Reform Have Won Sandwell. Now Comes the Hard Bit: Don’t Get Swallowed by the Same Old Machine.
Well, here we are.
The teal tsunami has hit Sandwell.
Reform UK have taken control of Sandwell Council with 41 seats out of 72. Labour, after years of treating Sandwell like its own private fiefdom, has been reduced to 28 seats. The Greens have 2. There is 1 Independent.
So yes, this is historic.
Yes, Labour have taken a kicking.
And yes, plenty of people across Sandwell will be enjoying a very large slice of political humble pie being served cold.
But let’s not get carried away.
Winning the election was the easy bit.
Now Reform have to govern.
And that is where the real test begins.
Because Sandwell does not just need a change of rosette. It needs a change of culture. A change of behaviour. A change of attitude. A change in how power works, how residents are treated, how public money is tracked, how decisions are made, how consultations are run, how Friends Groups are respected, how charities and voluntary organisations are supported or scrutinised, how planning is controlled, and how anti-social behaviour is actually tackled.
The question is very simple:
Will Reform change Sandwell Council — or will Sandwell Council change Reform?
That is the danger.
That is the trap.
That is the test.
Sandwell Has Not Magically Been Fixed
Let’s remember where we are.
Sandwell Council only recently came out of Government intervention. The Commissioners may have gone. The formal intervention may have ended. The press releases may have sounded very pleased with themselves.
But anyone who thinks that means Sandwell is now some gleaming model of openness, accountability and democratic excellence needs to give their head a wobble.
This is Sandwell.
This is the borough of defensive answers, missing records, poor consultation, cosy networks, “nothing to see here”, “no information held”, officer-speak, Cabinet nodding-dogs, public money disappearing into fog, planning anger, and residents being treated as an inconvenience when they dare to ask perfectly reasonable questions.
Sandwell has deep scars.
Reform have inherited them.
And pretending otherwise would be political suicide.
Reform’s Pledges Now Need Teeth
During the campaign, Reform talked about safer streets, cleaner neighbourhoods, stronger communities, better local services, protecting residents, and real change.
Good.
People want that.
People are sick of anti-social behaviour. Sick of fly-tipping. Sick of nuisance bikes. Sick of vandalism. Sick of intimidation. Sick of filthy streets. Sick of town centres looking tired, unsafe and unloved. Sick of calling the council and getting nowhere. Sick of being consulted after decisions have already effectively been made.
But “zero tolerance” cannot just be a slogan.
It has to mean something.
It has to mean ward-by-ward data. It has to mean named responsibility. It has to mean visible enforcement. It has to mean action logs. It has to mean repeat hotspots being tackled. It has to mean outcomes being published. It has to mean residents being told what was done, not just given a reference number and a pat on the head.
Sandwell already had an ASB strategy. Sandwell already announced money for ASB. Sandwell already claimed it was strengthening services.
So Reform’s first job is not to stand outside a CCTV camera looking stern for Facebook.
Their first job is to ask:
What has actually been delivered?
How many ASB cases are open?
Where are the hotspots?
How many are repeat locations?
How many are repeat victims?
How many cases were closed with no meaningful action?
How many warnings were issued?
How many Community Protection Notices?
How many injunctions?
How many prosecutions?
How many nuisance bike reports?
How many noise complaints?
How many CCTV interventions?
How many residents were actually satisfied when their case was closed?
Because without that, “zero tolerance” is just another political slogan with a shiny badge on it.
And Sandwell has had enough slogans.
The Sandwell Skidder and Citizen Scrutiny Matter
Now let’s deal with something important.
The Sandwell Skidder.
Some people love it. Some people hate it. Some pretend not to read it while clearly knowing every word. Some have probably had more sleepless nights over the Skidder than they ever had over an Audit Committee report.
But whether people agree with every sentence, every tone, every conclusion or every colourful turn of phrase is not the point.
The point is this:
The Sandwell Skidder has been part of Sandwell’s scrutiny memory.
It has watched. It has recorded. It has challenged. It has named names. It has asked awkward questions. It has preserved history that many would rather see quietly buried under a municipal carpet.
And it is not alone.
Citizen journalists, bloggers, FOI users, residents, campaigners, community activists, Friends Groups and volunteers have done a lot of the heavy lifting in Sandwell when formal scrutiny has been weak, lazy, compromised, timid or just plain absent.
Reform would be utterly foolish to ignore that.
They do not have to agree with everything.
They should not treat every allegation as gospel.
They should not govern by blog post or Facebook comment.
But they should listen.
Because the people who were watching before Reform arrived may be the very people who stop Reform being swallowed by the same old Sandwell machine now they are in charge.
The message to Reform should be this:
Do not fear the awkward squad. Engage with them.
Ask for evidence. Read the paperwork. Check the history. Follow the money. Look at the patterns. Speak to the people who know where the bodies, metaphorically speaking, are buried.
Because Sandwell’s institutional memory does not only sit in Oldbury Council House.
A lot of it sits in inboxes, FOI files, blogs, campaign groups, park groups, charity records, community pages and residents who have been fobbed off for years.
Friends Groups Must Not Be Treated as Window Dressing
Friends Groups are a perfect test.
For years, residents have given their time, energy and unpaid labour to parks, green spaces, pools, nature reserves and community assets.
They know what is happening on the ground.
They know which paths are dangerous.
They know where the fly-tipping is.
They know where the bins are missing.
They know where the fishing problems are.
They know where the fires are being lit.
They know where wildlife is being harmed.
They know where the ASB hotspots are.
They know which promises were made and never delivered.
And too often, they are treated like useful volunteers when the council wants a photograph, but awkward pests when they ask serious questions.
That has to stop.
A constituted Friends Group should not have to beg to be heard.
They should not have to chase minutes.
They should not have to wonder whether meetings happened, who attended, what was agreed, what actions were logged, or why some groups appear to get more access than others.
Reform should immediately publish:
Which Friends Groups are recognised?
Which are constituted?
Which have signed partnership agreements?
Which receive officer support?
Which receive funding advice?
Which have access to buildings or meeting spaces?
When were meetings held?
Were minutes taken?
Were action logs produced?
Did senior officers attend?
Did Cabinet Members attend?
What works were promised?
What works were completed?
What works are outstanding?
That is not rocket science.
It is basic respect.
If Reform want to rebuild trust, start with the people already doing work for free while the council produces strategies about community engagement.
Voluntary Organisations and Charities: Support the Good, Scrutinise the Questionable
Now this bit needs to be handled properly.
Sandwell has many decent voluntary organisations, community groups and charities doing good work. They should not be smeared. They should not be lumped together. They should not be treated as suspect simply because they have received public money or worked with the council.
But neither should public money, public buildings, grants, officer support or council endorsement be handed around in the dark.
The principle should be simple:
Good community work deserves support. Public money demands transparency.
That means Reform should review grants, leases, licences, subsidies, rent arrangements, public-building use, safeguarding checks, insurance, GDPR compliance, monitoring reports, declared conflicts of interest, political neutrality, trustee links, director links, councillor links, and whether promised public benefits were actually delivered.
This is not a witch-hunt.
It is not anti-charity.
It is not anti-volunteer.
In fact, it protects the good organisations.
Because the good ones will have nothing to fear from clear rules, fair access and transparent records.
The ones that should worry are those that may have benefited from cosy relationships, political favour, weak monitoring, poor paperwork, or public assets being used without proper scrutiny.
Sandwell needs a public register of who gets what.
Public money.
Public buildings.
Public benefit.
Publish it.
Planning: This Is Where Reform Must Be Careful — But Firm
Planning is where residents feel most ignored.
Developments appear.
Roads get worse.
Schools fill up.
GP appointments get harder.
Green space disappears.
Flood risk gets brushed aside.
Air quality gets buried in technical documents.
Residents object.
Officers recommend approval.
Committees nod it through.
Developers promise mitigation.
Years later, residents are still asking where the infrastructure went.
Now, Reform must be careful here.
They cannot just overturn planning decisions because people dislike them.
They cannot throw around words like corruption or maladministration without evidence.
They cannot pretend planning law does not exist.
But they absolutely can scrutinise the system.
They can ask whether consultation was meaningful.
They can ask whether cumulative impact was properly considered.
They can ask whether Section 106 obligations were delivered.
They can ask where Community Infrastructure Levy money went.
They can ask whether enforcement is weak.
They can ask whether residents’ objections were properly summarised.
They can ask whether ward councillors were asleep at the wheel.
They can ask whether planning committees had proper training.
They can publish what developers promised and what they actually delivered.
That alone would be a revolution in Sandwell.
A proper Planning Governance and Developer Obligations Review is essential.
For every major development, residents should be able to see:
What was promised?
What money was agreed?
What money was received?
What money was spent?
What remains unspent?
What infrastructure was delivered?
What slipped?
What was enforced?
What was ignored?
No more fog.
No more “it’s complicated”.
No more planning decisions vanishing into a filing cabinet while residents live with the consequences.
Consultation in Sandwell Has Too Often Been Consultation Theatre
Let’s be blunt.
Sandwell loves a consultation hub.
Nice pages. Neat surveys. Carefully worded questions. A closing date. A line in a report saying residents were consulted.
Lovely.
But did people actually know?
Did affected residents understand the issue?
Were paper copies available?
Were Friends Groups contacted directly?
Were residents’ groups contacted?
Were community centres used?
Were libraries used?
Was the wording plain English?
Were alternatives explained?
Did the council say what could change and what could not?
Were responses published?
Did anything actually change?
Or was it another exercise in asking a restricted constituency a restricted question and then claiming democratic legitimacy?
Reform should introduce a Sandwell Consultation Charter.
Every consultation should have:
A plain-English summary.
A ward-level promotion plan.
Paper copies.
Library and community-centre access.
Direct contact with affected groups.
A clear explanation of consequences.
A proper “you said, we did” report.
And, just as importantly:
“You said, we ignored — and this is why.”
That would be honest.
Residents can accept disagreement.
What they cannot accept is being patronised.
Byelaws, Fishing, Wildlife and Green Spaces: Rules Mean Nothing Without Enforcement
Sandwell has parks, pools, nature reserves and green spaces that should be jewels in the borough.
Instead, too many residents see confusion, poor signage, weak enforcement, fires, barbecues, litter, wildlife issues, fishing disputes, nuisance bikes, vandalism and policies that look fine on paper but vanish in the real world.
The fishing policy is a classic example.
Rules about where fishing is allowed, permits, no night fishing, no fires, no removing fish and protecting wildlife are all very well.
But who enforces them?
Who checks permits?
Who responds at night?
Who records wildlife deaths?
Who contacts the Environment Agency?
Who speaks to the police?
Who updates signs?
Who tells Friends Groups what to do when they report issues?
Who owns the problem?
Because if nobody owns it, nobody fixes it.
Reform should order a Green Spaces, Wildlife, Fishing and Byelaws Enforcement Review.
Not another glossy strategy.
A practical enforcement review.
What rules exist?
Are they current?
Are they signed?
Are they enforceable?
Who enforces them?
What happens when they are breached?
How are Friends Groups involved?
How are incidents recorded?
How does the council work with police, Environment Agency and other partners?
A policy without enforcement is just a leaflet.
Sandwell has enough leaflets.
Public Buildings Need a Register
This is another big one.
Who uses council buildings?
On what terms?
At what rent?
With what subsidy?
Under what lease or licence?
With what public benefit?
With what political neutrality rules?
With what safeguarding checks?
With what insurance?
With what monitoring?
This should not be difficult.
If a community organisation uses a public building, the public should be able to see the basis on which that happens.
That does not mean attacking community groups.
It means fairness.
It means transparency.
It means stopping the perception that some people get keys, access, officer support and sweetheart arrangements while others cannot even get an email answered.
Reform should publish a Public Buildings and Community Use Register.
If it is public property, the public should know how it is being used.
FOI and SARs: Stop Treating Questions Like Enemy Action
One of the most depressing things about Sandwell is how hard residents often have to fight for basic information.
Freedom of Information requests should not feel like trench warfare.
Subject Access Requests should not need endless chasing.
Internal reviews should not feel like the council marking its own homework with a blindfold on.
“No information held” should not be used as a magic spell.
If records are missing, say so.
If searches were done, explain them.
If exemptions are used, justify them properly.
If the same issue keeps generating FOIs, publish the information proactively.
Reform should introduce a Transparency First Programme.
Disclosure logs.
Better internal reviews.
Quarterly FOI performance reports.
Publication of frequently requested documents.
Clearer search records.
A presumption that governance material should be public unless there is a lawful reason not to publish it.
Simple.
Radical only in Sandwell.
Reform Must Professionalise Fast
This is where some Reform councillors need to hear the hard truth.
A lot of them are new.
That is not a crime.
Some experienced councillors have been worse than useless for years, so experience alone is no guarantee of competence.
But being new means they must learn fast.
They need to understand:
The Code of Conduct.
Declarations of interest.
Planning rules.
Predetermination.
Licensing.
Procurement.
Audit.
Budget papers.
Officer/member protocols.
Data protection.
Safeguarding.
Social media discipline.
How to ask written questions.
How to read reports.
How to spot missing evidence.
How not to be led by the nose through a briefing.
Because Labour will be waiting.
The Greens will be watching.
The press will be sniffing around.
The Skidder will not suddenly retire.
Residents will not give Reform a long honeymoon.
And the officer machine will quickly work out who has read the papers and who is just enjoying the badge.
The public voted for change.
They did not vote for amateur hour.
The First 100 Days Should Be About Opening the Books
Reform need to move quickly but carefully.
Their first 100 days should not be about endless photo opportunities.
They should be about opening the books.
They should demand and publish:
A State of Sandwell Governance report.
A ward-level ASB dashboard.
A recognised Friends Groups register.
A grants and voluntary-sector support register.
A public buildings and community-use register.
A Section 106 and CIL tracker.
A consultation charter.
A green spaces and byelaws enforcement review.
A transparency and FOI improvement plan.
A list of outstanding audit recommendations.
A list of major contracts and procurement risks.
A review of council policies due for renewal.
That would show Reform are serious.
Not just loud.
Serious.
Engage the Awkward People
This is the bit Reform must not get wrong.
They need to engage the awkward people.
The bloggers.
The citizen journalists.
The Friends Groups.
The campaigners.
The FOI obsessives.
The park volunteers.
The residents who have spent years being told to calm down.
The voluntary organisations doing genuine work.
The charities that understand communities better than the council does.
The people who know which promises were made and quietly forgotten.
The people who remember the old scandals.
The people who kept receipts.
Not because they are always right.
Not because they should run the council.
Not because every criticism is fair.
But because Sandwell’s democracy has been too narrow for too long.
Too controlled.
Too managed.
Too selective.
Too cosy.
Too dismissive of people outside the magic circle.
Reform should widen the table.
And yes, that includes The Sandwell Skidder.
Because whether some like it or not, the Skidder has been part of the Sandwell story for years. It has been a thorn in the side of people who badly needed a thorn in their side. It has preserved a record. It has challenged power. It has asked the questions others were too polite, too timid or too compromised to ask.
That should be respected.
Even when uncomfortable.
Especially when uncomfortable.
Labour Are Out — But the Culture Is Not
This is the danger.
Labour have lost control.
But the culture that grew under Labour has not packed its bags and left the building.
The habits remain.
The officer structures remain.
The policies remain.
The partnerships remain.
The contracts remain.
The grants remain.
The planning pipeline remains.
The consultation machinery remains.
The public buildings arrangements remain.
The old relationships may still remain.
That is why Reform cannot just celebrate.
They have to investigate.
They have to audit.
They have to publish.
They have to challenge.
They have to learn.
They have to govern.
And they have to do it without becoming arrogant, sloppy, vindictive or naïve.
That is a difficult balance.
But that is what control means.
Final Word
Reform have won Sandwell.
Now they must prove they deserved to.
The mandate is not simply to be anti-Labour.
The mandate is to restore trust.
The mandate is to tackle ASB.
The mandate is to clean up neighbourhoods.
The mandate is to respect residents.
The mandate is to open up governance.
The mandate is to scrutinise public money.
The mandate is to support genuine voluntary work while exposing cosy arrangements.
The mandate is to stop fake consultation.
The mandate is to make planning more transparent.
The mandate is to put Friends Groups, community activists, bloggers, charities, volunteers and residents back into the democratic conversation.
Sandwell does not need another closed shop with different coloured signage.
It needs sunlight.
It needs evidence.
It needs enforcement.
It needs openness.
It needs people in power who are not scared of awkward questions.
The teal tsunami has arrived.
Now we find out whether it washes the place clean — or simply gets diverted into the same old Sandwell drains.
Reform have the votes.
Now they need the backbone.
#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ReformSandwell #ReformUK #SandwellPolitics #LocalElections2026 #SandwellElections2026 #TealTsunami #SandwellSkidder #CitizenJournalism #CommunityScrutiny #LocalDemocracy #CouncilGovernance #GoodGovernance #Transparency #Accountability #AntiSocialBehaviour #ASB #ZeroTolerance #SaferStreets #CleanerNeighbourhoods #FriendsGroups #VoluntarySector #Charities #CommunityGroups #Planning #PlanningGovernance #Consultation #PublicConsultation #Byelaws #GreenSpaces #Parks #Wildlife #FOI #FreedomOfInformation #PublicMoney #PublicBuildings #SandwellLabour #LabourOut #RestoreTrust #OpenTheBooks
