Sandwell’s Big Theme Machine: Same Council Fog, New Political Test for Reform

Sandwell’s Big Theme Machine: Same Council Fog, New Political Test for Reform

Sandwell Council has apparently organised itself around five shiny theme areas:

Growing up in Sandwell.
Living in Sandwell.
Healthy in Sandwell.
Thriving Economy in Sandwell.
One Council One Team.

Lovely.

It sounds like the sort of thing you would find on a council PowerPoint, probably with soft colours, smiling stock images and a diagram involving arrows pointing confidently at each other.

But as ever with Sandwell, the question is not whether the words sound nice.

The question is: who is actually responsible when things go wrong?

Because residents do not live inside corporate themes. They live with broken housing repairs, unanswered complaints, dirty streets, neglected parks, ASB, SEND pressures, confusing consultations, planning decisions they struggle to influence, and the familiar Sandwell experience of being passed from one department to another like an unwanted parcel.

The council says its current plan runs to 2027 and is built around four strategic themes — Growing up, Living, Healthy and Thriving Economy — all underpinned by One Council One Team.

That may be the official structure.

But the lived reality for many residents is much simpler:

One Council.
Many departments.
Endless confusion.
No obvious owner.

And that is the first big test for the new Reform-controlled council.

The themes sound neat. The council underneath does not.

On paper, the themes are easy enough to understand.

Growing up in Sandwell should cover children, education, safeguarding, SEND, school attendance, young people and corporate parenting.

Living in Sandwell should cover the things residents see and feel every day: housing, repairs, parks, waste, fly-tipping, street cleaning, ASB, neighbourhoods and community safety.

Healthy in Sandwell should cover adult social care, public health, carers, health inequalities, prevention and vulnerable residents.

Thriving Economy in Sandwell should cover regeneration, jobs, business, town centres, planning, investment, infrastructure and the local economy.

One Council One Team should be the glue holding it all together: governance, finance, complaints, customer services, scrutiny, transformation, culture and performance.

So far, so sensible.

But then we reach Sandwell reality.

Services do not sit neatly in one box. Damp and mould is housing, health, children’s welfare, adult social care, repairs, complaints and sometimes legal risk. ASB can be housing, police, neighbourhoods, youth services, public protection and community safety. SEND transport can involve children’s services, education, finance, procurement, transport contracts, families and schools.

So when the council says “One Council One Team”, residents are entitled to ask:

Does that mean joined-up action?
Or does it mean everyone is involved and nobody is responsible?

Because Sandwell has been here before.

Many times.

With a lanyard.

Red flag one: portfolio churn

Cabinet portfolios are supposed to help residents and councillors understand political responsibility.

Who owns housing?
Who owns parks?
Who owns ASB?
Who owns regeneration?
Who owns SEND?
Who owns complaints?
Who owns the resident journey when the system fails?

But when portfolios keep changing, titles shift, responsibilities move, and services are grouped and regrouped under different political headings, public accountability becomes foggy.

One year it is environment. Then neighbourhoods. Then leisure. Then place. Then community. Then regeneration. Then some grander title with “inclusive” or “sustainable” added for decoration.

The council’s Cabinet papers make clear that Cabinet Members have defined portfolio responsibilities.

Fine.

But defined for whom?

For officers who already understand the internal structure?
For councillors who sit through briefings?
Or for the resident trying to work out who is responsible for the park, the fly-tip, the repair, the noise nuisance, the dangerous alleyway or the ignored complaint?

Because if a resident needs a municipal treasure map to find accountability, the structure is already failing.

Red flag two: senior officer churn and directorate reshuffling

This is not just political. It is managerial too.

Sandwell has been through government intervention, commissioner oversight, post-intervention recovery, senior leadership restructuring, directorate changes, service director changes and now a full political change of control.

Government intervention began in March 2022 and ended in March 2024.

That is not ancient history. That is still recent in council terms.

The council itself was still talking in March 2026 about post-intervention improvement and its ambition to continue improving after the end of intervention.

So let us be honest.

Reform has not taken over a stable, simple, well-understood council machine.

It has inherited a council that has spent years rearranging itself, explaining itself, rebuilding itself, reviewing itself and congratulating itself for improving itself.

Now add new political leadership, new Cabinet appointments, new scrutiny dynamics, many new councillors and a public expecting change.

That is not a smooth handover.

That is a governance stress test.

Red flag three: “Place” risks becoming the council’s everything drawer

The word Place sounds harmless.

In council language, however, it often means: “We have put half the visible council under one enormous heading and good luck finding the exact bit you need.”

Housing? Place.
Regeneration? Place.
Parks? Place.
Waste? Place.
Public protection? Place.
Assets? Place.
Town centres? Place.
Planning-related growth? Place.
Environment? Place.

Wonderful.

Just chuck it all in Place.

That may suit internal management charts, but it does not help residents unless the council clearly explains who owns each service inside that huge directorate.

If everything is Place, then Place risks becoming the black hole where accountability goes to have a little lie down.

Reform should demand service-level accountability immediately.

Not “Place will look at it”.

Not “this sits within the wider operating model”.

Not “this aligns with the Council Plan”.

A name.
A portfolio.
A director.
A performance measure.
A public update.

That is the minimum.

Red flag four: performance language can hide failure

Sandwell’s themes should not become a soft cushion for poor performance.

The council says it monitors performance against the Council Plan themes.

Good.

Then publish it in a way residents can understand.

Not a maze of PDFs.
Not obscure committee packs.
Not polished summaries where the bad news is buried under seventeen paragraphs of “progress continues”.

Residents need to see:

What is green?
What is amber?
What is red?
What is getting worse?
Who owns it?
What is the recovery plan?
When will it be fixed?

If housing repairs are poor, say so.

If SEND is under pressure, say so.

If adult social care is struggling, say so.

If regeneration projects are slipping, say so.

If complaints are increasing, say so.

If FOIs are late, say so.

If residents keep reporting the same failures, say so.

The public is not stupid. What annoys people is not just failure. It is failure wrapped in corporate optimism and served with a side order of “lessons will be learned”.

Red flag five: intervention may have ended, but culture does not change by press release

Sandwell leaving government intervention was obviously significant. The council said in March 2024 that ministers had confirmed intervention would end.

Good.

But ending intervention does not magically fix culture.

It does not automatically fix scrutiny.

It does not automatically fix transparency.

It does not automatically fix resident engagement.

It does not automatically fix weak communication.

And it certainly does not mean the new controlling party should simply accept every officer assurance with a grateful smile and a complimentary biscuit.

Reform must remember this:

A council can leave intervention and still retain old habits.

The language may improve.
The charts may improve.
The reports may improve.
The culture may still resist challenge.

That is why the new administration must get to grips with accountability immediately.

Red flag six: Annual Council is not just ceremonial

The Annual Council meeting on 26 May 2026 includes the election of the Leader and approval of executive arrangements, Cabinet portfolios and appointments for 2026/27.

This matters.

Because this is where Reform either starts to clear the fog — or adds another layer to it.

The new Cabinet portfolios must be understandable to the public.

Residents should not have to guess whether a problem belongs to Housing, Environment, Neighbourhoods, Community Safety, Place, Public Health, Customer Services, Regeneration or “One Council One Team”.

The new administration should publish a simple Who Owns What guide.

Not eventually.
Not after a review.
Not when the transformation programme has finished transforming the transformation.

Now.

What Reform needs to do quickly

Reform has won control. That is the easy bit compared with actually running the place.

Now it needs to prove it can govern.

And the first test is clarity.

Reform should demand a public “Who Owns What” map

For every major resident-facing service, the public should be able to see:

Cabinet Member.
Senior officer.
Directorate.
Scrutiny route.
Public contact route.
Performance indicators.
Current red risks.

Housing repairs.
Damp and mould.
Parks.
Waste.
Fly-tipping.
ASB.
SEND.
School transport.
Adult social care.
Public health.
Regeneration.
Planning.
Complaints.
FOI.
Customer services.

Name the owner.

Then publish the performance.

Then update it.

That is not revolutionary. It is basic democratic accountability.

Which is probably why Sandwell has historically found it so difficult.

Reform must not fall into Labour’s old trap

The old Labour machine in Sandwell loved the language of plans, partnerships, strategies, boards, frameworks and reviews.

Everything was always being aligned, embedded, strengthened, developed, refreshed or transformed.

Meanwhile, residents were often left asking the same question:

Who is actually sorting this?

Reform must not simply put new names on the same fog.

Do not rename portfolios unless residents can understand them.

Do not accept “cross-cutting” as an answer.

Do not allow “partnership working” to become a hiding place.

Do not let Place become an accountability warehouse.

Do not let officers bury red risks in polished reports.

Do not let public commitments vanish when personnel change.

Do not let scrutiny become a theatre of polite nodding.

And above all, do not confuse being in control of the council chamber with being in control of the council machine.

They are not the same thing.

The big danger for Reform

Reform has a majority, but it also has a lot of new councillors, a steep learning curve and residents expecting visible change fast.

If Reform does not grip the council structure quickly, officers will run rings around them with process.

Not necessarily maliciously. That is just what large organisations do. They absorb change, slow it down, translate it into internal language, and send it to a board to be reviewed by a group that reports to another group.

Then, three months later, everyone agrees that “progress is being made”.

Residents, meanwhile, are still waiting for the repair, the answer, the clean-up, the enforcement, the transport, the decision, the callback.

Reform needs to get ahead of that.

The first demand should be simple:

Show us the red risks.
Show us the missed targets.
Show us the complaints.
Show us the officer owners.
Show us the Cabinet owners.
Show us the recovery plans.
Show us what residents can see publicly.

No fog.
No waffle.
No corporate incense.

The test is brutally simple

Can a resident look at Sandwell Council’s website and understand who is responsible for a service?

Can a councillor quickly find the officer owner for a problem?

Can a scrutiny board see what is red, what is worsening and what is being done?

Can a community group track promises made to them?

Can a tenant see housing repair performance?

Can a parent see SEND transport accountability?

Can residents see whether regeneration promises are actually being delivered?

If the answer is no, then the themes are not accountability.

They are wallpaper.

Final word

Sandwell’s themes may sound pleasant enough.

Growing up.
Living.
Healthy.
Thriving.
One Council One Team.

Very nice.

But Sandwell does not need another collection of cheerful headings.

It needs visible responsibility.

It needs public dashboards.

It needs named owners.

It needs proper scrutiny.

It needs honest red-risk reporting.

It needs residents to stop being bounced around a system that appears to understand itself far better than it serves the public.

Reform now has the wheel.

The question is whether it will drive the council — or be driven by it.

Because if “One Council One Team” means joined-up action, brilliant.

But if it means everyone involved and nobody accountable, then residents will quickly discover that Sandwell has not changed at all.

It has simply changed the badge on the fog machine.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SandwellPolitics #ReformSandwell #LocalGovernment #CouncilAccountability #OneCouncilOneTeam #GrowingUpInSandwell #LivingInSandwell #HealthyInSandwell #ThrivingEconomyInSandwell #HousingRepairs #SEND #Regeneration #PublicServices #LocalDemocracy #Scrutiny #Governance #ResidentsFirst