Reform's First Real Test... and Sandwell Deserved Better

"The true test of leadership isn't what you say before you're elected... it's what you do once you are."

Yesterday, Sandwell Council's new Reform administration faced its first real test.

Not an election campaign.

Not a press release.

Not a Facebook video.

A real Cabinet meeting where the public could finally see whether Reform intended to govern differently from those they had spent months criticising.

I genuinely wanted them to succeed.

In fact, I still do.

Because if Reform succeeds in changing the culture of Sandwell Council, then Sandwell residents benefit.

But if yesterday is anything to go by, the leadership is already in danger of faltering.

Not because of the decisions they made.

Because of how they made them.

Before Anyone Starts...

Let's be absolutely clear.

This isn't written because I want Reform to fail.

Far from it.

I was as frustrated as many others with years of poor governance, weak scrutiny and a culture that too often appeared to rubber-stamp officer recommendations.

Reform campaigned hard on exactly those issues.

We were told:

• Sandwell was broken.

• There wasn't enough scrutiny.

• Officers had too much influence.

• Decisions weren't challenged.

• The culture had to change.

Many residents believed that promise.

Yesterday...

I struggled to see the change.

710 Pages. Around One Hour. Fifteen Major Decisions.

Let's just stop and think about this.

Cabinet Members were asked to consider approximately 710 pages of reports.

Not seventy.

Seven hundred and ten.

Those reports included:

• The Local Government Association Corporate Peer Challenge Action Plan.

• The Annual Corporate Performance Report.

• The Council's financial outturn.

• Housing maintenance contracts.

• Housing policies.

• Private rented housing enforcement.

• Anti-Social Behaviour.

• The Regeneration Pipeline.

• Pride in Place.

• Best Start in Life.

• SEND.

• Schools Capital Programme.

• Major procurement decisions.

• An urgent Leader's decision.

Collectively these reports involve decisions affecting hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money and services relied upon by every resident in Sandwell.

The meeting itself lasted around one hour.

Think about that.

How can anyone seriously argue that fifteen major reports and 710 pages received the level of public scrutiny they deserved?

Democracy isn't simply about making decisions.

It's about allowing residents to see those decisions being properly tested.

Yesterday, that simply wasn't evident.

Don't Take My Word For It

One thing I always encourage is that people look at the evidence themselves.

Don't simply accept my opinion.

Don't simply accept Reform's.

Don't simply accept Labour's.

Watch the meeting yourself.

The Cabinet meeting is available to view in the webcast archive here:

Sandwell Cabinet Meeting Webcast – 15 July 2026

As you watch, ask yourself:

• Did 710 pages receive proper scrutiny?

• Were awkward questions asked?

• Did Cabinet Members visibly challenge officers?

• Did debate change any recommendations?

• Does this look like the fresh start Sandwell voted for?

You may reach a different conclusion than I have.

That's democracy.

The Biggest Story Isn't What Cabinet Approved

The biggest story is what appeared to happen before those approvals.

The Council's own reports contain numerous red flags.

The Annual Performance Report still records significant underperformance across important services.

Housing continues to struggle.

Repairs remain a concern.

Complaints remain a concern.

Customer Services remain under pressure.

SEND continues to face major challenges.

The Local Government Association Peer Challenge Action Plan itself acknowledges that substantial improvement work remains.

The Regeneration Pipeline expands Pride in Place while increasing delegated authority and governance arrangements.

Housing maintenance contracts involving millions of pounds were approved.

The Schools Capital Programme committed further significant investment.

The Financial Outturn highlighted continuing budgetary pressures.

These are precisely the sort of reports that deserve detailed questioning.

Instead...

Too much appeared simply to move through.

Where Was the Reform We Were Promised?

Throughout the election campaign Reform repeatedly told us:

Sandwell was broken.

Labour nodded reports through.

Officers had become too powerful.

There wasn't enough challenge.

Yesterday, I kept asking myself one question.

What actually looked different?

Changing political control is one thing.

Changing political culture is something entirely different.

Yesterday looked worryingly familiar.

Who Was Leading?

One thing became increasingly noticeable.

Every Cabinet Member appeared to have their corresponding senior officer sitting immediately beside them.

Now let's be fair.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with officers advising elected Members.

That's exactly what good officers are employed to do.

But there is a very important distinction between:

Supporting decision-makers

and

Appearing to direct decision-makers.

The public should leave believing:

"The councillors challenged the officers."

Not wondering:

"Did the officers quietly steer the councillors?"

Perception matters.

Yesterday, that perception wasn't helped.

An Uncomfortable Atmosphere

The atmosphere before and during the meeting also raised concerns.

Several non-Cabinet councillors who would historically have observed proceedings from within the chamber found themselves being asked to move.

Councillor Jeffcoat refused, making the entirely reasonable point that he had every right to remain there representing his residents.

Other councillors attempted to attract the Chair's attention.

From where I was sitting, those attempts simply went unacknowledged.

Whether the Chair intended to allow them to contribute or not is almost beside the point.

Good chairmanship acknowledges people.

Good leadership explains decisions.

Ignoring fellow elected councillors is poor political management.

Courtesy costs nothing.

Respect costs nothing.

Comments From the Opposition

After the meeting, Labour Councillor Luke Davies posted his own observations.

Like all political commentary, readers should treat them as his own views.

However, some of the issues he raises deserve answers rather than dismissal.

He questioned the presence of additional security.

He questioned changes to where opposition councillors could sit.

He stated that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the Shadow Cabinet were permitted to ask questions, despite what he described as decades of previous practice.

He also made an observation that particularly caught my attention.

He wrote:

"Given that each Cabinet member had their officer sat next to them to hand them their speeches rather than being behind them and not interfering as is the usual practice, I do wonder how many of the Cabinet had actually read the agenda pack."

I cannot answer that question.

Nor would I accuse any councillor of failing to read their papers.

But I think residents are perfectly entitled to ask:

How were Cabinet Members able to satisfy themselves that 710 pages of highly technical reports had received the level of personal scrutiny they deserved before decisions affecting millions of pounds were approved?

That's a fair question.

Holiday Vouchers – The Full Story

One exchange concerned holiday food vouchers.

The impression given during the meeting was that the funding had effectively disappeared.

The Cabinet report itself paints a fuller picture.

The previous Household Support Fund has indeed ended.

However, it has been replaced by the Government's Crisis and Resilience Fund.

The Council considered continuing holiday vouchers under the new funding arrangements.

It chose not to.

That is a policy decision.

Residents deserve to understand that distinction.

The Nolan Principles

Ironically, the meeting opened with reference to the Nolan Principles.

Leadership.

Integrity.

Objectivity.

Accountability.

Openness.

Honesty.

Selflessness.

Excellent.

But quoting them isn't enough.

They must be demonstrated.

Yesterday, I found myself asking whether openness and accountability were actually being strengthened.

Or quietly reduced.

One Small Thing... That Said Quite a Lot

One moment summed things up for me.

Cabinet approved the minutes of a previous meeting as a true and accurate record.

Procedurally, that is entirely normal.

The minutes record what happened.

They are not an endorsement of the decisions.

However, politically this felt like another missed opportunity.

This Cabinet had campaigned on the claim that Sandwell had been governed badly.

None of the current Cabinet Members had even been serving in those Cabinet roles when those minutes were created.

This was an opportunity to say:

"We've looked at where Sandwell has been."

"We've reflected on previous decisions."

"We'll be doing things differently."

Instead...

It simply felt like the next meeting in a long-running series.

Not the beginning of a new chapter.

The Biggest Red Flags

Several themes emerged repeatedly.

🚩 Performance — Too many indicators remain stubbornly in the red.

🚩 Delegated Authority — Cabinet approves principles while officers increasingly determine delivery.

🚩 Pride in Place — A programme intended to be community-led risks becoming Council-led unless governance and transparency improve.

🚩 Housing — Significant contracts approved while major service pressures continue.

🚩 Information Overload — 710 pages make meaningful scrutiny almost impossible.

🚩 Meeting Culture — The atmosphere felt controlled rather than open.

🚩 Visible Challenge — Too little evidence that Cabinet was robustly testing officer recommendations in public.

Full Council Must Now Do Its Job

I sincerely hope every one of yesterday's reports receives detailed scrutiny at Full Council.

Cabinet should never be the end of democratic accountability.

It should be the beginning.

Every councillor, regardless of party, should now read these reports, ask difficult questions and hold the Cabinet to account.

Residents deserve nothing less.

Reform Still Has Time

This is one meeting.

Not a final judgement.

Not a political obituary.

There is still time to put this right.

But yesterday should be a warning.

Reform wasn't elected simply to manage the old system.

It was elected to reform it.

That means:

Smaller agenda packs.

More debate.

More challenge.

More scrutiny.

More openness.

Greater respect for every elected councillor.

Cabinet Members visibly leading.

Officers visibly advising.

That's the difference people voted for.

One Final Thought

Yesterday wasn't the Reform Cabinet I hoped to see.

It wasn't the bold, questioning, fearless administration many residents believed they were electing.

Instead, it reminded me—uncomfortably—of a period in Sandwell's history that many hoped had been left behind.

Not because the political colours were the same.

They weren't.

But because the culture felt familiar.

It had echoes of the old days under Darren Cooper, when many residents believed Cabinet meetings had become exercises in confirming decisions rather than testing them.

That is not an accusation that history has repeated itself.

It is a warning that the perception of history repeating itself is already beginning to emerge.

Perception matters.

Public confidence matters.

And if Reform genuinely wants to restore trust in Sandwell Council, it needs to show—not just say—that it governs differently.

I still want Reform to succeed.

I still hope they will.

But hope alone isn't enough.

Yesterday was their first real test.

For me, they didn't fail.

But they certainly didn't pass with the distinction that many residents were expecting.

Sandwell deserves better.

And Reform still has every opportunity to prove that better is exactly what it intends to deliver.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ReformUK #Cabinet #Democracy #Scrutiny #Governance #Transparency #Accountability #Housing #SEND #PrideInPlace #CouncilFinance #CommunityVoice #LocalPolitics