UKCP Chair Election 2025: Shenanigans, Slurs and a Vision for the Future

Sue Parker Hall

The UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) is, once again, under pressure from activist therapists determined to embed their own agenda in the policies of this professional organisation.  As the UKCP prepares to elect a Chair of the Board of Trustees, one of the two candidates, Sue Parker Hall, has released a video, stating that "This election is not being fought on equal ground" and that she feels "compelled to speak candidly because the integrity of this election is at stake". Here is the video and a transcript giving full details.  Please share widely. 

Transcript of a video by Sue Parker Hall:

Hello everyone, I’m Sue Parker Hall, a psychotherapist and I’m standing for chair of the UKCP, the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy.

Today is the final day of campaigning for the role of UKCP Chair, and I feel compelled to speak candidly because the integrity of this election is at stake. This isn’t just about my candidacy—it’s about ensuring that our professional body operates with fairness, transparency, and accountability. Unfortunately, I must tell you that this election is not being fought on equal ground.

The latest issue of The New Psychotherapist features three articles that promote my opponent’s manifesto. This is an election period, and the magazine is meant to represent all members—not to serve as a platform that favours one candidate. Whilst I can lodge a complaint to try and address this issue, I would be complaining to the very board that signs off the magazine, and whose agenda I am challenging. With no independent oversight of this election, I have no confidence that such a complaint will be addressed fairly or promptly.

The hustings questions are also problematic. They’ve been presented as "members' questions," yet they are about how I would promote the incumbent’s agenda. I have my concerns that this is not the genuine voice of the membership.

This is not how democracy should work in a professional body like ours. Transparency, fairness, and accountability are not optional—they are essential.

As you cast your vote, I ask you to consider not just the candidates, but the process itself. Do we want a UKCP where decisions are made behind closed doors, or do we want a professional body that truly represents all its members, values diverse perspectives, and upholds the highest ethical standards?

This election is about more than leadership—it’s about the future shape of UKCP.

As we approach the final hours of this important election, I feel compelled to address a deeply troubling letter that has been circulated amongst certain UKCP members. This letter contains false, defamatory, and unfounded allegations against me. It accuses me of promoting “far-right views,” “conspiracy theories,” and misinformation. It even goes as far as to suggest that I am associated with extremist movements and harmful ideologies. These claims are completely untrue and misrepresent my professional work, values, and intentions. These accusations are designed to discredit me personally rather than engage with the actual issues at stake in this election.

I want to be absolutely clear: I do not promote or endorse any form of extremism, nor do I support the harmful ideologies mentioned in this letter. My work has always been grounded in the principles of critical thinking, psychological resilience, and ethical integrity. The baseless slurs against me are not only an attack on my character but also an attempt to manipulate the democratic process within UKCP. This election should be about vision, leadership, and the future of psychotherapy—not smear campaigns and personal attacks. I would hope the Board would join me in criticising these personal attacks, just as I would if the situation were reversed.

I remain committed to fostering a culture of openness, dialogue, and respect within UKCP, even in the face of such hostility.

Currently, there’s a dispute ensuing within the psychotherapy profession over what kind of thinking is considered permissible.

Instead of attempting to resolve this dispute, I believe the current UKCP Board is only making things worse. They are not listening to their members, many of whom don’t want to adopt an ideological position or have any desire to be a political activist.

Our field has always been about independent critical thinking, personal agency, emotional expression, psychological resilience, to help people understand themselves and navigate life’s challenges as best they can. But something is shifting, and not in a way that feels organic or aligned with our core principles.

Psychotherapy should be about helping people think independently, process their experiences in depth, and explore their own thoughts without fear of judgment. But increasingly, we are seeing political conformity taking precedence over intellectual diversity or curiosity. Training programmes and professional bodies like the UKCP are pushing one-sided socio-political narratives such as EDI (Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity) or BIIDE (Belonging, Intersectionality, Inclusivity, Diversity and Equity). This leaves little room for open inquiry. Therapy as a result is shifting from an individual-centred approach to one based on group identity, reducing people to labels rather than recognising their uniqueness.

Although largely well meaning, group-based identities have the worrying potential to blur the boundaries between adults and children, which is a clear and obvious safeguarding risk.

Conversely, disagreeing with the dominant narratives of these groups is often seen as harmful or unsafe, rather than a natural and necessary part of intellectual debate. Therapists are now expected to take political stances rather than create a space for independent self-exploration. This isn’t just an internal debate within psychotherapy. What is happening is part of a broader cognitive war—a struggle over who defines reality, who controls the narrative, and even what counts as mental health itself.

Mental health and wellbeing is now being redefined in ways that serve social and ideological goals rather than clinical ones. Wellness is increasingly framed as agreement with a particular worldview, where those who challenge it are told they have “internalised biases” or need “re-educating.” Instead of facilitating change, the idea of psychological safety is being used to shut down discussion. Discomfort is now being pathologised, rather than seen as a natural part of growth. I am deeply concerned that professional organisations, which should be defending intellectual freedom, are aligning themselves with activism, often prioritising ideological purity over clinical competence. Words like “harm,” “trauma,” and “safety” are being redefined—not to facilitate healing, but to silence dissent. Disagreement itself is being reframed as a psychological problem.

Group based ideological approaches have at times avoided discomfort by framing any challenge or disagreement as harm. But disagreement is at the heart of differentiation and conflict resolution, both of which are essential components of growth and cohesion. Instead of encouraging individuals to confront difficult thoughts, emotions, or perspectives within themselves and their relationships with others, it prioritises emotional safety and affirmation. This shifts therapy away from exploration and the development of emotional resilience, towards validation and protection from discomfort. This is teaching people how to be divisive. Furthermore, by defining certain ideas or beliefs as inherently harmful or oppressive, it discourages critical thinking, open dialogue, and self-inquiry. Rather than supporting individuals through discomfort and helping them navigate complex emotions, it promotes avoidance, fragility, and dependence on external validation. This contradicts the fundamental principle that mature psychological growth comes through confrontation with discomfort, not the avoidance of it.

We therefore need to restore therapeutic neutrality. Therapy should be a place for independent self-inquiry, not ideological policing. Clients must feel free to explore their own thoughts and behaviours without political coercion, and therapists must also be free to ethically challenge problematic assertions as well, utilising the therapeutic skills we have developed over decades. We must reject the pathologisation of dissent. A healthy society includes diverse viewpoints, and disagreement isn’t a disorder—it is part of critical thinking and personal growth. We therefore need independent training programmes and credentialing bodies that do not enforce ideological conformity.

Most importantly though, we must reclaim truth in therapy. Psychotherapy should help people reality-test their beliefs, develop inner fortitude, and cultivate self-awareness. It should not reinforce fragile thinking or serve political agendas. If the field continues in this direction, we risk losing the very essence of psychotherapy itself.

The role of a psychotherapist is not to reinforce political narratives but to help individuals think independently, to navigate their discomfort, and tap into their courage to face life’s challenges head on.

The good news is that people in other industries are pushing back against these ideologies. This week, we have seen the Institute of Financial Actuaries drop its EDI pledge after concerns were raised about its vague, politicised mandate. Financial leaders are now pressuring the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to reconsider the impact of EDI on business efficiency, and major corporations are beginning to scale back diversity initiatives that have proven more divisive than beneficial. Even Google have now dropped their EDI recruitment policies. This is not a push to embed practices that are discriminatory. This is a recognition that the ideologies currently utilised to try to address discrimination are inherently flawed.

I am deeply distressed by UKCP’s reluctance to engage with the growing concerns about EDI and their additional categories —BIIDE. Rather than addressing the valid and well-reasoned pushback, the board continues to plough ahead as if no disagreement exists, even when other industries are rapidly changing course. When confronted with these concerns, they ignore, deflect, or adopt a ‘no debate’ stance; at the same time, some members appear bewildered at the suggestion that EDI is anything other than a positive initiative.

But EDI—particularly in the form UKCP is embedding—is not neutral. Many members do not realise its political nature. They assume it’s simply about being kind and welcoming, when in reality, it represents a radical shift in how psychotherapy is practised, taught, and regulated.

Equity, for example, is not an ethical principle. It is a social engineering tool, designed to engineer equal outcomes between different identity groups, often through positive discrimination. This is not the same as fairness or equality of opportunity, which should be the foundation of ethical psychotherapy.

Intersectionality is at odds with a clinical framework because it prioritises group identity over individual experience; it encourages clients to see themselves primarily through the lens of oppression rather than as whole, integrated people; it shifts the therapeutic focus to external social forces, which can be disempowering and discourage meaningful self-exploration. It also unhelpfully reframes relationships as power struggles, fostering division rather than connection, which runs counter to psychotherapy’s aim of healing relational wounds and deepening empathy. It undermines the true purpose of psychotherapy.

Belonging, too, is being misrepresented. Belonging is not something that can be imposed; it is an adult choice, a process, and an outcome of psychotherapy. As therapists, our work should be to help clients first belong to themselves—to integrate their emotions, experiences, and identities in a way that facilitates self-acceptance. Only then can they develop genuine connections and a sense of belonging with, and being accepted by, others. The idea that an organisation can simply engineer belonging from the top down misunderstands the fundamental nature of the therapeutic process.

Yet the board remains unmoved by these arguments. It presses forward, ignoring dissent, side-lining debate, and acting as though all members are in agreement. This is not leadership. This is ideological imposition. A professional body should represent all its members, not force them into alignment with a highly contested political ideology dressed up as moral progress.

Psychotherapists cannot wait for external politics to correct this course for us. We must be proactive in defending our intellectual freedom and our freedom to practice. We also need to defend our therapeutic neutrality and therefore reject this continuing pathologisation of dissent. The ability to explore difficult thoughts without fear is fundamental to mental well-being. If we lose that, we lose the essence of what psychotherapy is.

I’ve made this video because I have been finding it difficult to get my very important message out. I’m asking you to please share it widely, particularly with your UKCP registered colleagues. It’s urgent that UKCP registered therapists are provided with this information that they may not be aware of before voting in next week’s elections. It’s also why I want you to vote for me to represent you as Chair of UKCP. I believe in a profession that upholds its ethical principles, values open inquiry and remains dedicated to genuine psychological growth rather than political trends. Together, we can secure psychotherapy as a space of truth, depth, and true diversity of thought. The choice is now in your hands. I hope you’ll join me.

Please share this video widely, particularly with your UKCP registered colleagues.