Sandwell Council has published another News & Events Update, and once again there is quite a lot in it.

Sandwell Council has published another News & Events Update, and once again there is quite a lot in it.

Some of it is genuinely useful.

There is information about the council’s new telephone number, crisis payments, exam-results support, children’s activities, vaccinations, free swimming, water safety, the Local Plan consultation, Bikeability, town-centre regeneration and more.

And as I have said before, I am not interested in criticising Sandwell Council simply for the sake of it.

If something is good, say so.

If something is useful, promote it.

But being a critical friend also means asking whether the story being told quite matches the reality underneath it.

And in this latest bulletin, there are a few areas where that matters.

---

ONE COUNCIL NUMBER – A SENSIBLE MOVE

From 1 September, Sandwell Council is introducing one main telephone number for many of its services:

0121 569 7474

That should make things simpler for residents, particularly those who are not online or struggle with digital services.

The bulletin even encourages people to pass the number on to anyone they know who is not online.

That is welcome.

Not everyone wants an app.

Not everyone is comfortable filling in online forms.

And sometimes people simply need to speak to another human being.

The test will be what happens when someone actually rings it.

How long do people wait?

How many hang up?

Does the callback system work?

Are problems resolved at first contact?

One number is useful.

One number leading to three quarters of an hour listening to hold music is less so.

---

FREE PARKING: NICE SOUNDING POLICY, BUT WILL IT ACTUALLY WORK?

This is one area where I remain highly sceptical.

Sandwell is introducing up to two hours of free parking in selected Wednesbury and Great Bridge car parks, alongside free market-stall pitches for twelve months.

The council says the idea is to increase footfall and help struggling markets.

It sounds attractive.

Everybody likes the words:

FREE PARKING.

The problem is that Sandwell’s own evidence suggests parking charges are not the main reason these town centres are struggling.

Wednesbury’s own Masterplan identifies declining retail choice, online shopping, competition from retail parks and other centres, poor evening activity, public-realm issues and concerns around safety.

It also tells us something particularly important:

Footfall is already highest on market days.

So people are coming.

The bigger question is what they find when they get there.

Do they stay?

Do they spend?

Are there enough shops worth visiting?

Does the town centre feel safe and attractive?

Has moving the market affected pedestrian flows?

Those are much bigger issues than whether somebody saves £1.10 on parking.

Great Bridge is even more interesting.

Previous council studies actually identified ample parking as one of its strengths.

Its weaknesses included poor pedestrian connections, heavy traffic, tired public realm and the lack of integration between the traditional centre and the retail park.

Making parking free does not solve any of those things.

Neither does giving away market pitches.

If a trader cannot make enough money to justify a pitch costing around seven quid, the problem probably isn’t the seven quid.

The problem is likely to be not enough customers.

So yes, call it a pilot.

But before it begins, Sandwell should publish the baseline:

How many cars currently use the car parks?

How much income will be lost?

How many market stalls currently operate?

What is existing footfall?

What are shop vacancy rates?

What exactly will constitute success?

Otherwise, twelve months from now, almost anything can be described as a success.

More parked cars do not automatically mean more shoppers.

More free stalls do not automatically mean a thriving market.

This still looks very much like a sticking plaster on a much bigger wound.

---

FIRE WARNINGS: IMPORTANT — BUT THE COUNCIL HAS RESPONSIBILITIES TOO

The bulletin again warns residents about fires and barbecues on parks and open spaces.

Quite right too.

With the dry weather and recent fires, nobody should be lighting disposable barbecues or fires on nature reserves and public green spaces.

But this is where I think Sandwell needs to go considerably further.

We have already made the case for proper, modern and enforceable byelaws across Sandwell’s parks, Local Nature Reserves and water bodies.

Not a patchwork of signs.

Not a PSPO here and an old rule there.

A proper, understandable regulatory framework covering matters including:

fires;

wildlife protection;

fishing;

vehicles and e-bikes;

damage to habitats;

water safety;

camping;

littering;

dogs;

and other behaviour that can damage our green spaces.

And those rules need to be visible and actually enforced.

But fire safety is not only about telling residents what they must not do.

The council is the landowner and land manager.

So what are Sandwell’s wildfire management arrangements for its nature reserves?

Where are the risk assessments?

Where are the firebreaks and fuel breaks where they are environmentally appropriate?

How is vegetation managed during prolonged dry periods?

Can fire appliances gain proper access?

Are vulnerable boundaries next to homes properly protected?

What arrangements exist with West Midlands Fire Service?

We cannot simply wait until smoke appears over a reserve and then post another graphic saying:

“Please don’t light fires.”

Residents have responsibilities.

So does the council.

---

THE LOCAL PLAN: GOOD TO SEE IT PROMOTED — BUT CAN ORDINARY PEOPLE REALLY UNDERSTAND IT?

One thing I criticised in the previous News & Events bulletin was the absence of the Local Plan consultation.

This time it is there.

So credit where it is due.

The problem now is a different one.

The Local Plan is incredibly important.

It will help shape where homes are built, where employment land goes, what infrastructure is needed, how green space is protected and how Sandwell develops through to 2044.

But try explaining the consultation to someone who doesn’t spend their spare time reading planning documents.

Spatial strategy.

Site allocations.

Infrastructure capacity.

Green Belt.

Employment land.

Biodiversity.

Flood risk.

Blue and green infrastructure.

Planning constraints.

And just for extra fun, Sandwell already has another Local Plan which went through years of preparation and examination but still hasn’t formally been adopted, while Government has now required councils including Sandwell to begin another new-style Local Plan.

I suspect many residents will reasonably ask:

“Hang on — didn’t we just do one of these?”

And they would have a point.

Putting a link into a newsletter and saying “Have your say” is not enough.

If Sandwell genuinely wants ordinary residents involved, it needs to make the process understandable.

How about a short plain-English guide?

What is the Local Plan?

Why are we doing another one?

What can it actually change?

How might it affect my neighbourhood?

What does the council want me to comment on now?

Then produce simple information for each of Sandwell’s six towns.

Have face-to-face sessions in libraries and community venues.

Let residents speak to planning officers.

Show people maps they can actually understand.

Because at the moment developers, landowners and planning consultants know exactly how to respond to a Local Plan consultation.

The ordinary resident often does not.

A consultation can be technically open to everybody while still being practically dominated by the people who understand the system.

That is not meaningful engagement.

---

CRISIS PAYMENTS – THIS IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF THING PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT

One of the strongest parts of this bulletin is the promotion of Sandwell’s Crisis Payments.

Help may be available for people dealing with emergencies such as fire, flooding, domestic abuse, stolen money, essential household items breaking down or temporary gaps in income.

This is exactly the sort of service that needs putting in front of residents.

People often only discover support exists after they have already reached crisis point.

So more of this please.

Useful.

Practical.

And potentially very important to somebody reading it.

---

BIKEABILITY: TEACHING CHILDREN TO RIDE SAFELY IS A GOOD THING

The bulletin also celebrates more children receiving Bikeability training.

Apparently 2,752 pupils took part during 2025/26.

I have been critical of Active Travel schemes in Sandwell.

I remain critical of some of them.

But teaching children how to cycle safely is a completely separate matter.

I have taught children to ride bikes myself.

It is a useful life skill.

It builds confidence.

And children who cycle should know how to do it safely.

Supporting Bikeability does not mean automatically supporting every cycle lane or road redesign that subsequently comes along.

We are allowed a little nuance in public life.

Apparently.

---

TIPTON REGENERATION – NOW SHOW US WHETHER IT WORKS

The bulletin also reports completion of public-realm works around Owen Street in Tipton.

Improved pavements.

Lighting.

Bus stops.

Crossings.

Apprenticeship opportunities.

All positive enough.

But regeneration cannot ultimately be judged by photographs of new paving stones.

The real questions come later.

Did footfall increase?

Did businesses benefit?

Did people feel safer?

Did vacancies fall?

Did people actually spend more time in the town centre?

That is how regeneration should be judged.

Not simply:

“The work has finished.”

Completion is not the same thing as success.

---

ENERGY SWITCHING – WE’VE ASKED THE QUESTIONS

The bulletin also promotes Sandwell’s Switch Together Energy scheme.

Residents are being encouraged to register for collective energy purchasing, with the possibility of receiving a cheaper tariff.

It may prove worthwhile.

But similar schemes have appeared before and then quietly faded from view.

What we rarely see is the historic Sandwell evidence.

How many people registered?

How many actually switched?

What did they save?

How long did those savings last?

How did the tariffs compare with deals residents could have found elsewhere?

And what does the scheme cost the council?

We have now submitted questions on precisely those points.

If the results are good, publish them.

That would be the best advertisement the scheme could have.

---

SUMMER ACTIVITIES, SWIMMING AND HEALTH INFORMATION

There is plenty else in the bulletin worth supporting.

Free swimming.

Summer activities for children and young people.

SEND-inclusive youth provision.

Exam-results support.

Vaccination information.

Water-safety advice.

These are useful things to put in front of residents.

And this is worth remembering when criticising council communications.

A newsletter does not have to be controversial to be worthwhile.

Sometimes telling somebody where their child can swim for free is enough.

---

SO WHAT DO I MAKE OF THIS ONE?

Overall, I think this is actually a better News & Events bulletin than some previous editions.

There is more useful civic information.

The Local Plan consultation is finally being promoted.

There is crisis support.

There is public-health information.

There are services and activities residents can actually use.

But there are still recurring weaknesses.

Too often Sandwell communicates:

what it is doing

before properly demonstrating:

why it should work

and later

whether it actually did.

Free parking is perhaps the clearest example.

It sounds good.

It is easy to put on a leaflet.

But Sandwell’s own evidence suggests the problems facing Wednesbury and Great Bridge are much deeper.

Likewise, telling residents not to start fires is necessary.

But the council also needs robust byelaws, visible enforcement and proper wildfire management of the land it controls.

And telling residents to “Have Your Say” on the Local Plan is welcome.

But unless ordinary people can understand what they are being asked, consultation risks becoming an exercise largely for professionals, developers and the usual suspects.

Being a critical friend means being prepared to say:

That’s good.

That needs improving.

And sometimes:

I really don’t think that is going to work.

Sandwell is certainly getting better at telling residents what it is doing.

Now I want to see it get equally good at showing us:

why it chose a policy,

what evidence supported it,

what it cost,

what residents actually said,

and eventually...

whether it worked.

That is not asking too much.

That is simply what good local government should look like.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SandwellNews #LocalGovernment #Transparency #Accountability #CriticalFriend #Wednesbury #GreatBridge #TownCentres #Markets #FreeParking #Regeneration #Tipton #OwenStreet #SandwellLocalPlan #HaveYourSay #PublicConsultation #Byelaws #Wildfire #FireSafety #NatureReserves #GreenSpaces #Bikeability #ActiveTravel #CrisisSupport #EnergySwitching #SEND #ValueForMoney

BWA: FOLLOW THE MONEY... AGAIN! £££ — AND NOW SHOW US THE RECEIPTS

Well, well, well.

Just when you thought my little wander around the wonderful world of the Bangladeshi Women’s Association (BWA), Tipton Muslim Community Centre and assorted pots of public money might have reached the end of the road...

Along comes another Sandwell Council FOI response.

And this one actually contains documents.

I know.

Steady yourselves.

After previously being told that my much wider request would cost too much to answer, I went back with a much narrower FOI asking a fairly simple question:

What current funding arrangements does Sandwell Council have with BWA, Tipton Muslim Community Centre and Jubilee Park Community Centre?

And, eventually, some paperwork appeared.

£70,877... £10,000... £25,942...

The documents supplied by Sandwell Council reveal several current/recent arrangements.

There is a £70,877 three-year grant agreement relating to Tipton Muslim Community Centre.

There is also an additional £10,000 Net Zero arrangement, funded through West Midlands Combined Authority money, involving BWA leading resident engagement around the Park Lane Estate.

And then we have another £25,942 for a Park Estate gardening/community allotment project.

So we're not talking about somebody being bunged £250 for a tombola and a few sausage rolls.

We're talking about substantial public funding and formal agreements containing actual obligations.

And that matters.

Remember those enormous reserves?

Regular readers may remember one of the questions I've been asking BWA since last year.

According to the accounts we examined, BWA had around:

£322,465 in reserves

including approximately:

£165,226 in unrestricted free reserves

and around:

£323,589 cash at bank.

Which prompted the fairly obvious question:

Why does an organisation sitting on substantial reserves continue receiving significant amounts of public money — and what assessment is being made of its financial need before further grants are awarded?

That doesn't mean a charity shouldn't have reserves.

Of course it should.

Good charities need sensible reserves.

But when public bodies continue handing over taxpayers' money to an organisation holding substantial cash reserves, asking how need was assessed is hardly an outrageous act of sedition.

It is called scrutiny.

£7,500 for "Project staffing and delivery"

The £25,942 gardening/allotment project gets particularly interesting when you look at the budget.

It includes:

£7,500 – Project staffing and delivery

£6,000 – Allotment clearance

£8,000 – Allotment materials

£3,500 – Supporting 50 households

£942 – Monitoring and evaluation

Now I'm interested.

Who received the £7,500?

Was it existing BWA staff?

Additional staff?

How many hours were delivered?

At what rate?

What exactly constituted "project staffing and delivery"?

And what evidence was supplied to Sandwell Council showing that taxpayers got £7,500 worth of it?

Again...

Questions.

Those pesky things.

But here's where the paperwork becomes VERY useful

The grant agreement doesn't simply say:

"Here's £25,942. Have fun with the tomatoes."

There are conditions.

BWA is required to maintain separate, accurate and up-to-date financial records relating to the grant.

That includes things such as management accounts, payroll information and invoices.

There are monitoring requirements.

There are reporting requirements.

There are provisions allowing Sandwell Council and auditors to inspect records.

There are requirements concerning conflicts of interest.

And there's another little gem.

The agreement requires BWA to establish a transparent and accessible system through which residents and service users can provide written feedback and comments concerning the project and BWA's conduct, management and activities.

Oh.

Transparent and accessible.

Two words which have become particularly interesting during this investigation.

Because I've been asking BWA questions since NOVEMBER

Let's remind ourselves how we arrived here.

I first wrote raising governance, financial and conflict-of-interest questions in November 2025.

I followed up.

I wrote again.

I escalated matters directly to the trustees.

I chased them.

I gave deadlines.

I issued a final notice.

I gave them another opportunity to engage.

And another.

And another.

The result?

Nothing substantive from the trustees.

Not even a proper attempt to address the questions.

Former councillor and BWA Chief Executive Syeda Khatun did respond to me in her then councillor capacity in December 2025, saying she declared interests where required and did not participate in Council discussions or decisions concerning funding or contracts connected with her employer.

Fair enough.

But the wider questions I asked were not answered, and repeated requests for clarification went unanswered.

She subsequently lost her Council seat.

But BWA didn't disappear with the election result.

Neither did the questions.

And clearly neither did the public funding.

Then there's the £10,000 and the £25,942...

There's another curious little detail buried in the gardening/allotment agreement.

Under the heading dealing with other funding received by BWA and disclosed to the funder appears:

"[NON-DECLARED AT DATE OF SIGNING]"

Yet the documents supplied by the Council also show BWA involved in the Park Lane/Net Zero programme with the additional £10,000 arrangement.

Now, before anybody starts hyperventilating, I am not alleging duplicate funding.

The projects may be entirely separate.

The funding streams may have been treated differently.

There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Which is why I've asked Sandwell Council the perfectly reasonable question:

Did the Council know about the £10,000 arrangement when the £25,942 grant was approved, and why does the agreement record no other funding as declared?

Easy enough to clear up.

And what about Jubilee Park?

My FOI specifically covered:

BWA

Tipton Muslim Community Centre

and

Jubilee Park Community Centre.

Yet the documents supplied are overwhelmingly concerned with BWA/TMCC and Park Lane.

So I've asked another wonderfully complicated question:

Is there currently any Sandwell Council funding specifically attributable to Jubilee Park Community Centre?

Yes or no will do.

No interpretive dance required.

And then there's Sandwell Consortium...

My FOI also specifically asked whether BWA currently receives money indirectly where Sandwell Council is the originating source.

That matters because one of the longstanding areas I've been examining is the relationship between BWA and Sandwell Consortium.

If taxpayers' money travels:

Sandwell Council → intermediary organisation → BWA

then simply publishing the direct grants doesn't necessarily show us the complete public-funding picture.

I've therefore asked the Council specifically to confirm whether money originating with SMBC currently reaches BWA through Sandwell Consortium, SCVO or another intermediary.

Again, there may be absolutely nothing wrong with such an arrangement.

But we need to know whether it exists before anybody can properly assess the overall funding picture.

Here's the bigger issue

This investigation started with BWA.

But increasingly it raises questions for Sandwell Council too.

Because these grant agreements show that the Council has powers and obligations.

Records should exist.

Monitoring should happen.

Financial evidence should be supplied.

Outcomes should be reported.

Conflicts should be managed.

Public money should be accounted for.

So the next stage isn't simply:

"BWA, answer my questions."

It's:

"Sandwell Council, show us how YOU checked."

If £25,942 was awarded, show the assessment.

Show the monitoring.

Show the expenditure evidence.

Show the outcomes.

Show how the £7,500 staffing allocation was accounted for.

Show the declarations of interest.

Show what happened when the project finished.

Show what residents said.

And if everything was properly delivered and monitored?

Brilliant.

Publish the evidence and I'll happily say so.

That's how scrutiny is supposed to work.

The good news

And there genuinely is some.

The recent Express & Star coverage of the Park Lane project included residents describing real benefits: greater confidence, improved English, gardening, physical activity, employment and reduced isolation.

Those outcomes should be welcomed.

I have never argued that community organisations shouldn't receive public funding.

Quite the opposite.

Good community organisations delivering good services should be supported.

But good outcomes do not remove the need for good governance.

In fact, organisations doing important work should be particularly keen to demonstrate that their governance, finances and public funding are beyond reproach.

So where are we now?

I've gone back to Sandwell Council following this FOI response.

I've asked them to fill the gaps before deciding whether an Internal Review is necessary.

I'm also holding back another FOI for the moment.

Because the next one isn't going fishing.

It will be considerably more surgical.

We now know what some of the grants are.

We know what some of the contractual conditions say.

The next question is going to be:

SHOW US THE EVIDENCE THAT THOSE CONDITIONS WERE MET.

Applications.

Due diligence.

Grant assessments.

Conflicts.

Invoices.

Payroll evidence.

Monitoring reports.

Performance reports.

Resident feedback.

Outcomes.

Evaluations.

And the evidence Sandwell Council relied upon when deciding that taxpayers received what taxpayers paid for.

After months of unanswered questions, perhaps the paperwork will eventually answer what people wouldn't.

Follow the Money.

Follow the Power.

Follow the Silence.

And now...

Follow the Audit Trail.

Because public money should always leave one.

#Sandwell #Tipton #BWA #BangladeshiWomensAssociation #TiptonMuslimCommunityCentre #JubileePark #ParkLaneEstate #SandwellCouncil #PublicMoney #TaxpayersMoney #Transparency #Accountability #Governance #FreedomOfInformation #FOI #CommunityFunding #GrantFunding #SandwellConsortium #FollowTheMoney #FollowTheAuditTrail

Sandwell SEND: The Alarm Bells Have Been Ringing – Our Children Cannot Wait for the System to Catch Up

Sandwell SEND: The Alarm Bells Have Been Ringing – Our Children Cannot Wait for the System to Catch Up

A longer read again I'm afraid – but when we are talking about children with special educational needs and disabilities, their families and their futures, I make absolutely no apology for that. Put the kettle on. You may need the big mug.

I've started taking a much deeper look at Special Educational Needs and Disabilities – SEND – provision across Sandwell, and already there are some very serious questions that need answering.

This isn't about having a cheap pop at an individual councillor, teacher, school, parent, council officer or political party.

And it certainly isn't about pretending that the national SEND system isn't under enormous pressure too. It is. Across England, the number of pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans continues to rise substantially. In January 2026 there were around 538,500 pupils with EHCPs in English schools, an increase of 11.6% in a year.

But national pressures don't absolve Sandwell of responsibility for Sandwell's children.

And the more I've looked, the more I think we need a substantial, forensic investigation into whether the borough actually has the school places, specialist facilities, EHCP capacity, transport, respite, activities, health provision and forward planning necessary to cope with what is coming.

Because what is coming isn't a surprise.

The numbers are going up – dramatically

Sandwell Council itself says demand for SEND support is increasing rapidly.

Requests for EHC needs assessments have risen from 415 in 2019 to 993 in 2025.

That's an increase of around 139%.

Not a little statistical wobble.

Not a temporary blip.

A fundamental change in demand.

And Sandwell's July 2026 SEND Sufficiency Strategy says there are currently 4,064 children and young people with an EHCP, with that number forecast to reach 7,750 by 2029 and more than 10,700 by 2031.

Just stop and consider that.

If that forecast proves broadly correct, we're not talking about tweaking the existing system around the edges.

We're talking about needing substantially greater capacity across education, health, social care, transport and family support.

Which brings me to the obvious question:

Are we building that capacity quickly enough?

At the moment, I'm far from convinced.

Sandwell already admits it hasn't got enough specialist places

This isn't me making an allegation.

The council's own July 2026 figures say Sandwell currently has around 1,013 special-school places.

It estimates that it will need 1,163 by September 2027.

And when independent specialist provision is included, overall specialist placement demand is expected to reach around 1,440 by 2027.

Now, before somebody reaches for their calculator and announces a straightforward 427-place shortage, it isn't quite that simple.

The 1,013 and 1,440 figures aren't directly like-for-like because the latter includes independent provision.

That's precisely why we need the detailed figures.

How many places do we actually have?

How many are occupied?

What type of SEND do they cater for?

Where are they?

How many additional places are definitely funded?

When will they open?

How many children are currently being sent elsewhere?

And how many children are effectively waiting for the system to catch up with them?

Those are the numbers that matter.

Ofsted was warning about this in 2023

This is where the investigation becomes particularly important.

Some of these problems weren't discovered last Tuesday.

In July 2023, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission inspected Sandwell's local SEND partnership.

Inspectors recognised positive work and said children and young people with SEND were valued in Sandwell.

That should be acknowledged.

But they also identified some very significant weaknesses.

Parents reported that securing a special-school place could be a struggle. Inspectors said there were children remaining in mainstream schools on reduced timetables, or attending alternative provision for long periods, while waiting for a special-school place.

Think about the human meaning behind that bureaucratic language.

A child doesn't stop needing an education because the appropriate school place isn't ready yet.

A parent doesn't suddenly acquire another six hours in the day because their child is only attending school part-time.

And teachers in mainstream schools cannot magically manufacture specialist facilities, expertise and staffing from the contents of the stationery cupboard.

The inspectors also noted reliance on provision outside Sandwell.

So the question isn't simply:

"What is the council doing now?"

It's also:

"What did Sandwell know in 2023, what did it promise to do about it, what was actually delivered, and why are some of the same problems still appearing in council strategies three years later?"

The EHCP figures are worrying

Then we come to Education, Health and Care Plans themselves.

Sandwell's 2025/26 corporate performance figures show only 24.64% of EHCPs were completed within 20 weeks across the year.

By Quarter 4, that figure had fallen to just 12.52%.

The reported annual average assessment time was 46.42 weeks, compared with the 20-week measure.

Nationally, 46.1% of new EHC plans issued during 2025 were completed within the 20-week statutory timeframe, excluding applicable exceptions.

So this isn't something we should shrug at and say:

"Well, SEND is difficult everywhere."

It is difficult everywhere.

But the question is still whether Sandwell's performance is good enough.

If a child needs specialist support, 46 weeks is an enormous chunk of their school year.

For a five-year-old, it's a substantial portion of their entire life.

And rather than simply shouting "EHCP backlog", I want to know where the delay actually occurs.

Is it educational psychology?

Health assessments?

Social-care information?

School reports?

Decision panels?

Placement consultations?

Plan drafting?

Staffing?

Administration?

Because until we know where those weeks are disappearing, we aren't actually diagnosing the problem.

We're just counting it.

Then there's an extraordinary discrepancy in Sandwell's own figures

Here's something else that caught my eye.

On 21 July 2026, Sandwell Council said there were 4,064 children and young people with EHCPs.

The following day, in another council announcement about more than £2.5 million of SEND investment, the council gave a figure of 5,156 EHCPs.

That's a difference of 1,092.

I am not suggesting anything sinister here.

There may be a perfectly mundane explanation – perhaps different reporting dates, age cohorts or definitions.

But when you're planning schools, transport, staffing and services for thousands of vulnerable children, you'd hope everybody was at least using the same calculator.

So I've marked that figure as unresolved in my investigation rather than cherry-picking whichever one looks more dramatic.

The council should simply explain the difference.

Credit where it's due – investment is happening

It would be wrong to write this as though Sandwell is doing absolutely nothing.

It isn't.

The council approved a new SEND Sufficiency Strategy in July and has announced more than £2.5 million of investment, including work at Grace Mary Primary School, King George V Primary School and studies into creating further specialist SEND places.

That's welcome.

If it creates appropriate local places for children who would otherwise travel miles each day, even better.

But here's the important distinction:

announcing money is not the same as creating capacity.

Some of that funding relates to studies and preparatory work.

So for every announcement I think residents should be able to see:

How many additional SEND places does it create?

What needs will they support?

When will they open?

How many staff will be required?

Is the ongoing revenue funding secured?

And how many children currently travelling outside Sandwell will eventually be able to attend closer to home?

That's how we measure success.

Not by counting press releases.

Transport is part of the same problem

SEND transport is another area I'm going to investigate closely.

Because these issues feed directly into one another.

If Sandwell doesn't have the appropriate provision locally, children travel further.

When children travel further, transport becomes more complicated.

More complicated transport costs more money.

Longer journeys can place additional strain on children.

And families can find schools and services increasingly distant from their own communities.

Sandwell's SEND home-to-school transport expenditure was around £18 million in 2024/25, according to council scrutiny material.

Council evidence has also said that out-of-borough arrangements can, on average, be around 25% more expensive when provision and transport are considered together.

This is therefore about both children's wellbeing and taxpayers' money.

There is another question worth examining.

In its 2023 report, Ofsted recorded a partnership commitment that children and young people should not have to travel for more than 50 minutes to reach education or training.

The council's later transport policy uses different journey-time expectations, including up to 75 minutes each way for secondary pupils.

If those policies or commitments have changed, fine.

Explain why.

Because 75 minutes there and 75 minutes back can mean a child spending two and a half hours every school day travelling.

For some SEND children, that isn't just inconvenient.

It can be exhausting, distressing or extremely difficult to manage.

The investigation therefore needs actual journey-time data – not just a pleasant-looking average.

How many children travel more than 45 minutes?

More than 50?

More than an hour?

More than 75 minutes?

What's the longest journey?

How many require passenger assistants?

How many journeys are late, cancelled or changed?

How many appeals and complaints are being made?

One Sandwell school-transport case was upheld by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in September 2024 after faults were found in the council's handling of transport and the appeal. That one case does not prove systemic failure – but it does show why processes deserve examination.

SEND isn't only about school

There's another aspect which I worry gets forgotten whenever politicians talk about SEND.

Children don't cease being disabled when the school bell rings.

Families need:

activities, clubs, respite, short breaks, holiday provision and opportunities to socialise.

And Ofsted/CQC were quite clear about this in 2023.

They found there was not enough short-break capacity in Sandwell.

Summer holiday schemes could fill quickly on a first-come-first-served basis, leaving some children with nothing.

The range was particularly limited for children with complex needs and post-16 young people, with inspectors saying this contributed to some families feeling isolated.

That's significant.

Sandwell subsequently included commitments in its 2023–2026 Inclusion Plan to analyse waiting lists and unmet need and to improve the range of universal, targeted and specialist short-break opportunities.

So now, in 2026, we need to ask:

Did that happen?

Not:

"Is there a webpage listing some clubs?"

There is.

That's not the same thing.

We need to know capacity versus demand.

How many children need places?

How many get them?

How many are waiting?

How long?

What's available during school holidays?

What exists for children requiring 1:1 or 2:1 support?

What happens after they turn 16?

What respite exists for exhausted parents and carers?

And is provision reasonably available across all six towns of Sandwell, or does geography determine your chances?

Health has to be part of the investigation too

Ofsted and CQC specifically called for stronger working between education, health and social care so that children's needs could be identified and assessed more efficiently and promptly.

So I don't intend looking at this solely as a council education issue.

We need to consider:

community paediatrics;

speech and language therapy;

occupational therapy;

physiotherapy;

autism and ADHD assessment pathways;

mental-health support where applicable;

and the time taken for health professionals to provide statutory advice during EHCP assessments.

You cannot have an effective Education, Health and Care Plan system if one of those three words is operating on another planet.

And then there is the money

There is clearly a huge financial challenge here.

But there is also a danger of looking at SEND expenditure in separate little departmental boxes.

A shortage of local specialist places can mean expensive independent placements.

Those placements may be outside Sandwell.

That then generates additional transport costs.

Meanwhile pressure on the High Needs budget increases.

Which can reduce the money available to invest in local capacity.

Round and round we go.

It can become the municipal equivalent of paying £5 every day to avoid buying something for £50.

Sometimes external placements are absolutely the right option for an individual child.

The investigation must never start from the assumption that every child should be hauled back across the Sandwell boundary simply to save money.

The right placement must come first.

But where appropriate provision could be delivered locally, there are obvious educational, social and financial reasons for doing so.

This isn't going to become a party-political blame game

There's something else worth making clear.

Some of the problems identified here significantly predate the current Reform administration which took control of Sandwell Council in May 2026.

The Ofsted/CQC findings date from 2023.

The Inclusion Plan was produced under the previous Labour administration.

So it would be ridiculous to pretend everything currently wrong with SEND suddenly materialised after the May elections.

It didn't.

But equally, the new administration now owns the responsibility for what happens next.

You don't get to inherit the council chamber without inheriting the filing cabinets.

The present leadership should therefore be judged on whether it gets to grips with the problem, publishes meaningful information, listens to families and accelerates the provision Sandwell clearly needs.

Where it succeeds, I'll say so.

Where it doesn't, I'll say that too.

That's what being a critical friend is supposed to mean.

I've now started a Sandwell SEND Master Investigation

I've created a Sandwell SEND Master Foundation Document so this doesn't become another issue where important pieces of evidence vanish down assorted Facebook threads, committee papers and council webpages.

The investigation will track:

- growth in SEND and EHCP demand;

- EHCP waiting times and delays;

- special-school and resource-base capacity;

- out-of-borough placements;

- children on reduced timetables;

- alternative provision;

- SEND school transport;

- journey times;

- short breaks and respite;

- activities and holiday provision;

- post-16 provision;

- health and therapy capacity;

- High Needs funding;

- council capital investment;

- Ofsted/CQC recommendations;

- and, most importantly, promise versus delivery.

I will also be looking for information from parents, carers, teachers, support staff, SEND professionals and young people themselves.

Because statistics can tell us how many.

They don't always tell us what it feels like.

What I want Sandwell to demonstrate

I don't want another glossy strategy telling me that everybody is committed to "working together", "putting children at the heart of services" and "delivering positive outcomes".

Those phrases have been polished so often in local government they're probably visible from space.

Show us the numbers.

Show us the places.

Show us the waiting lists.

Show us the journey times.

Show us the short-break capacity.

Show us what was promised after the 2023 inspection.

Show us what was completed.

Show us what wasn't.

And if something failed – tell us why.

That's transparency.

Because behind every spreadsheet cell is a child

This is ultimately what matters.

An EHCP delayed for months isn't merely a red performance indicator.

It's a child potentially waiting for support.

A shortage of specialist places isn't merely an estates problem.

It's a family wondering where their child will be educated.

A 70-minute transport journey isn't merely a route optimisation exercise.

It's a child sitting in a vehicle before and after an already demanding school day.

A full holiday scheme isn't simply "100% utilisation".

It may mean an exhausted parent being told there is no respite place available.

That's why this deserves much more scrutiny.

And it will get it.

The SEND pressures facing Sandwell are substantial, they're growing, and much of this was foreseeable.

The question now is whether Sandwell's provision is growing quickly enough to meet them.

Based on what I've seen so far, there are some encouraging signs of investment.

There are also some very large warning lights flashing on the dashboard.

And I'm going to keep looking.

#Sandwell #SEND #SandwellSEND #SpecialEducationalNeeds #EHCP #Education #SENDChildren #SENDFamilies #AdditionalNeeds #SpecialEducation #SchoolPlaces #SENDTransport #ShortBreaks #RespiteCare #SandwellSchools #SandwellCouncil #LocalGovernment #EducationMatters #ChildrenAndYoungPeople #CriticalFriend #Accountability #Transparency #WestBromwich #Wednesbury #Oldbury #Smethwick #Tipton #RowleyRegis

A

Labour’s Great British Squeeze: Tax More, Spend More, Borrow More — Then Ask Us for More

Labour’s Great British Squeeze: Tax More, Spend More, Borrow More — Then Ask Us for More

There are plenty of memes flying around at the moment telling us that if we earn it, spend it, save it, invest it, drive it, eat it or eventually fall off our perch, somebody somewhere in government will find a way of taxing it.

They are funny because, like most decent satire, there is enough truth buried underneath the exaggeration to make people wince.

But I don't particularly want to base an argument against this Labour Government on memes.

Why bother?

The official figures are quite capable of doing the job themselves.

The more I have looked into Labour's record, the less need there is for wild claims, conspiracy theories or Facebook folklore.

There is a perfectly serious case to answer about taxation, borrowing, spending, immigration, pensions, businesses, elections and the simple matter of whether the British public are getting anything remotely resembling value for the enormous sums of money being taken from them.

So, in the finest tradition of the Yellow Pages — for younger readers, ask your grandparents — here is my alphabetical trawl through Labour's Great British Squeeze.

Put the kettle on.

This may take a while.

A IS FOR AGRICULTURE

Remember the row over inheritance tax and farms?

Labour originally proposed restricting full Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief to the first £1 million of qualifying assets.

Farmers pointed out that a farm can be worth a considerable amount on paper without its owner sitting in the kitchen bathing in champagne and £50 notes.

Cue protests.

Cue outrage.

Cue ministers explaining that everybody else had apparently misunderstood the policy.

And eventually?

Cue the retreat.

From April 2026 the full relief threshold was increased to £2.5 million per person, potentially £5 million between spouses or civil partners, before taking other relevant allowances into consideration.

That is a significant improvement on what Labour originally proposed.

But I refuse to join in the modern Westminster habit of congratulating governments for partially putting out fires they started themselves.

It's rather like somebody driving through your garden wall, reversing out and then expecting applause because they didn't demolish the conservatory as well.

A IS ALSO FOR ASYLUM

Labour has promised action on the Channel.

We have heard about smashing the gangs.

We have heard about enforcement.

We have heard about international cooperation.

We have heard quite a lot, actually.

Unfortunately the boats have continued arriving while we have been listening.

In the week ending 9 August 2026 alone the Home Office recorded 716 arrivals in ten boats.

Returns have increased, and it would be dishonest not to acknowledge that.

But the uncomfortable question remains:

Does the British state actually control its border?

Because control is not measured by how many times a minister says the word control.

It is measured by results.

And when thousands of people continue making irregular crossings while removals operate on a much smaller scale, there is still rather a large elephant sitting in the Home Office reception.

Probably filling out a consultation form.

B IS FOR BORROWING

Here is a number worth contemplating over your cornflakes:

£2.9899 trillion.

That was public-sector net debt at the end of June 2026.

In old-fashioned language:

nearly three trillion pounds.

That's roughly 94.9% of GDP.

Now here is the part I find especially interesting.

We are continually told that taxes have to rise because the public finances must be repaired.

Fair enough.

So why, while government is extracting an historically enormous amount of money from the population, are we still carrying enormous debt and borrowing?

At some point taxpayers are entitled to ask:

How exactly have we managed to combine high taxation with high spending and high debt?

Normally you would hope one of those things might reduce one of the others.

Apparently Britain has developed the deluxe package.

B IS ALSO FOR BUSINESS

Labour says it wants growth.

Quite right too.

It wants businesses to expand.

Excellent.

It wants employers to create jobs.

Splendid.

And then it increased employer National Insurance from 13.8% to 15% and lowered the threshold at which employers start paying it from £9,100 to £5,000.

There is something magnificently Whitehall about telling employers:

«Please employ more people.»

and then adding:

«Incidentally, we've made employing people more expensive.»

Businesses cannot create money in a photocopier.

Higher employment costs eventually appear somewhere.

Prices.

Margins.

Pay.

Recruitment.

Investment.

Or all of the above.

Government can describe it as a tax on employers until the cows come home.

The employer still has to find the money.

---

C IS FOR CAPITAL GAINS

Labour increased the main lower Capital Gains Tax rate from 10% to 18%, and the higher rate from 20% to 24%.

Business Asset Disposal Relief has also become less generous.

We hear constantly that Britain needs entrepreneurs.

Risk takers.

Investors.

People prepared to build businesses.

Very good.

But entrepreneurship generally involves somebody risking their own money, time and security while government risks absolutely none of those things.

If the business collapses, the Treasury doesn't normally send round a chap with a sympathy card and half the losses.

But if it succeeds?

Ah.

Suddenly everyone is family.

---

C IS ALSO FOR CASH ISAs

From April 2027, Labour plans to restrict the cash element of an ISA to £12,000 for most people under 65, while retaining the overall ISA allowance.

There are economic arguments for encouraging people to invest rather than leave everything sitting in cash.

But I can't help noticing how often government lectures people about personal responsibility and then becomes remarkably interested in directing what they do once they actually behave responsibly.

Save for yourself.

But not like that.

Invest.

But preferably how we'd like you to.

Make provision for your future.

But please consult the Treasury's latest behavioural preferences first.

Sometimes I wonder whether the Treasury secretly dreams of being everybody's financial adviser.

Only one that sends you the bill afterwards.

---

D IS FOR DEBT

Debt deserves another mention because it exposes the contradiction at the centre of the whole thing.

Britain has:

high taxes;

high spending;

high borrowing;

and high debt.

It is difficult to look at that combination and conclude everything is going swimmingly.

If taxation were soaring while debt was collapsing, ministers could argue that painful medicine was repairing the books.

But taxation is rising while the state remains enormously indebted.

So the taxpayer gets today's bill.

Future taxpayers inherit tomorrow's.

It's intergenerational generosity, Westminster-style.

---

E IS FOR ELECTRIC CARS

For years government encouraged motorists to buy electric cars.

Help save the planet.

Move away from petrol and diesel.

Enjoy the tax advantages.

Very environmentally virtuous.

Then enough people bought electric cars for the Treasury to notice something alarming:

fuel-duty receipts eventually decline if people stop buying fuel.

Fear not.

From April 2028 Labour intends to introduce mileage-based Electric Vehicle Excise Duty.

The proposed rates are 3p per mile for fully electric cars and 1.5p for plug-in hybrids.

And thus we discover one of the immutable laws of British government:

If Whitehall encourages you to do something successfully enough, the Treasury will eventually find a way of taxing it.

---

F IS FOR FISCAL DRAG

This is one of Westminster's cleverer tricks.

Don't increase the headline income-tax rate.

Simply freeze the thresholds.

Allow wages to rise with inflation.

Gradually pull more people into taxation and more taxpayers into higher bands.

Then stand at the despatch box saying:

We haven't increased the basic rate of income tax.

Technically true.

Financially rather less comforting.

Labour did not invent this.

The Conservatives started the threshold freeze.

That should be made perfectly clear.

But Labour inherited the machine and apparently decided it was much too useful to turn off.

The Office for Budget Responsibility expects frozen thresholds to raise tens of billions.

A stealth tax is still a tax even if nobody cuts a ribbon when it opens.

---

F IS ALSO FOR FRANCE

Remember "one in, one out"?

Beautifully simple slogan.

By 30 June 2026, 1,087 people had been returned from Britain to France under the arrangement.

Meanwhile 1,117 people had entered Britain legally from France through the reciprocal route.

Now, before somebody gets excited, the agreement was always reciprocal.

So the mere fact that slightly more people had come legally into Britain than had been returned does not prove some grand betrayal.

But here is the rather more serious question:

Does a returns mechanism operating in the low thousands remotely match the scale of Channel crossings?

It may be a tool.

A teaspoon is also a tool.

You wouldn't use one to empty Birmingham's canal network.

---

G IS FOR GROWTH

Growth.

Growth.

Growth.

If Labour ministers said "growth" much more often I'm half expecting it to appear on National Lottery scratchcards.

Everything is apparently being done for growth.

Tax rises bring stability, which brings growth.

Infrastructure will bring growth.

Planning reform will bring growth.

Investment brings growth.

More government schemes will bring growth.

Wonderful.

At some point, however, growth has to become something more tangible than a word printed on Treasury slides.

People need to feel it.

Businesses need to see it.

Living standards need to reflect it.

Productivity has to improve.

Investment has to follow.

Government cannot simply chant "growth" over the economy like an incantation.

The economy isn't Beetlejuice.

---

I IS FOR INHERITANCE TAX AND PENSIONS

From April 2027, most unused pension funds and death benefits are due to be brought within estates for inheritance-tax purposes.

Now let's get one thing straight.

The online claim that Labour will simply take 40% of everybody's pension when they die is nonsense.

Not every estate pays inheritance tax.

Thresholds and exemptions matter.

But the underlying policy change is absolutely real.

And there is something rather dispiriting about the sequence.

Work.

Pay tax.

Save.

Build a pension.

Make provision for yourself.

Try not to become dependent upon the state.

Then discover that the state has found another way of taking an interest in the accumulated pot.

It sometimes feels as though personal responsibility is greatly admired in Britain right up until it produces an asset.

---

L IS FOR LABOUR MARKET

UK unemployment stood at around 4.9% in March to May 2026.

That isn't economic Armageddon.

But nor should ministers become too comfortable.

Labour has increased the cost of employment while simultaneously declaring economic growth its overriding objective.

Jobs are overwhelmingly created by businesses, not government press offices.

Every additional cost placed on employers eventually feeds into decisions about whether to take another person on.

Politicians announce job creation.

Employers actually sign the payslips.

The distinction is worth remembering.

---

L IS ALSO FOR LOCAL ELECTIONS

This one should concern people whatever their politics.

Local elections were postponed in some areas in 2025 because of reorganisation.

Then the Government proposed postponing elections in 30 councils in May 2026.

Legal proceedings followed.

Legal advice followed.

And the Government reversed its position.

One claim circulating online says Labour lost a court case.

It didn't.

The decision was reversed before a final judgment.

But why embellish something that is already troubling?

The Government proposed delaying millions of people's opportunity to vote in local elections.

Then, after legal challenge and legal advice, it changed course.

Elections are not an optional administrative accessory.

They are the bit where the public get to tell politicians what they think of them.

Possibly why politicians should be exceptionally reluctant to postpone them.

---

N IS FOR NHS

Here's somewhere Labour can point to some genuine improvement.

By March 2026 around 65.3% of patients were waiting no longer than 18 weeks for elective treatment, an improvement from the position Labour inherited.

Good.

Credit where it is due.

Unfortunately the NHS constitutional standard is above 92%.

So yes, things have improved.

But perhaps hold off commissioning the brass band.

If Britain is paying historically enormous amounts of tax, taxpayers are entitled to expect services that don't merely improve from poor to somewhat less poor.

The question isn't simply:

Is it better than before?

It should also be:

Is it anywhere near good enough for what we are paying?

---

P IS FOR PENSIONS

From April 2029 Labour plans to restrict the amount of pension contribution made through salary sacrifice that receives National Insurance relief to £2,000 a year.

Again, another future measure rather than something happening today.

But I struggle with the policy logic.

Britain has an ageing population.

Governments tell people to make better private provision for retirement.

Then government gradually reduces the incentives for making private provision.

Maybe next year they'll launch a campaign:

SAVE FOR YOUR FUTURE — TERMS AND CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO WHATEVER THE TREASURY THINKS IN THREE YEARS' TIME.

Catchy.

---

P IS ALSO FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS

Since January 2025, private school fees have been subject to 20% VAT.

Charitable business-rates relief was also removed.

People can argue endlessly about private education.

Fine.

But let's at least describe the policy accurately.

It is another extension of taxation.

Parents choosing independent education generally still pay the same taxes supporting state education while not taking a state-funded school place.

Labour's answer was to place VAT on the fees.

Supporters call that fairness.

Critics see a government spotting another area of private spending and thinking:

Ooh. Revenue.

Take your pick.

---

P IS ALSO FOR PUBLIC SPENDING

This is where my eyebrows begin trying to leave my forehead.

Britain isn't a country in which government has no money.

Government receipts run to well over a trillion pounds every year.

Government then spends even more.

And borrows the difference.

Yet almost every national problem seems eventually to produce the same answer:

More money.

NHS struggling?

More money.

Councils struggling?

More money.

Defence?

More money.

Infrastructure?

More money.

Energy?

More money.

Another government programme to explain why previous government programmes haven't worked?

Probably more money.

Eventually taxpayers are entitled to ask a fairly basic question:

WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH THE MONEY YOU ALREADY HAVE?

Because there comes a point where "underfunding" cannot be the universal explanation for every badly performing public body.

Sometimes management is poor.

Sometimes productivity is poor.

Sometimes priorities are wrong.

Sometimes money is wasted.

And sometimes politicians are simply much better at spending other people's money than explaining what happened to it afterwards.

---

T IS FOR TAX

Now we arrive at the star of the show.

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts National Accounts taxes rising from around 34.5% of GDP in 2024/25 to 38.5% by 2030/31.

A post-war record.

Labour didn't create Britain's high-tax economy from scratch.

The Conservatives made a substantial contribution to getting us here, and pretending otherwise would simply be dishonest.

But what did Labour do when it inherited an already enormous tax burden?

Did it begin dismantling it?

No.

It added more.

Employer National Insurance.

Capital Gains Tax changes.

Inheritance-tax changes.

VAT on private school fees.

Continuing fiscal drag.

Further pension and motoring taxation in the pipeline.

Labour inherited a tax mountain.

Then sent for the builders.

---

U IS FOR U-TURNS

Farm inheritance tax.

Winter Fuel Payment.

Local elections.

And various other retreats and revisions.

Governments should change policy when policies are wrong.

I'm not criticising anybody merely for admitting a mistake.

But there is a difference between being responsive and repeatedly driving into a wall before discovering reverse gear.

The pattern often seems to be:

announce;

defend;

tell critics they're wrong;

discover critics have a point;

retreat;

announce that government is listening.

Perhaps a little more listening at Stage One could save quite a lot of Stage Five.

---

V IS FOR VAT

The meme saying "if you spend it, they tax it" is obviously an exaggeration.

Not everything attracts VAT.

Most basic food is zero-rated.

Many transactions are exempt.

But memes work when people recognise something underneath them.

And people do.

Earn.

Tax.

Employ somebody.

Tax.

Buy things.

Tax.

Run a business.

Tax.

Invest.

Potential tax.

Sell an asset at a gain.

Potential tax.

Own property.

More taxes and charges.

Leave a sufficiently large estate.

Tax again.

Not everyone pays all of those.

But British citizens increasingly feel that the state appears at an extraordinary number of stages between earning money and eventually passing it on.

With the tax burden heading towards a post-war record, that feeling isn't entirely the product of somebody's imagination.

---

W IS FOR WELFARE

One widely shared statistic says welfare spending now exceeds income-tax receipts.

There is a numerical basis for comparing those figures, but context matters enormously.

The welfare figure includes the State Pension.

Income tax is only one source of government revenue.

So no, Britain isn't simply taking £331 billion from workers and handing £333 billion to people sitting at home watching daytime television.

That is rubbish.

But there is still an enormous fiscal challenge.

An ageing population.

Growing pension costs.

Long-term sickness.

Economic inactivity.

A vast social-security budget.

The serious question is:

How do we sustain a humane safety net without making those who work, employ, save and invest carry an ever-growing burden?

That is a much harder question than shouting "benefits".

And Labour needs an answer that consists of something more imaginative than reaching deeper into the same taxpayers' pockets.

---

W IS ALSO FOR WINTER FUEL

Labour restricted Winter Fuel Payment.

There was a massive political backlash.

Labour then substantially reversed course.

So anyone saying today that Labour simply abolished Winter Fuel Payment is using an outdated line.

But the actual story is hardly flattering.

The Government introduced a highly controversial restriction.

Defended it.

Took an absolute political kicking.

Then retreated.

You can call that listening.

I suspect many pensioners might use a slightly different phrase.

---

SO WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH?

This is the interesting part.

Throw away the dodgy social-media claims.

Throw away conspiracy theories.

Throw away the things that haven't been properly evidenced.

Throw away policies inherited from the Conservatives that are wrongly blamed solely on Labour.

Throw away future taxes presented as though they were already in force.

And what remains?

A heck of a lot.

A Labour Government presiding over a tax burden heading towards a post-war record.

Debt hovering around £3 trillion.

Higher employer National Insurance.

Higher Capital Gains Tax.

VAT on private school fees.

Inheritance-tax changes affecting pensions.

Future restrictions on pension salary sacrifice.

A future mileage tax for electric cars.

Frozen thresholds quietly pulling more people into tax.

A small-boats problem far from solved.

A France returns scheme operating at a scale that looks distinctly modest beside the overall problem.

Local elections Labour wanted to postpone before reversing course after legal pressure.

Enormous public spending.

Enormous borrowing.

And public services which, while improving in some areas, remain nowhere near the standard one might reasonably expect from a country taking such an enormous share of national income in taxation.

You don't need a conspiracy theory.

You need a calculator.

---

THE QUESTION LABOUR SHOULD BE ASKED AGAIN AND AGAIN

For me, it comes down to one thing:

WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?

If the tax burden is heading towards 38.5% of GDP, where is the transformation?

If national debt is around £3 trillion, where is the transformation?

If government is spending more than it raises and borrowing the difference, where is the transformation?

Where are the public services functioning so brilliantly that the public thinks:

"You know what? Fair enough. Worth every penny."

Where is the visibly controlled border?

Where is the dramatic productivity improvement?

Where is the infrastructure revolution?

Where are the local services that make people gasp in admiration rather than sit on hold listening to Greensleeves for forty minutes?

Where is the prosperity ordinary families can actually feel?

Where is the state so efficient that taxpayers begrudgingly admit:

"They don't half spend it well."

Because if you demand record levels of taxation, the public has every right to demand record levels of competence.

---

AND PLEASE, STOP BLAMING THE LAST LOT FOREVER

Labour inherited a mess in a number of areas.

Absolutely.

The Conservatives left office with high debt, high taxation, enormous NHS pressures and serious structural problems.

That is part of the historical record.

But "the last Government" cannot become a four-year substitute for governing.

Every month Labour remains in office, Labour owns more of what happens.

Every Budget is Labour's.

Every tax change Labour chooses is Labour's.

Every spending priority is Labour's.

Every policy it announces and then reverses is Labour's.

Every opportunity to reform government that it declines is Labour's.

Eventually the stabilisers have to come off.

---

TAX MORE. SPEND MORE. BORROW MORE.

Perhaps the original meme needs updating.

Not:

If you earn it, they tax it.

That's too simplistic.

How about this?

You earn it.

They tax some of it.

You employ somebody.

They tax that too.

You invest successfully.

The Treasury takes an interest.

You save for retirement.

The rules change.

You buy the electric car government encouraged you to buy.

A mileage tax eventually arrives.

You build up assets.

Inheritance-tax policy changes.

Government spends the tax.

Then government spends some more.

Then government borrows the difference.

Then government explains that public services need more money.

Then comes another Budget.

At which point the taxpayer nervously checks whether the Chancellor has noticed anything else they own.

Perhaps Labour's economic strategy could therefore be condensed into five simple lines:

TAX MORE.

SPEND MORE.

BORROW MORE.

PROMISE MORE.

DELIVER TOO LITTLE.

And when somebody asks why the sums still don't add up?

Apparently there is always another black hole waiting to be discovered.

Funny, that.

The only hole that never seems difficult to locate is the one in the taxpayer's pocket.

---

Sources used in checking the figures and policies discussed above include HM Government and GOV.UK publications, the Office for Budget Responsibility, Office for National Statistics, Home Office, NHS England and House of Commons Library.

As ever, if somebody can demonstrate that a figure or factual statement is wrong, I am more than happy to correct it. Political opinion is fair game. Facts should remain facts.

#Labour #LabourGovernment #UKPolitics #Tax #TaxBurden #CostOfLiving #PublicSpending #NationalDebt #Borrowing #FiscalDrag #NationalInsurance #CapitalGainsTax #InheritanceTax #Pensions #SmallBoats #Immigration #NHS #LocalDemocracy #WinterFuelPayment #ElectricVehicles #Business #EconomicGrowth #PublicServices #GovernmentSpending #Taxpayer #Westminster #PoliticalAccountability #GovernmentAccountability #BritishPolitics #ValueForMoney

Sandwell Council has been busy again.

Sandwell Council has been busy again.

The latest Sandwell News & Events Update, issued on 14 August 2026, landed with the usual colourful mixture of useful public information, community activities, council achievements and enough things to do to keep most of us occupied until the clocks go back.

And, to be fair, there is quite a lot to like.

There are important warnings about deliberately started fires, advice around water safety, help for young people receiving exam results, vaccination information, free swimming, holiday activities, allotments, events, healthy-living opportunities and support services.

That is exactly what a council newsletter should be doing.

Nobody needs a 94-page committee report when what they actually want to know is whether the kids can swim for free on Tuesday afternoon.

So credit where credit is due.

But regular readers will know that I tend to suffer from a terrible affliction.

I read the small print.

And occasionally I even click the links.

Welcome to Sandwell's digital newspaper

First, a little housekeeping.

I originally thought we'd discussed this particular bulletin before.

We had.

Sort of.

It turns out “Your latest Sandwell news and events update” is essentially Sandwell Council's recurring GovDelivery newsletter title rather than the name of one particular campaign.

Think of it as the online cousin of the Sandwell Herald.

The format has been around for years and generally follows a familiar recipe:

Take one part useful information.

Add two cups of council activity.

Sprinkle generously with events.

Add councillors where available.

Finish with a photograph of something wholesome.

Bake until positive.

And, generally speaking, it works.

The interesting question is not whether councils should tell us what they are doing.

Of course they should.

The question is whether they tell us how well it worked as enthusiastically as they tell us that it happened.

Safer 6: lots happened

The latest bulletin celebrates Safer 6, Sandwell's six-week community-safety campaign.

The published headline figures are impressive enough:

50-plus events.

More than 5,000 people reached.

Seven partners involved.

That's certainly activity.

And there is plenty of genuine partnership work behind it involving the council, police, fire service, community organisations and others.

But here's my slightly boring question.

What does “5,000 people reached” actually mean?

Someone walked past a stall?

Someone accepted a leaflet?

Someone had a twenty-minute conversation?

Someone reported antisocial behaviour?

Someone received support?

Someone's neighbourhood subsequently became safer?

Those are very different things.

This isn't criticism of Safer 6.

It's actually an argument for showing us more.

Because:

50 events tells us what happened.

5,000 people reached tells us the size of the audience.

But neither necessarily tells us what changed.

So perhaps future Safer 6 reports could include:

What we did → What happened → What difference it made.

That would turn a good publicity figure into useful public accountability.

Meanwhile, Griff and Cooper have entered the building

One of the newsletter's stars is undoubtedly Trading Standards detection dogs Griff and Cooper, pictured visiting Sandwell Council House.

Apparently they received plenty of fuss.

Quite right too.

Any creature voluntarily entering a council building deserves a biscuit.

And I have absolutely no objection to councils occasionally communicating through something more entertaining than “Appendix 4B – Revised Corporate Risk Register”.

Dogs get attention.

Attention gets people reading.

That's communications.

But the really interesting story behind Griff and Cooper is enforcement.

How many operations?

How many premises?

How many illegal goods seized?

What value?

How many prosecutions, closures or other enforcement actions resulted?

Keep the dogs.

Just put the scoreboard underneath them.

Food waste – surprisingly solid

The newsletter also says that an average family could be wasting around £1,000 a year in food.

My first reaction was roughly:

“£1,000? Who's throwing away the lobster?”

But the figure stacks up against national food-waste research.

So fair play to Sandwell here.

The council is also running a Food Waste Survey, which seems perfectly reasonable.

The important bit comes later.

How many people responded?

Where were they from?

What did they say?

What changes as a result?

Because one of my recurring bugbears with public consultation is the phrase:

“Residents told us…”

Whenever I see that, my inner anorak immediately asks:

Which residents?

Three?

Thirty?

Three thousand?

And were two of them councillors?

Now for the curious omission

And this is where things get rather more interesting.

At the same time that the newsletter was promoting the Food Waste Survey, Sandwell had other significant consultations running.

Including the early consultation on the new Sandwell Local Plan.

For anyone unfamiliar with local government terminology, the Local Plan is rather important.

It deals with things such as:

housing;

development;

employment land;

infrastructure;

the environment;

climate;

healthy communities;

and broadly speaking what gets built where across Sandwell for years to come.

Rather more consequential than whether I've got three suspicious carrots in the bottom drawer of the fridge.

Yet the Local Plan consultation didn't feature in this particular general News & Events Update.

Nor, apparently, did the council's live housing Asset Management Delivery Strategy consultation, dealing with areas including repairs, maintenance, building safety, investment and value for money.

To be clear:

I am not alleging anybody deliberately hid them.

They may have been promoted elsewhere.

They may appear in another bulletin.

But from a critical-friend perspective this seems an obvious communications improvement.

Why not have a permanent section in every newsletter called:

HAVE YOUR SAY

And list every major live council consultation?

No hunting around.

No discovering it three days before closing.

No requiring residents to develop the investigative skills of Sherlock Holmes combined with someone who understands the council website search function.

Just put them there.

Every time.

Friday night at the market

The bulletin also advertises free live music at the new West Bromwich Indoor Market.

Again, I don't have an issue with that.

The redevelopment specifically set out to create more than simply rows of stalls. Food, culture, entertainment and activity were part of the concept.

That makes sense.

Town centres need reasons for people to stay rather than simply arrive, purchase one cabbage and immediately catch the bus home.

The question here is value for money.

After the programme has had time to establish itself, it would be useful to know:

Does Friday-evening footfall rise?

Do traders benefit?

Do people stay longer?

Does the food offer benefit?

What does the entertainment programme cost?

Because the right question isn't:

“Why are they putting singers in a market?”

It's:

“Is putting singers in the market helping make the town centre work?”

Very different question.

Community groups: give them their names back

One thing Sandwell has done rather well in some earlier newsletters is recognising the enormous contribution made by voluntary and community organisations.

That's important.

Councils don't deliver everything.

Nor should they.

Charities, residents' groups, faith organisations, volunteers, neighbourhood organisations, sports groups and local businesses often do tremendous work.

Sometimes council communications condense all of that into:

“The council and its partners…”

Poor old partners.

Years of volunteering and they've become two words at the end of a sentence.

Where community organisations genuinely helped deliver something, name them.

It costs nothing.

And “Sandwell Council enabled local organisations to deliver great things” is every bit as positive a story as:

“Sandwell Council did everything.”

Then there's the Sandwell Herald

The printed Sandwell Herald is the bigger, glossier relative of the email bulletin.

Again, there is plenty of genuinely useful material in it.

Safety information.

Events.

Services.

Activities.

Contact information.

Community initiatives.

But its corporate tone is noticeably stronger.

The Summer 2026 edition celebrates things including Safer 6, business activity, improvements, the council's national recognition and the new Cabinet.

Nothing inherently wrong with celebrating achievement.

The slightly delicate point following the May election is that much of Sandwell's performance during 2025/26 occurred before the new Reform administration took office.

So communications need to retain a little historical discipline.

Good inherited performance doesn't suddenly become something achieved since May.

Likewise, problems inherited in May weren't suddenly created by the new administration either.

A new administration inherits both the silverware and the washing-up.

What happens next is what it can properly be judged on.

Sandwell already shows it can do candour

Here's perhaps the most encouraging thing I found.

Some of Sandwell's specialist communications are actually considerably more open about challenges.

The council's SEND communications, for example, have acknowledged that despite progress there remains “a long way to go”, as well as discussing service pressure, workforce difficulties and financial constraints.

That's good communication.

It doesn't make the council look weak.

It makes the council look credible.

Residents don't expect everything to be perfect.

Most of us have met Sandwell.

What people increasingly want is:

What's going well?

What's going badly?

Why?

And what are you doing about it?

Imagine a little section in the News & Events Update:

HOW WE'RE DOING

✅ One thing improving.

⚠️ One thing requiring improvement.

🔧 What we're doing about it.

That might do more for public trust than another photograph of someone holding an oversized ceremonial cheque.

So is the newsletter any good?

Actually, yes.

That's probably not the conclusion some people expected.

The latest Sandwell News & Events Update contains plenty of genuinely useful information.

Someone may avoid starting a fire because of it.

Someone may seek help following difficult exam results.

A family may find free activities.

A child may receive a vaccination.

Someone may discover a community activity they didn't know existed.

That's meaningful public value.

My criticism is therefore not:

Stop telling us good things.

It is:

Tell us the whole story more often.

Tell us what happened.

Tell us how much happened.

Tell us what it cost where appropriate.

Tell us what changed.

Tell us who helped.

Tell us how many residents actually responded.

Tell us when something hasn't worked.

And please, if you're asking residents what Sandwell should look like for the next twenty years…

put the Local Plan consultation somewhere between the dogs and the Motown.

That shouldn't be too much to ask.

Because good council communications shouldn't simply leave residents thinking:

“Sandwell has been busy.”

They should leave us understanding:

“Sandwell has been busy, here's what it achieved, here's what didn't work, and here's where you can influence what happens next.”

That would make a pretty good newsletter.

And I promise Griff and Cooper can still have their photograph.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SandwellNews #SandwellHerald #LocalGovernment #CouncilCommunications #Transparency #Accountability #CommunityEngagement #PublicConsultation #HaveYourSay #SandwellLocalPlan #Safer6 #CommunitySafety #WestBromwich #WestBromwichMarket #TradingStandards #ValueForMoney #SummerOfFun #VoluntarySector #CriticalFriend