But systems don’t exist on paper. They exist in the lives of people who are often invisible to the architects of those very systems. My 2025 reading list (from Ian Dunt to Gabriel Krauze) was a deliberate attempt to look at the UK from both the boardroom and the street corner.

Here are 3 things I’ve taken away:

1. The “Architecture of Power” is often designed for speed, not empathy. Reading Ian Dunt’s How Westminster Works alongside Lady Hale’s Spider Woman highlights a painful truth: our institutions often favour short-term “narrative” over long-term structural health. When we design policy without understanding the “plumbing” of the civil service or the judiciary, we create systems that are fragile at best and obstructive at worst.

2. We must account for “The Ghosts” in the system. Toni Morrison’s Beloved and Garth Greenwell’s What Belongs to You are reminders that people bring their histories—their traumas, their shames, and their “ghosts”—into every interaction they have with the state. A truly “trauma-informed” system isn't just a checklist; it’s an acknowledgement that the past is always present in the room.

3. “Voicelessness” is a systemic choice. Katriona O'Sullivan's Poor and Gabriel Krauze’s Who They Was are visceral, first-hand accounts of life at the sharp end of poverty and crime. They remind us that the people we categorise as “service users” often have a higher “systems literacy” than the consultants, simply because they have to navigate the cracks in the pavement every day.

The Lesson for 2026: As a systems coach, it’s easy to get lost in the “top-down” view. But if our models don't account for the messy, and often brutal reality then our models are wrong.

In 2026, I’m challenging myself to design with more active optimism—not just identifying what is broken, but listening to the voices that are already trying to fix it from the inside out.

Beyond the deeply personal reasons — including having experienced homelessness myself — this is where I landed.

First: because homelessness is getting worse. On every measure, the problem is increasing. It’s more widespread, more complex and more difficult to navigate than ever. The scale and intensity of the crisis demand action, not resignation.

Second: because homelessness destroys lives. The numbers are brutal: men who sleep rough die, on average, 31 years earlier than the general population; for women, it’s 38. People sleeping rough are nine times more likely to die by suicide and almost seventeen times more likely to experience violence. These aren’t just statistics — they’re lives shortened, potential stolen, futures lost.

Third: because we know what works. This isn’t an unsolvable problem. The evidence is clear: scale up Housing First, align the LHA rate with real housing costs, offer direct housing allocations and meaningful support. We’ve seen these approaches deliver results — we can fix this when we choose to.

That’s why I’m here. I want to be part of ending homelessness — for everyone, for good. I believe in human dignity. I believe in systems that support rather than exclude.

I’m proud to do this work. I’m humbled every day by people who show extraordinary resilience, strength and hope in the face of unimaginable difficulty. And I’m committed to continuing — until safe, secure housing is a reality for every person who needs it.

Recently, my sense of unease increased.

Firstly came pronouncements from Zuckerberg that tech companies need more ‘masculine energy’ and going on to state in his interview on the Joe Rogan Podcast:

“I think having a culture that celebrates aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive.”

Zuckerberg in this, along with many other statements, sets out his clear position that masculine aggressive energy is to be valued. For a discussion on why this is problematic – see Dr Ashley Morgan’s piece.

I do not believe that the world needs more toxic masculine energy, nor do I believe that aggression is lacking in the world, quite the contrary.

In Jan this year, Zuckerberg announced that Meta would be disbanding its DEI initiatives, presumably to bring his company in line with the Trump administration’s policy position. In an overhaul of Meta’s content moderation policies, Zuckerberg specifically removed the protection against hate speech aimed at the LGBTQIA+ community. The Human Rights Campaign stated:

“Meta’s updated Community Standards now expressly permit users to describe LGBTQ+ people as mentally ill or abnormal and to call for their exclusion from professions, public spaces, and society based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.”

When considering Trans rights, the Human Rights Campaign states:

“Adding insult to injury, the policy employs the term ‘transgenderism’ a term often wielded by anti-trans activists to delegitimize transgender people. Not only is this word socially and scientifically invalid, but its use in Meta’s Community Standards signals a disturbing alignment with anti-LGBTQ+ political rhetoric.”

Neither of these are positions I agree with. The queer community, and especially the Trans community, suffers horrendous abuse and vilification and deserves to be protected, encouraged and embraced.

There are a range of academic studies which show the negative impacts of Facebook and Instagram on people’s mental wellbeing and social engagement. It has been shown to contribute to narcissistic tendencies as well as suicidal ideation as a result of cyberbullying.

As someone who cares deeply about people’s wellbeing, and especially that of younger people, the impact of Facebook and Instagram cannot be ignored.

Finally, I read the recent book by Sarah Wynn-Williams where she recounts her time working at Facebook and her direct encounters with Zuckerberg. In this book, we see a senior leadership team who are utterly devoid of a moral compass – motivated only by greed and self-aggrandisement.

These aren’t people I am comfortable giving any kind of power to.

All of this, taken with the impact that Facebook has on elections around the world, has led me to a place where I don’t feel giving my data to Meta is a morally neutral act – it is enabling the behaviours listed above. Meta can only do what they do because of their wealth, which is based on their users continuing to use their platforms.

So, I have deleted my Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp accounts. If you need me – you can call, text or email. Or, if you are really cool, you can message me via Signal.

The exact wording of the Meta rules:

• Insults, including those about:
  • Character, including but not limited to allegations of cowardice, dishonesty, basic criminality and sexual promiscuity or other sexual immorality.
  • Mental characteristics, including, but not limited to, allegations of stupidity, intellectual capacity and mental illness, and unsupported comparisons between PC groups on the basis of inherent intellectual capacity. We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words such as “weird”.
  • Other areas, including, but not limited to, allegations of worthlessness, uselessness, ugliness, dirtiness.

(From: https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/hateful-conduct/)

References

1. Miller, Caroline (2021). “Does Social Media Cause Depression?”. Child Mind Institute.

2. Reed, Phil (13 September 2019). “Narcissism and Social Media: Should We Be Afraid?“. Psychology Today.

3. O'Keefe, Gwenn; Clarke-Pearson, Kathleen (2011). “Clinical Report-The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families”. Pediatrics. 127 (800): 800–804.