Showing posts with label West Midlands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label West Midlands. Show all posts

Monday, 5 January 2026

Child abuse figures, missing years – and Labour’s selective concern


Child abuse figures, missing years – and Labour’s selective concern

Recent Freedom of Information responses raise an uncomfortable question about how child abuse data in Sandwell is recorded, retained, and reported.

They also raise a second question — why Labour politicians are willing to talk about “child abuse” in general terms, but avoid naming Child Sexual Exploitation when the evidence demands it.

This is not about sensationalism.
It is about numbers, definitions, omissions, and political choices.

What the police have confirmed

Following an FOI request to West Midlands Police, the force has disclosed police-recorded child-abuse-related crime data for Sandwell covering 2021–2024.

The data includes:

  • Thousands of recorded offences relating to cruelty and neglect of children
  • Hundreds of sexual offences each year where the victim was aged under 16
  • Large numbers of violent offences flagged with a child-abuse marker
  • Thousands of identified victims under the age of 18

These figures are not interpretation.
They are police data, disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The missing years Labour would rather not talk about

The same FOI response states that no equivalent police data is available prior to 2021, due to “system changes/issues”.

That means the years 2012–2020 — including the period in which 6,226 child abuse allegations were publicly reported — are now outside the scope of police disclosure.

No refusal notice.
No legal exemption.
Just a data gap.

That gap matters, because Labour politicians have repeatedly referenced safeguarding in Sandwell while avoiding serious scrutiny of the historical record.

The 6,226 figure – loudly cited, quietly unexamined

In 2017, official information was used to state that 6,226 child abuse allegations were referred in Sandwell between 2012 and 2016.

That figure did not come from campaigners.
It did not come from social media.
It came from official sources.

Yet today:

  • There is no publicly accessible methodology
  • No police data continuity for that period
  • No clear explanation of how that figure aligns with current disclosures

Labour is happy to invoke safeguarding language — but not to interrogate safeguarding evidence.

Where Child Sexual Exploitation disappears from Labour’s narrative

This matters most when it comes to Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE).

Police data for 2021–2024 shows hundreds of sexual offences against children every single year in Sandwell. These are not abstract harms. They are not historic footnotes. They are live safeguarding risks.

And yet, at the most recent full council meeting of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, a Labour-led motion on child safeguarding did not explicitly mention CSE at all.

That omission is not accidental language drift.
It is a political choice.

Labour councillors chose:

  • to speak in broad, comfortable terms about “child abuse”, while
  • avoiding the specific form of abuse that has historically exposed institutional failure across the country.

This is where the hypocrisy lies.

Why this is political hypocrisy, not semantics

Labour nationally is quick to reference historic CSE scandals — usually when they involve someone else, somewhere else, at another time.

But locally, when presented with:

  • police-recorded evidence of ongoing sexual abuse of children, and
  • a clear opportunity to name CSE explicitly in a safeguarding motion,

Labour chose silence.

No explicit commitment.
No explicit scrutiny.
No explicit acknowledgement.

That is not leadership.
It is risk management.

General words do not protect children

CSE is not a footnote to safeguarding. It is one of its most dangerous and complex failures.

When councils refuse to name it explicitly, they:

  • dilute accountability
  • weaken scrutiny
  • and signal political discomfort rather than safeguarding resolve

You cannot claim to take child abuse seriously while avoiding the form of abuse that most demands political courage.

The questions Labour must now answer

No allegations are being made here.
But Labour cannot avoid these questions:

  • Why was CSE excluded from the safeguarding motion?
  • How does Labour reconcile that omission with police data showing ongoing sexual abuse of children?
  • How can the public trust safeguarding oversight when historic data is missing and present-day risks are selectively framed?

Final word

This is not about attacking frontline workers.
It is not about undermining safeguarding professionals.

It is about political honesty.

When Labour talks about safeguarding, it wants the credit — but not the discomfort.
When the data becomes awkward, the language becomes vague.
When CSE demands to be named, it is quietly left out.

Children deserve better than! 

St Paul’s Church, Wood Green: History, Heritage, Community – and Why It Still Matters


St Paul’s Church, Wood Green: History, Heritage, Community – and Why It Still Matters

St Paul’s Church, Wood Green has stood at the heart of Wednesbury since 1874, built during a period of rapid industrial growth to serve a growing local population. Funded and supported by prominent industrial families connected to Wednesbury’s manufacturing past, the church was never intended to be an isolated monument — it was designed to be embedded in the everyday life of Wood Green.

Now a Grade II listed building, St Paul’s is recognised for its red sandstone construction, traditional nave and aisles, and its tower and spire which remain a familiar local landmark. Installed in 1887, the ring of eight bells has for well over a century marked the rhythm of community life — weddings, baptisms, funerals, remembrance services and moments of collective reflection. Their sound is part of Wednesbury’s historic soundscape and forms an irreplaceable element of local heritage.

More Than Bricks and Mortar

For generations, St Paul’s has been a place where lives intersect. Families have celebrated their happiest moments here and mourned their losses. For many, it has offered quiet refuge during difficult times. Like so many historic churches, St Paul’s has functioned not just as a place of worship, but as community infrastructure — a constant presence in an area that has seen enormous social and economic change.

When buildings like this disappear, the loss is not abstract. It is felt in the erosion of identity, memory and belonging. Once gone, these reference points cannot simply be recreated elsewhere.

Heritage at Risk

The potential closure of St Paul’s — and the disposal of historic elements such as the bells — would result in irreversible harm:

Heritage assets separated from their original setting lose much of their meaning

Historic soundscapes and collective memory are permanently erased

A public heritage asset is lost to the community it has served for over 150 years

Heritage is not just about architecture. It is about continuity — passing places, stories and shared experiences from one generation to the next.

A Living Building Has a Future

Preserving St Paul’s does not mean freezing it in time. Across the UK, many historic churches have secured their future through sensitive, mixed-use models that respect heritage while keeping buildings relevant and financially viable.

Potential uses for St Paul’s could include:

Community and Cultural Use

Small concerts, choirs and acoustic performances

Heritage open days, exhibitions and local history talks

Arts and cultural activities rooted in the community

Wellbeing and Social Use

Warm space initiatives and cost-of-living support

Bereavement, carers’ and peer-support groups

Quiet daytime access for reflection and mental wellbeing

Education and Skills

Partnerships with schools and colleges

Heritage, conservation and craft workshops

Intergenerational learning and local history projects

These uses can coexist alongside worship, allowing the church to remain a living, working building, not a museum.

Funding and Financial Sustainability

Financial pressures are real, but selling heritage is not the only option. Viable and well-established funding routes include:

Heritage and conservation grants

Church repair and historic buildings funding

Community fundraising with clear, transparent goals

“Friends of St Paul’s” membership and supporter schemes

Partnerships with local authorities, schools and voluntary groups

Ethical sponsorship from local businesses

Appropriate income generation from concerts, events and educational use

Many comparable churches have moved from decline to stability by diversifying use while respecting historic character.

Public Support Is Growing

Concern about the future of St Paul’s has now entered the public domain. A public petition has been launched on Change.org, calling for the church to be safeguarded, its heritage respected, and meaningful alternatives to closure and asset disposal to be fully explored.

The petition exists to demonstrate that this is not an isolated concern, but a shared one — rooted in history, community value and a desire for responsible stewardship.

👉 Sign the petition here:
https://www.change.org/p/save-st-paul-s-church-from-closure

Why This Matters Now

St Paul’s represents over 150 years of continuous local history. It is a tangible link between Wednesbury’s past, present and future, and a ready-made community asset at a time when such spaces are disappearing fast.

This is not a debate about nostalgia versus realism. It is about imagination, stewardship and long-term responsibility.

What happens next will define whether St Paul’s remains part of Wednesbury’s living story — or becomes another chapter closed too soon.

#StPaulsChurch #WoodGreen #Wednesbury #LocalHistory #HeritageAtRisk #CommunityAssets #HistoricChurches #SaveOurHeritage #WestMidlands #CommunityMatters

Tuesday, 9 December 2025

Sandwell’s Funding Mystery Machine: Scooby-Doo Meets the Consortium

Sandwell’s Funding Mystery Machine: Scooby-Doo Meets the Consortium

If you’ve ever wondered what happens when public money, political convenience, and a voluntary-sector “ecosystem” get thrown together in a blender, welcome to Sandwell — where transparency goes to die and paperwork goes to hide under the nearest Cabinet report.

And if you haven’t wondered:

That’s fine too, the Council tends to prefer it that way.

“And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for those pesky KPIs!”

Let’s begin with the headline act:

Sandwell Consortium CIC — the Council’s most expensive mystery box.

Over £1.66 million channelled through it in two years and:

  • No KPIs - Key Performance Indicators 
  • No outputs
  • No measurable results
  • Duplicate funding descriptions
  • Councillor-linked organisations woven throughout
  • And governance held together by one individual director

Honestly, it’s almost artistic at this point. Abstract governance.

Meanwhile in Tipton… BWA’s bank balance sparkles like a dragon’s hoard

The Bangladeshi Women’s Association — though not a major direct recipient of Council grants — operates two community centres and still manages to maintain:

£328,873 in cash

£322,465 in total reserves

Who knew community work could be so… liquid?

And while they operate across two separate Tipton sites, their accounts provide zero centre-level breakdown.
It’s like “Guess Who?” but with financial reporting.

  • Does Jubilee Park cost more?
  • Does Tipton Muslim Community Centre cost less?
  • Is one subsidising the other?

We don’t know.
Because they don’t say.

Plot twist: We asked the CEO… and the questions weren’t answered

In the spirit of openness, transparency, and general good governance, reasonable questions were put to Cllr Khatun, BWA’s CEO.

And in the spirit of Sandwell’s traditional response to oversight:

  • The questions were not answered
  • No information was provided
  • The silence was so complete it could be used as soundproofing

Nothing says “confidence-building governance” like unanswered questions.

Back to the Consortium: where sunlight fears to shine

As a reminder:

  • £1.66 million given
  • No KPIs
  • No published outcomes
  • No commissioning rationale
  • Councillor-linked organisations on the board
  • A former senior council officer as the sole individual director

It's like someone tried to build a governance model using a Ouija board.

Follow the Money? Follow the Guesswork.

Trying to understand Sandwell’s funding flows is like trying to assemble flat-pack furniture without instructions:

  • You’re definitely missing pieces
  • Something’s upside down
  • Someone insists it’s “fine”
  • And by the end you’ve lost all faith in humanity

Updated List of Reasonable Questions Sandwell Residents Might Ask

  1. Why are six-figure grants being issued without KPIs or impact reporting?
  2. Why is a single individual director overseeing a multi-million-pound funding gateway?
  3. Why is BWA holding £328k cash while providing no centre-level accounts?
  4. Why do councillors connected to the ecosystem take part in shaping the funding environment?
  5. Why did the CEO of BWA not answer the questions that were put to her?
  6. Why is competitive commissioning avoided like radioactive waste?

The uncomfortable conclusion…

Sandwell’s voluntary-sector funding system isn’t an accident.
It’s a design:

  • opaque
  • interconnected
  • conflict-prone
  • unmeasured
  • and largely unscrutinised

If this were an episode of Scooby-Doo, the unmasking would reveal:

“We’d have gotten away with it too, if people didn’t insist on asking basic questions.”


#Sandwell #Transparency #LocalGov #Governance #PublicMoney #Scrutiny #PoliticalAccountability #Tipton #CommunityFunding

Legal Notice & Disclaimer

This blog is based solely on publicly available documentation including Companies House filings and SMBC financial data.


All commentary is opinion, analysis and satire made in the public interest.


No allegations of wrongdoing are made.
Readers are encouraged to verify all financial information using original source documents.

Thursday, 27 November 2025

Budget 2025: Sandwell Gets Shafted (Yet Again) by Labour’s Stealth Taxes and Empty Promises


Budget 2025: Sandwell Gets Let’s be honest — Rachel Reeves’s Autumn Budget wasn’t a “fiscal plan”.

It was a tax-soaked kick in the teeth for everyone in Sandwell who works, struggles, or dares to exist outside Westminster’s fantasy bubble.

This Budget is what happens when you put Labour in charge nationally AND locally:

the country gets mugged, and Sandwell gets mugged twice.

But don’t worry — apparently we’re all “ordinary people” now.

That’s Reeves’s new favourite phrase.

Shame she forgot to actually help any of them.

THE REALITY IN SANDWELL BEFORE THE BUDGET — ALREADY BAD ENOUGH

Let’s recap the starting point:

Unemployment well above the national average

Claimant rates sky-high

Nearly a third of working-age adults economically inactive

Child poverty around 38%

Some of the worst health outcomes in England

A council on its knees, but always ready for another “Deep Clean PR stunt”

And deprivation so baked into our borough you could spread it on toast

Sandwell is literally the case study for what happens when one party controls a borough for decades:

You get poverty, potholes, propaganda leaflets, and councillors who think attending a photo-op next to a shrub counts as “environmental improvement”.

NOW ENTER RACHEL REEVES WITH HER “STEALTH TAX MASTERCLASS”

Reeves has frozen income tax thresholds until the end of time.

Translation:

Every pay rise = more tax.

Every promotion = more tax.

Every bit of progress = punished.

It’s like the Treasury crawled inside your wallet and set up a direct debit labelled “Let’s fleece Sandwell for fun”.

And she genuinely expects applause.

SAVINGS? HAHAHA. NO.

Reeves also decided that anyone saving a few quid must be crushed.

Higher taxes on savings.

Higher taxes on dividends.

Higher taxes on anything that resembles “trying”.

Meanwhile wealthy donors?

Perfectly untouched.

Funny that.

The message is clear:

If you’re responsible in Sandwell, Labour sees you as a revenue stream.

THE TWO-CHILD CAP U-TURN — THE LIE THEY HOPED WE’D FORGET

Labour swore they wouldn’t remove the two-child cap.

Not once.

Not twice.

But about 47 times.

Then they got into power and — surprise! — they removed it instantly.

And yes, the policy disproportionately benefits larger households, which statistically (not politically, not racially — statistically) appear more in certain communities, including some migrant and some Pakistani/Bangladeshi heritage families.

That’s not an opinion.

That’s data.

Meanwhile the families who make up most of Sandwell — the ones with one or two children, scraping by, juggling two jobs and bills — get nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

Except, of course, the bill.

NEW FRAUD RISKS? LABOUR SAYS “WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?”

Scrapping the cap without strengthening fraud checks is like removing the front door because it was “getting in the way”.

We’ll now see:

Undeclared partners

Undeclared dependants

Over-claimed child benefits

Identity fraud

Relationship fraud

“Ghost children” fraud (yes, that’s a real thing)

Sandwell already has one of the most complex benefit-claiming populations in the country — and Reeves just poured petrol on it.

**PROTECTING THE DISABLED, ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE?

NOT UNDER THIS LOT.**

Scope’s analysis is spot on:

No further cuts — fine

But no meaningful extra support

Motability changes that could push disabled people into worse vehicles or none at all

No discounted energy

No serious health support

No dignity measures

No increase in social-care stability

And disability benefit cuts already in the pipeline remain untouched

This Budget does nothing for the elderly choosing between heating and eating.

Nothing for the disabled hammered by extra living costs.

Nothing for carers drowning in stress.

Nothing for the chronically ill stuck in limbo.

But hey — Reeves said the word “fairness” a few times so that should solve it, right?


**LABOUR LOCALLY?

THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING.**

Sandwell Labour councillors will now:

Pretend this Budget is “tough but necessary”

Pretend that Sandwell is magically improving

Pretend they’re “fighting for residents”

Pretend they’re not all terrified of anyone asking a real question

Meanwhile deprivation gets worse.

Housing collapses.

Children’s services sink deeper.

The environment rots.

And the only thing that grows is the number of press releases about “exciting regeneration plans” that never happen.

Sandwell deserves better than this merry-go-round of mediocrity.


IF I COULD SAY ONE THING TO THE CHANCELLOR…

> “Rachel — if this is your idea of supporting ‘ordinary people’,

then God help the rest of the country.

Your Budget is a punishment, not a plan.

A stealth tax spree wrapped in slogans.

A betrayal of every promise you made.

And an insult to every elderly, disabled, low-paid, working or struggling household in Sandwell.

We deserve better than this political theatre.

Start acting like the Chancellor you claim to be — or step aside for someone who can count.”


CONCLUSION: THE BUDGET THAT BROKE TRUST

Sandwell was already struggling.

This Budget just stamped “GOOD LUCK” on our foreheads and shoved us into traffic.

Labour talked about hope.

What they delivered is hardship.

Sandwell isn’t “ordinary”.

We’re extraordinary — surviving despite the system, not because of it.

And Labour, both locally and nationally, should be ashamed.


ADDENDUM 1: LABOUR’S BUDGET SPIN — A MASTERCLASS IN POLITICAL FICTION

ADDENDUM 1 — THE GREAT LABOUR BUDGET PARODY

After publishing the main Budget article, I thought the circus had packed up for the night.

But then Labour started pumping out a string of graphics, social media slogans and PR-friendly bullet points that read like they’d been written by someone who’s never met an actual working family — never mind one in Sandwell.

So here it is:

Addendum 1 — Labour’s Budget Spin, fully dissected and lovingly shredded.

Grab your coffee.

Chaos begins now.

1️⃣ “WE’RE EXPANDING FREE SCHOOL MEALS!”

This is the political equivalent of bragging about rescuing a drowning man by handing him a snorkel.

Only some UC households qualify.

Not universal.

Not automatic.

Not enough places.

Funding? Unknown.

Staffing? Good luck.

In Sandwell, schools are already on their knees —

we’re just adding another weight to their ankles.

2️⃣ “MORE FREE BREAKFAST CLUBS!”

Ah yes.

Another reheated, re-announced, re-used policy from the Labour Microwave of Broken Promises™.

Where are these clubs?

Who is staffing them?

What schools have room?

What budgets are they using?

No answers, just hashtags.

3️⃣ “WE CAPPED UNIFORM COSTS!”

If by “capping” they mean “allowing prices to rise annually”, then yes — absolutely capped.

£50 blazers.

£15 ties.

£30 shoes.

£22 trousers.

Full credit: they’ve created the only inflation-proof industry in Britain — school uniforms.

4️⃣ “30 HOURS FREE CHILDCARE!”

In Sandwell?

Childcare providers are vanishing faster than honest politicians.

To benefit, you must:

find a place

have a provider still open

have staff available

have hours that align with your actual job

navigate a system designed by someone who hates simplicity

Spoiler: most working families won’t qualify or can’t access it.

⭐ THE NHS CLAIMS — WHERE REALITY PACKS ITS BAGS

Labour are now claiming this Budget “fixes the NHS”.

Meanwhile:

GP access collapsing

waiting lists up

staff burnt out

mental health services full

elderly care in meltdown

local hospitals firefighting

But don’t worry —

a “Neighbourhood Health Centre” is coming!

Which, in Sandwell terms, means:

a portacabin with a poster about wellbeing, a leaflet about bowel screening, and a GP who covers two postcodes and three continents.

⚡ ENERGY BILL “CUTS” — THE BIGGEST WHOPPER

Labour claim they’ll “save you £150 off your bill”.

Reality: They’ve just moved energy levies into general taxation.

You pay anyway — just with a different label.

It’s like someone mugs you for £200, then hands back £10 and calls it “support”.

📉 “WE’RE CUTTING THE COST OF LIVING!”

Sure — if you ignore:

the frozen income tax thresholds

stealth tax rises

£26bn in extra tax by 2028

rising food prices

rising rents

rising council tax

stagnant wages

failing councils

collapsing public services

But apart from all that —

yes, they’ve “cut the cost of living”.

🔥 THIS ISN’T GOVERNING — IT’S MANUFACTURING CONSENT

Everything Labour has said since Budget Day follows the same pattern:

1. Make a claim.

2. Hope nobody reads the small print.

3. Post a colourful graphic.

4. Pretend everything’s fine.

This is politics by Canva.

And the problem is — Sandwell isn’t a PR project.

It’s a real place with real people who are being hit hardest.

🧨 FINAL VERDICT: LABOUR’S BUDGET SPIN IS A PARODY — BUT THEY’RE DEADLY SERIOUS

This messaging campaign is so dishonest it borders on performance art.

It should win an award for “Best Unintentional Comedy”.

Except it’s not funny — because here, in Sandwell, the consequences are real:

more poverty

more deprivation

more debt

more pressure on the elderly, disabled and vulnerable

more children going hungry

more strain on already failing services

Labour can spin.

They can hashtag.

They can colour in all the graphics they want.

But the truth remains:

> Sandwell is worse off under their Budget — not better.


ADDENDUM 2 – LEAKS, LIES AND LABOUR’S BUDGET SOAP OPERA 29th Nov '25

If Addendum 1 was the warm-up, this is the main act.

Since the Budget landed, the commentary has been rolling in – from journalists, economists, think tanks, Martin Lewis, and even Labour’s own pet institutions – and the verdict is basically:

> Reeves hiked taxes, misled the public about a “black hole”, and turned the OBR into collateral damage.

So let’s walk through the carnage.

1️⃣ The “Black Hole” That Magically Turned Into a Surplus

We were told, endlessly, that there was a terrifying £££ “fiscal black hole” and that everyone needed to “chip in”.

Then the OBR numbers and follow-up reporting started to surface:

Forecasts showed Reeves actually had a £4.2bn surplus of headroom, not a gaping void that needed a £26bn tax raid. 

The OBR itself confirmed there was no huge sudden hole needing emergency tax rises; Reeves chose to raise taxes anyway. 

Commentators and opposition MPs are now openly saying what everyone is thinking: she misled the public about the size of the problem to justify a political Budget. 

So the “black hole” wasn’t fiscal, it was political cover.


2️⃣ The OBR Leak and Fallout – From “Defender of Integrity” to Awkward Brawl

Remember when Labour used to bang on about the importance of the OBR after the Truss mini-Budget?

Reeves helped change the law to guarantee OBR scrutiny of every Budget, and styled herself as its champion. 

Then Budget day descended into farce: the OBR accidentally published its report 40 minutes early, detonating her big set-piece before she stood up. 

Now? The relationship has blown up. Reporting shows tensions so bad that OBR chair Richard Hughes apparently offered to resign after claims Reeves withheld or spun their figures. 

You couldn’t make it up: the party that screamed about “respecting the OBR” is now accused of massaging its forecasts and bullying it in the background.


3️⃣ £26 Billion in Tax Rises – The “Fairness” That Leaves People Worse Off

The numbers are brutal:

Around £26bn in extra taxes by 2028–29, much of it via the freeze in tax and NI thresholds, higher taxes on savings, dividends, property income, and tinkering with pension salary sacrifice. 

The threshold freeze alone is forecast to drag millions more into paying tax and higher-rate tax – Hargreaves Lansdown says 5.2 million more into income tax and 4.8 million into higher or additional rate by 2031. 

Martin Lewis calls it exactly what it is: a “stealth tax” that leaves many earners worse off even if cash pay goes up. 

Even the Commons Library summary admits this is a Budget of huge tax rises, dressed up in the language of “stability, fairness and resilience”. 

Translation: we’re all paying more; they’re hoping you won’t notice until your payslip screams at you.


4️⃣ Broken Promises and Manifesto Gymnastics

During the election campaign, Labour:

Promised no “unfunded spending sprees”

Signalled tightly-controlled taxes with no big surprises

Repeatedly danced around the two-child cap, then insisted scrapping it was “not affordable”

Fast-forward:

Reeves announces a £26bn tax grab while insisting she’s still keeping to Labour’s manifesto. 

Starmer now claims the manifesto hasn’t been broken because… they never technically promised not to do this specific style of tax rise. 

It’s like promising you won’t nick someone’s car… then helping yourself to their house instead and saying, “technically we kept our word”.


5️⃣ Who Gets Hurt? Spoiler: It’s Not the Slogan Writers

A few highlights from the fallout:

Low-income households: Policy in Practice notes that while scrapping the two-child limit helps some families, the overall mix of tax changes still leaves many low-income households squeezed – especially those in work. 

Small businesses and hospitality: Reeves hailed a “new golden era for the high street”, yet the end of a 40% discount and revaluation changes mean many pubs, shops and hotels will actually pay more, not less, in business rates. 

Contractors & remote workers: IR35 tweaks and other rules amount to “keeping the lights on” for the Treasury while dimming them for independent contractors and remote staff. 

Meanwhile, Sandwell still gets the same old package: high deprivation, underfunded services, and a Labour council that’ll obediently wave it all through.


6️⃣ The Political Row: Accusations of Lying, Spin and Panic

The language from commentators and opposition MPs is getting… spicy:

FT and Telegraph pieces detail how changing OBR forecasts meant Reeves knew the position had improved before Budget day, but kept pushing the “black hole” line anyway. 

Sky News, the Independent and others report claims that she effectively lied about the deficit to sell the tax rises. 

Internal whispers suggest people are already speculating whether she’ll survive to deliver another Budget. 

We’ve now reached the stage where Labour MPs are on TV doing legalistic gymnastics like:

“We didn’t technically break the manifesto… we just interpreted it… dynamically.”

If that’s “integrity in public life”, we’re in trouble.


7️⃣ Critical Comment – From a Sandwell View

From Sandwell, this whole drama looks even worse.

We’ve got:

High unemployment, high economic inactivity, deep child poverty, long-term illness and disability at crisis levels.

A council that limps from one budget crisis to another, cutting services while churning out glossy “strategy” PDFs.

Residents hammered by rising costs, low wages and dire public services.

And against that backdrop, Labour:

Spun a non-existent black hole into justification for a huge tax raid.

Froze thresholds so quietly that most people only find out when their tax code changes.

Scrapped the two-child cap in a way that fuels cultural and community tension instead of delivering fair, broad-based support.

Managed to pick a fight with the very watchdog they once held up as the guardian of fiscal sanity.

If the Tories had done this, Labour would be screaming from the rooftops.

But now it’s their Chancellor, their OBR row, their stealth tax raid, suddenly we’re told this is “grown-up government”.

It isn’t.

It’s spin-heavy, trust-light, and utterly disconnected from places like Sandwell, where every extra pound in tax is a pound less on food, heating or rent.


So Addendum 1 covered the sales pitch.

Addendum 2 covers the behind-the-scenes car crash.

If this is Labour’s idea of “responsible government”, then heaven help us when they decide to take risks.

Because right now, from where Sandwell is standing, this Budget doesn’t look like stability.

It looks like a con – with better branding.


#Sandwell #Budget2025 #RachelReeves #LabourLies #OBR #StealthTax #TaxRaid #PoliticalSpin #CostOfLivingCrisis #CitizenJournalism #WestMidlands #Addendum2



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 genuin...