Sandwell’s First Test Of Change: New Council, Same Old Machinery?

Sandwell’s First Test Of Change: New Council, Same Old Machinery?

Pre-meeting blog — based on the public documents available as of 5pm today, Tuesday 26 May 2026.

Tonight at 6pm, Sandwell’s new council meets for its Annual Full Council meeting.

This is the first major meeting since Reform took control of Sandwell Council, ending decades of Labour dominance. So let’s be very clear from the start: this is not just a ceremonial bunting-and-chain-wearing evening.

This is the meeting where the new council starts building the machinery of power.

Who leads.
Who chairs.
Who sits on scrutiny.
Who controls the constitution.
Who represents Sandwell on outside bodies.
Who gets responsibility for housing, children’s services, regeneration, waste, public safety, planning, health and finance.

In other words, tonight is where Reform either starts dismantling Labour’s managed-democracy machine — or quietly climbs into the driver’s seat and carries on using it.

I’ll try to post live commentary if anything changes during the meeting. But this article is based on the public agenda papers and supplementary documents available as of 5pm today.

And frankly, there is already plenty to chew on.

The missing papers have finally appeared

The first version of the Annual Council pack was poor.

It told us there would be appointments to Cabinet, committees and outside bodies — but did not actually show many of the names. Very helpful. The democratic equivalent of saying, “Trust us, we’ll fill in the blanks later.”

Now the supplementary pack has arrived. It has grown to 148 pages and finally includes Cabinet portfolios, committee memberships, scrutiny chairs, outside-body nominations and the meeting timetable. The agenda confirms the Annual Council meeting is at 6pm, Tuesday 26 May 2026, at Sandwell Council House.

So now we can see the real power map.

And that map raises serious questions.

Ray Nock: Leader, Regeneration, Growth, Assets, Local Plan, WMCA…

Councillor Ray Nock is listed as Leader of the Council.

The Leader role is already huge. The document says he will oversee the administration’s manifesto commitments, core council strategies, communications, transformation, service improvement, policy, partnerships and holding the Chief Executive to account.

Fair enough. That is what a Leader does.

But then it goes further.

Councillor Nock is also listed as Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economic Growth. That portfolio includes regeneration, economic growth, inward investment, strategic assets and land, planning policy, transportation, the Local Plan and major road schemes.

That is not a small side-hustle.

That is one of the most powerful portfolios in the council.

So the obvious question is this:

Is too much power being concentrated in one pair of hands?

Because regeneration, planning policy, land, assets, WMCA funding, transport and the Local Plan are exactly the areas where Sandwell needs transparency, not centralisation.

We have already seen what happens when too much is controlled by too few. Labour did it for years. Residents got consultation theatre, regeneration fog, planning frustration and endless corporate waffle.

Reform should be careful not to build the same castle and simply repaint the flag.

The Constitution Committee: this is the biggest red flag

This is the one that really jumps off the page.

The Governance and Constitutional Review Committee is proposed to be chaired by Councillor Ray Nock, with Councillor Gary Dale as Deputy Chair.

Councillor Nock is the Leader.

Councillor Dale is the Statutory Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services.

So the Leader and Deputy Leader are sitting at the top of the committee responsible for reviewing the Constitution.

After everything Sandwell residents have witnessed with public participation being squeezed, meetings being over-managed, time limits being waved around like traffic lights at a children’s disco, and Full Council becoming more procedural than democratic, this is not a good look.

The people who benefit most from executive power should not be chairing the committee that reviews the rules constraining executive power.

That is not change.

That is a conflict of political culture waiting to happen.

If Reform really wants to prove it is different, this committee should be visibly independent from the executive. It should be where public participation is opened up, not where power marks its own homework.

Scrutiny: Reform scrutinising Reform?

The supplement names the main scrutiny chairs.

The Budget and Corporate Scrutiny Management Board is chaired by Councillor Tim Hordley. The Children’s Services and Education Scrutiny Board is chaired by Councillor David Williams. Economy, Skills, Transport and Environment is chaired by Councillor Tim Hordley. Health and Adult Social Care is chaired by Councillor Mark Webb. Safer Neighbourhoods and Active Communities is chaired by Councillor Tuli Zefi.

That appears to put Reform in control of all the main scrutiny chairs.

Now yes, Reform won the election. They have the numbers. Nobody is pretending otherwise.

But scrutiny is not supposed to be a victory lap.

Scrutiny is supposed to challenge the executive. It is supposed to test decisions, expose risk, follow the money, drag problems into daylight and ask the awkward questions Cabinet would rather not hear.

If Reform controls Cabinet and also controls all the chairs scrutinising Cabinet, then residents are entitled to ask:

Is this scrutiny with teeth, or scrutiny with a party badge?

Labour spent years turning scrutiny into a polite ritual. Reform should not copy the template.

A genuine fresh start would involve giving opposition or Independent councillors meaningful scrutiny roles — not token scraps, but proper opportunities to lead reviews on housing, SEND, waste, public participation, regeneration, planning and safeguarding.

The Greens deserve credit on the Independent councillor issue

The council composition is now:

Reform 41, Labour 28, Green 2, Independent 1.

The supplement confirms that the Independent councillor is not part of a political group and therefore is not automatically entitled to committee seats under proportionality rules.

That may be legally correct, but it is still democratically awkward. An Independent councillor represents residents just as much as any party councillor.

To their credit, the Green Group appears to have offered one of its seats to Independent Councillor Richard Jeffcoat on the General Licensing Committee and Budget and Corporate Scrutiny Management Board.

Credit where it is due.

The smaller group made space for the Independent voice. The bigger groups should take note.

Cabinet Petitions Committee: Cabinet still marking its own homework

Here is another inherited Labour-style problem.

The Cabinet Petitions Committee remains made up of Cabinet: chair lead portfolio holder plus eight Cabinet members.

So petitions from residents are still effectively handled by the executive.

That is the same core problem we criticised before.

Petitions should be one of the public’s routes into power. Instead, Sandwell’s model risks making petitions feel like residents pleading with the very people responsible for the services they are complaining about.

Cabinet judging petitions about Cabinet-controlled services is not exactly independent scrutiny.

It is Cabinet marking its own homework — with a slightly cleaner pen.

Reform should review this quickly.

Housing finally gets the attention it deserves — now deliver

Councillor Ken Parsons is listed as Deputy Leader Political and Cabinet Member for Housing.

The portfolio is serious. It includes housing improvement and transformation, compliance and building safety, repairs backlog, capital improvement, customer journey, consumer standards, IT systems, workforce, culture change, climate response and building new council houses.

Good.

Housing needs that prominence.

But this is also where Reform’s excuses will run out fastest.

Residents will not care that Labour left a mess if their repairs still don’t happen, damp and mould still drag on, complaints still go unanswered, and tenants still feel ignored.

Housing is now politically owned.

No hiding. No waffle. No “journey”. No “transformation” fog machine.

Fix the repairs.
Improve communication.
Publish performance.
Show tenants what is changing.

Children, SEND and safeguarding: name CSE properly

Councillor Mona Khurana is Cabinet Member for Children and Families, with responsibility for child protection, SEND, Sandwell Children’s Trust, youth services and youth justice.

That is a crucial portfolio.

But here is the warning: Reform must not repeat Labour’s cowardice on language.

For too long, Sandwell Labour was willing to talk about violence against women and girls, misogyny, allyship and fashionable villains — but somehow repeatedly avoided explicitly naming:

Child Sexual Exploitation.
Grooming gangs.
Organised rape of children.

That silence was disgraceful.

If Reform is serious about safeguarding, then CSE and grooming must be named plainly in training, scrutiny, safeguarding reports and public policy.

Not hidden inside broad phrases.
Not buried under “all forms of abuse”.
Not left to residents to raise from the sidelines.

The girls who were failed deserve honesty, not political choreography.

Environment and Enforcement: one monster portfolio

Councillor Bob Jones takes Environment and Enforcement.

This portfolio covers waste, recycling, fly-tipping, anti-social behaviour, community safety, highways, parks, green spaces, public protection, air quality, road safety, allotments and net zero.

That is not a portfolio. That is a municipal obstacle course.

It includes many of the issues residents raise constantly:

• bins;
• fly-tipping;
• street cleaning;
• dangerous roads;
• potholes;
• parks;
• ASB;
• public protection;
• air quality;
• green spaces;
• waste contracts;
• Serco performance;
• environmental neglect.

This portfolio needs measurable public reporting from day one.

Residents should not have to rely on glossy press releases and “we are working with partners” nonsense. They need ward-level data, response times, complaint trends, enforcement action, fly-tipping hotspots, Serco performance and highways priorities.

Climate Change Working Group: unfinished already?

One of the most embarrassing parts of the supplement is the Climate Change Working Group entry.

It lists a Cabinet Member and eight elected members — but the councillor names appear blank, with repeated “Councillor” placeholders.

Brilliant.

The council keeps telling us about net zero, air quality, climate emergency, flood risk and environmental leadership — but cannot even fill in the names on the Climate Change Working Group in the public supplement.

New era, same proofreading department.

This needs correcting tonight.

Armed Forces Champion: still “to be determined”

Another awkward one.

The supplement lists Heritage Champion: Councillor Cooper.

But Armed Forces Champion is still “to be determined”.

That matters because the March Full Council carried a motion on Sandwell “Going for Gold” in support of the Armed Forces community. That motion called for Gold Award status, an Armed Forces Employment and Engagement Strategy, and proper coordination.

So the council passed the grand motion, but the champion role is not even filled in the supplement.

Very Sandwell.

Warm words first. Details to follow. Maybe. Eventually. After a working group. Possibly.

Outside bodies: where power disappears into partnership land

The outside-body appointments are extensive.

Councillor Nock appears across a significant number of regional and strategic bodies, including the LGA, SIGOMA, Black Country bodies, WMCA Board, WMCA Investment Board, WMCA Growth Company, WMCA Employment Committee, Investment Zone Board, Town Deal boards and more.

Some of that is normal for a council Leader.

But there must be accountability.

Outside bodies are where decisions, influence, funding, partnerships and regional strategy often happen away from ordinary public view. That is why every outside-body representative should produce an annual written report to Full Council.

Meetings attended.
Key decisions.
Funding opportunities.
Risks.
Sandwell impact.
Conflicts.
Actions required.

No more disappearing into “partnership land” and returning with a lanyard and three buzzwords.

Planning: watch this like a hawk

Planning Committee is chaired by Councillor Paul Snape, with Councillor Geoffrey Sutton as Deputy Chair.

Planning will be one of the most sensitive areas of this new council.

Why?

Because planning touches everything:

• Friar Park;
• Local Plan;
• housing targets;
• green space;
• traffic;
• air quality;
• flooding;
• biodiversity;
• Section 106;
• CIL;
• developer obligations;
• enforcement;
• HMOs;
• regeneration;
• public trust.

The constitution still delegates a great deal to officers, including applications not reserved to committee, Section 106 obligations, environmental screening, Local Plan consultation responses, government/planning consultations and informal planning documents.

So new Planning Committee members need to wake up quickly.

They need training, dashboards, ward-level reporting and a very clear understanding of what is delegated and what can be called in.

Otherwise residents will hear the same old phrase:

“Oh, that was delegated.”

The classic Sandwell lullaby.

Still no named Mayor or Deputy Mayor in the papers?

One final point before tonight’s meeting.

From what I can see in the public documents available before the meeting, the agenda lists:

Item 3 — Election of Mayor 2026/2027
Item 4 — Election of Deputy Mayor 2026/2027

But I cannot see named proposed individuals for Mayor or Deputy Mayor in the public pack or supplement.

That is odd.

The papers name the Leader, Cabinet, committees, scrutiny boards and outside-body appointments — but not the person proposed to chair Full Council.

The Mayor matters.

This is the person responsible for chairing the chamber fairly, clearly and competently. After previous concerns about rushed debate, time warnings, procedural confusion and public-facing shambles, this role should not be treated as a surprise reveal.

If the public can be told who is proposed for outside bodies, surely they can be told who is proposed to chair Full Council.

What Reform must prove tonight

Let’s be fair.

Reform has inherited a council with deep problems:

• weak public trust;
• housing pressures;
• SEND risk;
• planning frustration;
• environmental complaints;
• scrutiny fatigue;
• public participation barriers;
• officer-heavy governance;
• and years of Labour complacency.

Nobody sensible expects everything fixed tonight.

But tonight will show tone.

Will Reform challenge the old culture?

Or simply take ownership of it?

Because residents did not vote for Labour’s managed-democracy machine to be repainted.

They voted for change.

That means:

• public participation reform;
• stronger scrutiny;
• opposition voices respected;
• Independent councillors not frozen out;
• petitions handled more fairly;
• CSE and grooming named honestly;
• housing performance published;
• Serco and waste performance exposed;
• planning made transparent;
• constitutional review opened up;
• Cabinet meetings made accessible;
• outside-body roles reported back;
• and fewer decisions hidden behind “delegation”.

Final thought before the meeting

Tonight is not just about who gets what title.

It is about whether Sandwell starts to change the way it governs.

The danger for Reform is not becoming Labour politically.

The danger is becoming Sandwell institutionally.

Same chamber.
Same constitution.
Same officer machine.
Same meeting times.
Same public barriers.
Same cosy committee habits.
Different rosettes.

That is not change.

That is a rebrand.

I’ll be watching tonight’s meeting from 6pm and will try to post commentary if matters change.

But based on the documents available at 5pm, my message is simple:

Good luck Reform — now prove you are not just the new management team for Labour’s old machine.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ReformUK #Labour #RayNock #LocalGovernment #Governance #Scrutiny #Accountability #PublicParticipation #Planning #Housing #CSE #Democracy #WestMidlands

Sandwell’s Democracy Problem Was Bigger Than Labour — But Labour Built It

There is something deeply unhealthy about watching a Full Council meeting where almost nobody appears willing to genuinely challenge anything.

And after sitting through Sandwell’s Extraordinary Council, Full Council, Cabinet and Petitions meetings, one thing became crystal clear:

The problem in Sandwell was never simply “Labour policies”.

It was the political culture Labour created.

A culture of:

• managed debate
• weak scrutiny
• endless paperwork
• officer-led governance
• procedural control
• and public disengagement disguised as consultation.

For years residents complained that Sandwell felt detached, unresponsive and insulated from ordinary people.

After watching these meetings, it is difficult to argue otherwise.

The Great Sandwell Performance

Sandwell Council has become extraordinarily good at producing:

• reports
• frameworks
• strategies
• consultations
• peer reviews
• action plans
• transformation programmes
• corporate slogans
• “stories”
• and glossy promises.

What it has become much less good at is:

• answering difficult questions
• tolerating challenge
• encouraging public participation
• or demonstrating visible accountability.

The meetings themselves exposed this perfectly.

Hundreds upon hundreds of pages of reports.

Major decisions involving:

• budgets
• council tax
• rent increases
• housing compliance
• highways
• regeneration
• air quality
• safeguarding
• public safety
• and long-term financial risks

…all processed at astonishing speed with remarkably little scrutiny.

Sometimes it felt less like democratic governance and more like an audiobook with voting attached.

Full Council Or Rubber Stamp?

And this is the important point:

These were not merely Cabinet meetings.

These were Full Council meetings.

The place where every councillor is supposed to:

• scrutinise
• challenge
• probe
• amend
• debate
• expose weaknesses
• and represent residents.

Instead, what we repeatedly witnessed was:

• scripted speeches
• repetitive officer-approved language
• procedural manoeuvring
• time-limit obsession
• motions nodded through
• and difficult issues quietly avoided.

Even when major political motions were debated, there was often more interest in getting through the agenda than properly interrogating it.

That is not healthy local democracy.

The CSE Silence Still Hangs Over The Chamber

Nothing exposed this more clearly than the so-called “Safe Borough for Women and Girls” motion.

The motion spoke at length about:

• misogyny
• discrimination
• abuse
• coercive control
• hate crime
• allyship
• and Andrew Tate.

Yet somehow still managed to avoid explicitly naming:

• Child Sexual Exploitation
• grooming gangs
• organised rape of children
• or the institutional failures identified nationally in the Jay and Casey reports.

That omission matters.

Because safeguarding only works when political courage exists alongside political convenience.

You cannot claim to champion women and girls while tiptoeing around one of the gravest safeguarding scandals in modern British history.

And the public notices the selective silence.

Consultation Without Consequence

The budget consultation was equally revealing.

Residents overwhelmingly expressed concern about:

• cost of living
• hardship
• local services
• neighbourhood quality
• safety
• environmental conditions
• and rising costs.

Large numbers opposed council tax increases.

The increases went ahead anyway.

Which raises the obvious question:

What exactly is the point of consultation if the outcome is politically pre-decided?

Too often in Sandwell, consultation appears to function as a bureaucratic ritual rather than meaningful engagement.

Ask the public.

Record the answers.

Ignore them politely.

Move on.

Governance By Delegation

Another trend quietly running through the papers was the steady expansion of delegated powers.

More authority shifting:

• to officers
• to procedural mechanisms
• to technical consultation routes
• to closed decision-making structures.

Meanwhile public participation becomes increasingly controlled, formalised and difficult.

This is how democratic systems slowly become managerial systems.

Residents are technically still “included” — but practically sidelined.

The public can speak.

Provided:

• it is in writing
• submitted correctly
• in advance
• within constitutional rules
• within time limits
• and doesn’t disrupt the smooth flow of the meeting.

Democracy by permission slip.

The Labour Legacy

To be fair, Sandwell Labour did improve some things.

The council is more stable than it once was.

Children’s Services receiving a “Good” judgement is welcome.

The improvement journey after intervention was necessary.

But stability is not the same as accountability.

And improvement does not erase:

• democratic fatigue
• weak scrutiny culture
• poor public trust
• procedural arrogance
• selective safeguarding language
• or governance that increasingly feels detached from residents.

Labour’s greatest political mistake was not simply policy failure.

It was allowing the institution itself to become insulated.

And eventually the electorate noticed.

A Serious Warning To Reform

Now Reform controls Sandwell Council.

And this is where things become genuinely important.

Because the danger for Reform is not becoming Labour politically.

It is becoming Sandwell institutionally.

Once any administration inherits:

• weak scrutiny culture
• officer-heavy governance
• procedural convenience
• and managerial politics

…it becomes very easy to continue using the same machinery.

The temptation will be enormous:

• move meetings quickly
• rely on officers
• limit disruption
• avoid awkward debates
• centralise control
• manage messaging
• and treat challenge as irritation.

That path ends exactly where Labour ended.

What Reform Must Do Differently

If Reform genuinely wants to prove it represents change, then it must:

Restore genuine public participation

Not managed participation.

Encourage difficult scrutiny

Especially of its own leadership.

Publish plain-English summaries

Residents should not need law degrees to understand council decisions.

Confront safeguarding honestly

Including CSE and grooming.

Tighten declarations of interest

Transparency matters.

Empower ward councillors properly

Not simply funnel decisions through officers.

Stop treating consultation as symbolic

If residents overwhelmingly oppose something, explain honestly why.

Rebuild trust in local democracy

Because right now many residents simply no longer believe the system listens.

Final Thought

The electorate did not simply vote against one political party.

They voted against:

• complacency
• insulation
• managerial politics
• democratic fatigue
• and a council culture that too often looked like it was talking to itself.

Sandwell now has an opportunity to reset.

But only if the new administration understands something very important:

Changing the people in charge means nothing if the culture underneath remains untouched.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ReformUK #LocalGovernment #Governance #Accountability #Scrutiny #CSE #Democracy #Transparency #Housing #CouncilTax #PublicParticipation #LocalPolitics #SandwellPolitics #WestMidlands #Safeguarding #Regeneration #AirQuality #Budget #Consultation #ResidentsFirst

Child abuse figures in Sandwell: the “missing years” aren’t missing — they’re just inconvenient

Child abuse figures in Sandwell: the “missing years” aren’t missing — they’re just inconvenient

If you read my last blog on Sandwell’s child abuse figures, you’ll remember the key issue: data continuity.

We had police-recorded child-abuse-related crime figures for Sandwell (2021–2024) — and a big gap for 2012–2020, which matters because that’s the era linked to the widely reported “6,226 allegations” figure (2012–2016).

At the time, West Midlands Police told us older data wasn’t available due to “system changes/issues”.

Since then, there’s been an update — and it changes the story significantly.

This update is about what has now been admitted, what is still being withheld in practice, and why selective political language at Sandwell Council doesn’t cut it.

1) What’s new: the data isn’t “not available” — it’s held, archived, and accessible in principle

West Midlands Police have now stated (in response to our follow-up FOI) that:

• “Crimes” is a legacy system
• Historical data is archived in a central database
• They store and have access to individual data lines
• They are developing applications to access it

So, let’s be plain:

The pre-2021 data is not “gone”.
It is held.

But…

2) The new barrier: “We could, but it would take more than 18 hours”

West Midlands Police say it is possible to build a search to retrieve what we asked for — but it would exceed 18 hours and therefore they are relying on FOIA section 12 (cost limit) to refuse.

They also say they can’t provide even aggregate totals until their application is “tested”.

So the position has shifted from:

“Not available”

to

“Held, but not retrievable within FOI time limits (right now)”

That matters, because it turns this from a “technical loss” story into a governance and transparency story.

If you can access the data lines, you can’t credibly pretend the years don’t exist — you can only argue about cost and effort.

And FOI law doesn’t allow public bodies to just shrug and walk away at that point.

3) The problem WMP now have: duty to help you narrow the request

When a public body relies on section 12, it also has a duty to advise and assist under FOI (section 16).

That means they should be offering practical options, such as:

• “We can do 2012–2016 only”
• “We can do one offence category only”
• “We can provide force-wide totals, if LPA breakdown is hard”
• “We can do two years at a time”

Instead, the response amounts to:
“Come back later, once our application is developed.”

That’s not transparency. That’s a holding pattern.

So the next step is already underway: internal review, and narrowed FOIs designed to test what is genuinely retrievable within the cost limit.

4) Why this matters in Sandwell specifically

Because Sandwell has a historic figure hanging over it — the widely reported 6,226 allegations (2012–2016).

If we can’t access consistent historic police data to compare with recent years, the public cannot:

• understand long-term trends
• assess whether safeguarding demand has changed
• test whether political “commitments” match reality
• track whether lessons were learned or quietly dropped

Data gaps aren’t just technical issues.
They become accountability gaps.

5) Meanwhile at Sandwell Council: big words, selective naming

Now for the part that should make anyone with a straight face slightly uncomfortable.

Police disclosures for 2021–2024 show hundreds of sexual offences against children each year in Sandwell.

And yet, at the most recent full council meeting, Labour’s safeguarding language has been carefully general.

Child abuse is mentioned in broad terms.
But Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) is not explicitly named.

That matters because:

• CSE is not “optional” safeguarding
• it’s not a footnote
• and historically, failure to name it clearly is how institutions end up “managing reputations” rather than managing risk

If your politics can’t name the risk plainly, it’s not safeguarding leadership — it’s comms management.

That’s not a legal allegation of motive.
It’s a political judgement based on what is — and isn’t — being said on the record.

6) What happens next

Here is what we are doing now:

1. Internal review of the latest WMP response, asking:

   • why older data was first described as “not available” when it is held
   • what narrowed request would be answerable within the cost limit
   • whether any existing aggregate reports / returns exist

2. New narrowed FOIs aimed at:

   • 2012–2016 only
   • or one offence group only
   • or a two-year slice (to test feasibility)

3. Continuing FOIs to Sandwell bodies to pin down:

   • what the 6,226 figure actually counted
   • what definitions were used
   • and what the updated series looks like, year by year

7) The simplest point of all

If you can say:

• “We hold it”
• “It’s archived”
• “We can access the data lines”

then the public is entitled to ask:

Why can’t you provide even basic historic totals — and what exactly needs to happen before you can?

Because safeguarding isn’t a PR campaign.
And child abuse figures aren’t something you “pause” until the software catches up.

#Sandwell #Safeguarding #ChildProtection #CSE #ChildSexualExploitation #FOI #Transparency #Accountability #WestMidlandsPolice #DataGovernance

“Sandwell Council: Another Evening in Wonderland (Bring Your Own Popcorn)”

🎭 WELCOME TO SANDWELL COUNCIL — WHERE ACCOUNTABILITY GOES TO DIE AND COMMON SENSE TAKES A PERSONAL DAY

Two meetings tonight:

One at 6pm.

One at 6:15pm.

Double feature.

Sadly, neither was the thrilling sequel to “Council Actually Does Its Job.”

Let’s walk through the highlights — and by highlights, I obviously mean low-lights so dim they should come with a torch.

🚫 1. Half the Council Didn’t Bother Turning Up

A considerable number of councillors were absent.

Were they:

Christmas shopping?

Stuck in traffic?

Hiding from the rent rise vote?

Or just allergic to scrutiny?

Who knows.

But democracy works best when your elected representatives actually attend the meetings.

Minor detail.

🤝 2. Declarations of Interest? NONE. Yet everyone knows everyone.

Tonight, councillors queued up to tell us how much they adored, admired, worked with, grew up around, or spiritually bonded with the Freeman nominees.

“Known him 30 years.”

“He mentored me.”

“Our families go way back.”

“He’s basically the Godfather of Smethwick.”

Declarations of interest?

ZERO.

Apparently, Sandwell has invented Schrödinger’s Conflict of Interest — it exists and doesn’t exist at the same time.

📺 3. Mayor Loses Script — Webcast Paused — Slides Hidden — Transparency Optional

At the Full Council meeting, the Mayor misplaced his script, panicked, paused the meeting, and the webcast went black.

When it resumed, councillors saw slides the public did not.

Democracy in Sandwell now comes with deleted scenes.

And yes — this is the same Mayor with a conviction for assault presiding over a debate on violence.

You couldn’t make it up.

🙅‍♂️ 4. Public Participation: Terminated With Extreme Prejudice

No public statements.

Not because residents don’t care —

because the constitution has been redesigned to make sure they can’t participate.

It’s like building a town hall… and then barricading the doors.

❓ 5. Questions Answered With… Even More Questions

Hardship fund data?

“Er… we’ll look at it.”

Garden waste subscriptions?

“Er… numbers… somewhere.”

£19 million budget gap?

muffled paper rustling

“Er… let’s read the script.”

Dudley Port transport status?

“We are the ‘junior partner’.”

Translation:

“We have no idea. But we hope someone else does.”

🏘️ 6. Rent Rise Passed — Opposition Kicks Back

A Conservative opposition councillor did the unthinkable:

actually stood up for residents.

Refused to vote for the rent rise.

Asked good questions.

Pointed out that communication is terrible.

Meanwhile, the Cabinet still couldn’t explain what improvements tenants would see.

Rent rise passed anyway.

Naturally.

🚦 7. Traffic-Light Debate System: The New Anti-Democracy Toolset

Councillors were cut off mid-sentence by the Mayor’s little red light.

Apparently:

Explaining a complex housing policy = too long

Reciting a random inspirational quote = perfectly fine

Debate in Sandwell now operates like a school talent show with a grumpy judge.

🕳️ 8. Safe Borough Motion Completely Avoids CSE, Grooming Gangs, Rape

The motion about Violence Against Women and Girls managed to discuss:

Andrew Tate

Hate crime

Discrimination

“Allyship”

But completely forgot:

Child Sexual Exploitation

Grooming gangs

Rape of minors

Safeguarding failures

Every major national review

The victims in Sandwell and the region

This wasn't a debate.

It was a public relations massage — avoiding the most painful truth.

And while Andrew Tate was mentioned multiple times…the likes of Ali Dawah, Mohammed Hijab, or other online misogynists were conveniently omitted.

Curious, isn’t it?

Motion passed unanimously, naturally.

When you avoid the difficult bits, everyone agrees.

🔇 9. Universal Credit Debate Shut Down Mid-Flow

A procedural move was pulled like a rabbit from a hat to stop debate.

Even councillors looked confused.

Public watching probably thought the livestream had glitched again.

Nothing says “we care” quite like cutting off discussion about vulnerable residents.

🧳 10. Small Business Motion: All Sentiment, Zero Substance

Councillors praised small businesses (lovely),

but didn’t discuss:

business rates

crime

empty units

economic decline

Because who needs facts when you’ve got warm feelings?

Passed unanimously.

Job done.

Move along.

🎤 11. Meeting Ends With… BUFFIT

The Mayor wrapped up:

No “Merry Christmas”

No festive warmth

Just:

“You’re all welcome to a BUFFIT… I mean buffet.”

Honestly, it was the most unintentionally symbolic moment of the evening:

Disorganised.

Awkward.

Unclear.

And somehow still technically “the end.”

⭐ THE VERDICT

Tonight, Sandwell Council delivered:

Low attendance

Zero transparency

No public voice

Avoided questions

Avoided safeguarding truths

Rushed votes

Confusing procedures

Reduced debate

Unchallenged motions

And absolutely no Merry Christmas

If local democracy were a car, Sandwell’s would be:

🔥 Missing a wheel

🔥 Leaking oil

🔥 No headlights

🔥 Steering via traffic light

🔥 And the Mayor holding the map upside down

Residents deserve so much better than this.

#Sandwell #LocalGov #CSE #CouncilWatch #Democracy #VAWG #ResidentsMatter #Transparency #BuffitGate