this helps or hinders democratic discussion.
💬 Emails and Accountability¶
"Every success equals multiple negative emails or comments that are simply not necessary at times."
While no one enjoys negative feedback, public emails and comments are a vital part of council life. Residents have a right to question what’s being done in their name. Whether those messages are fair, accurate, or constructive is another matter — but dismissing them outright risks appearing unwilling to listen.
This blog and the emails I send are an attempt to seek clarity and encourage transparency. They are not personal, and they are not attacks.
🏡 A Call for Unity — With Caveats¶
"As a democracy and council we are accountable to the people..."
This part reaffirms democratic values, which is welcome.
"...I am appalled by some of the behaviour by opposition groups, their supporters and proxies. Would we behave this way? NO."
However, it then pivots back into vague criticism — without specifying what’s actually happened. The phrase “Would we behave this way? NO.” invites a simple question in return: behave what way, exactly? Without examples or details, it’s hard to know what behaviour is being condemned, and easy for ordinary public engagement — like asking questions — to be wrongly included in that category. — without specifying what’s actually happened. Terms like “proxies” are hard to interpret and could easily be read as suggesting coordinated bad faith, even where there may be none.
👶 “School Yard Debates”¶
"We will not be diverted into school yard uneducated debates, this community is too important."
The intent here seems to be to rise above negativity. But framing criticism as "uneducated" may come across as dismissive or patronising — particularly when directed at voters or volunteers. A more productive approach might be to demonstrate the value of one’s own work and respond constructively to differing views.
🔀 A Familiar Quote¶
“Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result has a definition.”
This well-worn quote often appears in political arguments, but its relevance here is unclear. The quote typically refers to repeating a failed strategy and expecting it to work. But in this context, it's not obvious who it's aimed at or what repeated action is being criticised. Members of the public raising new and specific concerns isn’t an example of doing 'the same thing' — it’s part of democratic participation.. Is it aimed at opposition councillors? At the public? It’s hard to say — and when meaning is unclear, messages risk being misinterpreted or sounding flippant.
📝 Final Thoughts¶
There’s no doubt this post was written with genuine emotion and a desire to defend hard work. That’s understandable — serving in local government can be challenging, and criticism can feel personal.
But public posts from elected representatives carry weight. They help shape public trust, and that trust depends on tone, clarity, and openness to scrutiny — even when it’s uncomfortable.
If Reform UK Seaham wants to build broad support, the best approach is to lead with actions, engage with critics calmly, and avoid language that might make residents feel unwelcome or unheard.