Reform Sandwell: Be The Change — Not The Old Machine With A New Rosette

There is a Full Council meeting in Sandwell on Tuesday 28 July 2026, following the earlier Extraordinary meeting. The main agenda is not short of flashpoints: member questions, urgent school capital decisions, standards, HMOs, libraries, SEND, workplace heat, Borough of Sanctuary, and the small matter of whether scrutiny is being quietly shoved into the long grass.

And after going through the pack, the questions and the motions, my view is simple:

Sandwell voted for Reform leadership.
Not old Tory habits.
Not Labour-style managed democracy with a different badge.
Not dictatorship by a small inner circle.
Not “trust us, we know best.”

People wanted a clean out.
A fresh broom.
A proper reform of the council.
A council that involves residents, councillors, officers, communities and campaigners.
A council that listens before deciding, not one that decides and then manages the explanation afterwards.

We need to be part of the change — not dictated to, ignored, patronised or placed in the public gallery while decisions are cooked elsewhere.

So here is my take, item by item, as a member of the public watching closely.

Item 6(a) — Cllr Luke Davies and the Jonathan Fox social media smear

Cllr Luke Davies is asking the Leader about alleged social media comments attributed to Cllr Jonathan Fox, reportedly covered by the BBC.

I oppose this line of questioning.

Not because genuine hatred should be ignored. Real hate, threats, harassment and abuse should be dealt with properly.

But this looks like Labour rummaging through the political dustbin, dragging up an old social media share, and trying to turn it into another chamber performance.

No religion, belief system, political ideology or public figure is above satire, ridicule or criticism.

People are protected from hate.
Ideas are not protected from challenge.

That distinction matters.

Labour in Sandwell should be very careful before climbing onto the moral high horse. This is the same political culture that has seen years of smears, press allegations, internal faction fighting, cover-ups, hidden reports and selective outrage.

They were happy enough to water down serious concerns around CSE, grooming gangs and the national inquiry into generic Violence Against Women and Girls language when the issue needed honesty, clarity and courage.

They were happy enough to allow a councillor convicted of assault to become Mayor.

So spare us the sudden performance of delicate outrage.

Reform should not be weak on this. If there is a proper standards complaint, let it go through the proper process. But do not let Labour and their campaign networks use stale social media scraps as a political cosh.

My position: oppose the smear politics. Defend lawful free speech. Rescind vague political definitions that chill debate. Support a proper national inquiry into grooming gangs and make sure Sandwell is part of it.

Line:
“Satire is not hate speech. Criticism of religion is not hatred of people. Sandwell has real problems — get on with the job.”

Item 6(b) — Cllr Ritchie Massey, the café and planning

Cllr Tirath Dhatt asks whether the Leader knew of planning issues linked to a business operated by Cllr Ritchie Massey before appointing him to Cabinet.

This one needs calm heads.

I support the café. I have been there. I have had a very decent B.E.S.T sandwich there. It appears well used, visible, valued and useful in a business park setting.

This is not some hidden nuisance premises causing anti-social behaviour, injury or chaos. It appears to serve a need. Social media shows people use it and appreciate it.

But — and this is important — the planning position clearly needs answering.

How did it get this far?

Was it blind ignorance?
Was it naivety?
Was it unclear advice?
Was it officer failure?
Was it a council system that saw the business, registered the food operation, drove past it hundreds of times, and still failed to join the dots?

If it is visible on the way into Oldbury and the Council House, then plenty of officers and councillors must have known it existed.

So the question is not just “what did Ritchie Massey do?”
The bigger question is “what has Sandwell Council’s system been doing?”

The café should be regularised if it can be. The process should be lawful, transparent and consistent. No special treatment — but no political witch-hunt either.

And Reform locally should stop gagging people to the point of absurdity. Sensible legal advice is one thing. Micromanaging councillors and their business affairs to the point nobody can speak to anyone is ridiculous. Some people are trying to help.

My position: support the café continuing if it can be regularised lawfully; demand an inquiry into how the planning issue was allowed to drift.

Line:
“Support the business. Respect the planning process. No special treatment. No witch-hunt. But find out how Sandwell let it get this far.”

Item 6(g) — Holiday food vouchers and the Crisis and Resilience Fund

Cllr Pam Randhawa asks why school holiday food vouchers for children receiving free school meals have been scrapped under the new Crisis and Resilience Fund criteria, how many families and children are affected, and what impact assessment was carried out.

This is a serious question and Reform needs a serious answer.

If automatic support has been replaced by an application-based hardship route, then families may fall through the cracks.

Some will not know.
Some will not apply.
Some will be too proud.
Some will be too chaotic.
Some will hit limits.
Some children will simply lose out.

This cannot be answered with “families can apply.” That is not good enough.

My position: Reform must publish the numbers, the impact assessment, the criteria, the mitigation and the monitoring. If the old system was flawed, say so. But do not pretend an application obstacle course is the same as direct support.

Line:
“Hungry children do not eat process notes. Show the impact assessment.”

Item 8 — Urgent Leader decision on school capital works

The Leader approved £1,782,167 of School Condition Allocation funding as an urgent decision because the June Cabinet meeting was cancelled and works needed to happen over summer. The report says delays could have affected schools reopening safely, with heating, hot water, building condition and asbestos-notification issues involved.

The works may well be necessary.

But the governance is poor.

If these works were time-critical, why was the June Cabinet cancelled?
Why was there no extraordinary Cabinet?
Why was this not planned earlier?
Why does the report describe serious risks and then state there are no direct risk implications?

This is exactly the sort of thing that should go to scrutiny.

My position: do the school works, but scrutinise the governance. Necessary work should not be used as a free pass for poor process.

Line:
“Cabinet cancelled, urgent Leader decision, asbestos and reopening risks described — then the paperwork says ‘no risk’. Peak Sandwell.”

Item 11(a) — Our Borough Doesn’t Need Labels

This motion says Sandwell should no longer subscribe to or seek accreditation under Borough of Sanctuary / City of Sanctuary, while saying the borough remains diverse, inclusive and welcoming.

I support the direction.

But it does not go far enough.

Sandwell does not just have a Borough of Sanctuary label problem. It has a pledge, charter, covenant, badge, framework, declaration, partnership and accreditation problem.

Labour loved this stuff.

A badge for everything.
A pledge for everyone.
A logo for every issue.
A lanyard for every meeting.
A press release for every virtue.

Meanwhile residents still had damp homes, dirty streets, overflowing bins, SEND pressure, planning frustration, poor scrutiny and hidden reports.

If Reform is serious, it should not just remove one label. It should audit the lot.

Every pledge.
Every charter.
Every covenant.
Every accreditation.
Every external framework.
Every ideological commitment signed up to in residents’ names.

What does it cost?
Who approved it?
What officer time does it consume?
What does it deliver?
What law requires it?
What outcomes can be proven?
Should it be kept, merged, amended or scrapped?

My position: support the motion but strengthen it with a full Sandwell pledge-and-accreditation audit.

Suggested amendment:
“Council further resolves to instruct officers to bring forward within six months a full audit of every pledge, charter, covenant, accreditation, external label and ideological framework adopted or supported by Sandwell Council, setting out the cost, officer time, legal basis, governance route, external obligations and measurable outcomes of each, with recommendations on which should be kept, merged, amended or scrapped.”

Line:
“Sandwell needs services, not slogans. Delivery, not badges. Outcomes, not lanyards.”

Item 11(b) — HMOs and planning regulations

This motion calls for HMO-related planning applications to go to Planning Committee where lawful, and for work towards an Article 4 Direction.

I support this motion.

HMOs have become one of the biggest planning pressure points in parts of Sandwell. Residents are concerned about parking, waste, amenity, over-concentration, management, community balance and delegated decisions.

But the motion should be sharpened.

We need evidence.
Ward-level data.
Maps.
Complaint records.
Enforcement history.
Planning appeal outcomes.
A timetable for Article 4.
And scrutiny involvement.

My position: support, but strengthen with a clear timetable, evidence base and ward-level transparency.

Line:
“Residents want control over HMO saturation. Give them maps, data, scrutiny and a timetable — not just warm words.”

Item 11(c) — Orchard School and SEND

This motion raises industrial action at The Orchard School and wider SEND concerns, including staffing, workload, health and safety, leadership, workforce wellbeing and SEND sustainability.

I support the principle of this motion.

SEND is not a political toy. It is one of the biggest moral, financial and operational pressures facing Sandwell.

Children, families and staff are caught in the middle. Reform would be foolish to dismiss this as Labour mischief.

But Labour should also be careful. Many of these pressures did not magically appear in May 2026. They were building under the previous administration too.

My position: support proper scrutiny of Orchard School and SEND, but widen it into a borough-wide SEND workforce, sufficiency and financial-risk review.

Line:
“SEND is not Labour’s stick or Reform’s inconvenience. It is a live crisis for children, families and staff.”

Item 11(d) — Protecting Overview and Scrutiny

This is the big one.

The motion says public scrutiny meetings have been postponed until September, and opposition councillors have been told they can no longer ask questions or sit in the lower chamber at Cabinet, only the public gallery with no interaction.

I support this motion.

Scrutiny is imperative.

And frankly, the farce of the last Cabinet meeting proved exactly why.

If major reports are being taken at Cabinet with minimal visible challenge, while scrutiny is delayed and opposition councillors are pushed away from engagement, then residents are entitled to worry.

Reform cannot campaign against Labour’s closed shop and then build its own with new branding.

The public voted for change.
Not control.
Not gagging.
Not old Tory habits.
Not a return to the tired old ways of twenty-plus years ago in Sandwell.

We need honesty, openness, transparency and public trust.

I would go further than the motion. All substantive reports brought to the last Cabinet meeting should be pulled back out and sent to the appropriate scrutiny panels for post-decision review.

If Cabinet has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear.

My position: support the motion and strengthen it.

Suggested amendment:
“Council further resolves that all substantive reports considered by Cabinet since the commencement of the new administration, including reports considered at the most recent Cabinet meeting, be referred to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Board for post-decision review, public challenge and assurance. Council further requests that the Monitoring Officer provide written clarification to all members within 14 days on the constitutional position regarding attendance, seating and speaking rights of non-executive councillors at Cabinet meetings.”

And yes, Cllr Ash Lewis and Labour need to look in the mirror too. There were many matters under the previous Labour council where residents did not get proper answers, proper challenge or proper follow-through.

So let us not pretend Labour invented sunlight this week.

But that does not make the motion wrong.

Everyone needs to do better.

Line:
“Labour discovering scrutiny after losing power is rich — but Reform must not become the old machine with a different driver.”

Item 11(e) — Libraries

This motion calls for all existing library services and the mobile library to remain open and for libraries to be enhanced as community hubs.

I support this.

Libraries are not luxuries. They are community infrastructure.

They support children, older people, jobseekers, people without internet access, isolated residents, community groups and those who still need a human being rather than a QR code and a website that sends you in circles.

But again, strengthen it.

Publish usage data.
Publish building condition data.
Publish costs.
Consult communities before changes.
Protect the mobile library.
Make libraries genuine community hubs, not warm-word waiting rooms for future cuts.

My position: support, but demand transparency on data, costs, condition and any future service changes.

Line:
“Libraries are where people go when everything else is cut, closed or shoved online.”

Item 11(f) — Standards in Public Life

This motion refers to media reports about a Cabinet Member and calls for consideration of independent assurance or review, as well as reaffirming the Nolan Principles and Code of Conduct.

Standards matter.

But Labour using standards as a political weapon after its own Sandwell record is laughable.

The answer is simple: if there is a genuine complaint, use the proper process. If public confidence is affected, get independent assurance. But do not turn standards into smear theatre.

Reform should not circle the wagons, but neither should it be bullied into feeding Labour’s outrage machine.

My position: support proper process and public confidence, oppose politically selective standards games.

Line:
“Standards must be real, not just a stick Labour picks up when it is out of power.”

Item 11(g) — Maximum working temperatures

This motion calls for a review of how Sandwell manages high temperatures for indoor and outdoor staff and asks for government action on workplace heat.

I support this.

This is practical. It affects waste crews, parks staff, highways workers, care staff, housing repairs, depots, offices and schools.

Heat is a workplace hazard. Staff should not be left to sweat through bad planning while senior management discovers “wellbeing” in a PowerPoint.

My position: support, with trade union involvement, risk assessments, outdoor crew protections, schools guidance and contractor expectations.

Line:
“Heat is a workplace hazard, not a weather-based inconvenience.”

The wider message to Reform

This is the key point.

Sandwell residents voted for a Reform leadership.

They did not vote for old Tory traits in new clothing.

They did not vote for councillors to be micromanaged.
They did not vote for scrutiny to be delayed.
They did not vote for opposition councillors to be sidelined.
They did not vote for decisions to be dictated from a small circle.
They did not vote for public engagement to become an afterthought.

They voted for a clean out.

A fresh broom.

A reform of the council.

That means involving all councillors where appropriate.
It means listening to officers but not being captured by officer machinery.
It means engaging the public before decisions are made.
It means scrutiny that actually scrutinises.
It means Cabinet that can take questions.
It means admitting when things need correcting.
It means not becoming the very thing you were elected to replace.

Reform has a huge opportunity in Sandwell.

But that opportunity can be wasted very quickly if it looks like the same old habits are back: secrecy, control, thin reports, weak scrutiny, rushed decisions, managed access and residents spoken at rather than listened to.

This borough has had enough of being done to.

We need to be part of the rebuilding.

Final word

Support what is right.
Strengthen what is weak.
Challenge what is political theatre.
Demand evidence.
Demand scrutiny.
Demand public involvement.

On this agenda, my position is clear:

Oppose Labour’s smear politics on Jonathan Fox.
Support the café, but investigate the planning drift.
Strengthen the Borough of Sanctuary motion into a full pledge audit.
Support HMO controls with evidence and timelines.
Support SEND scrutiny.
Support libraries.
Support workplace heat protections.
Support standards properly, not selectively.
And above all — support scrutiny, openness and public trust.

Be Reform.
Be the clean broom.
Be the fresh air.
Be the change.
Do not become the continuator.

Because Sandwell does not need another closed shop.

It needs rebuilding.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ReformSandwell #RayNock #FullCouncil #Scrutiny #OverviewAndScrutiny #CabinetAccountability #PublicTrust #Governance #Transparency #LocalDemocracy #BoroughOfSanctuary #CouncilPledges #HMOs #SEND #OrchardSchool #Libraries #StandardsInPublicLife #JonathanFox #RitchieMassey #Planning #SandwellPolitics #BeTheChange #CleanBroom