Cllr Adam Kent is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Worcestershire County Council.
Worcestershire residents are now facing a confirmed 8.98 per cent council tax increase.
At the same time, the County Council has committed £500,000 to consultants from PwC to deliver “transformational change.”
That combination alone should raise eyebrows. Together, it demands scrutiny.
Because this is not speculation. The Council’s own budget papers confirm that the Strategic Leadership Team has been working with PwC to produce a transformation plan, grounded in activity and spend analysis, to deliver savings at scale.
Half a million pounds. On advice.
In an organisation where senior management is already paid millions collectively, the obvious question is:
What exactly are we paying them for?
The justification offered in the same report is stark:
“Limited capacity to deliver change alongside growing day-to-day pressures.”
This is not just an explanation. It is an admission.
An admission that:
That is not transformation.
That is dependency.
And it goes to the heart of a serious issue: if those paid to lead cannot deliver, outsourcing their responsibilities is not a solution—it is a symptom.
Against this backdrop, the Conservative Group put forward a £14.4 million recurring savings programme, focused on:
Crucially, it protected statutory frontline services, targeting inefficiency rather than delivery.
It offered a route to:
It was dismissed.
The official reason was that the proposal was “not detailed enough.”
But what does that actually mean?
It means elected members are now expected to:
That is not scrutiny.
That is management by councillors.
And if councillors are expected to do the job of senior officers, then a very obvious question follows:
Why aren’t they being paid like them?
Because the current reality is this:
That is not accountability.
It is institutional confusion.
Responsibility for this sits squarely with Reform UK.
They came to power promising:
Instead, they have overseen:
Because the budget was secured at a £21.2 million price of abstention paid to the Liberal Democrats.
If £14.4 million of savings could have limited the tax rise to under five per cent, why was £21.2 million committed instead?
Why was more spent than necessary?
Why was this about political arithmetic rather than financial discipline?
And why, having secured that outcome, did the Liberal Democrats abstain, walk out of the chamber, and then proceed to call for the heads of those who had just paid that price?
Residents are entitled to draw their own conclusions.
What has unfolded in Worcestershire is not a single mistake.
It is a three-part failure:
Each has played a role.
Each shares responsibility.
Strip everything back, and the position is clear.
The Council’s own documents confirm:
At the same time:
This is not reform.
It is a failure of leadership—managerial and political—funded by residents.
Six-figure salaries are not symbolic.
They are paid in exchange for delivery.
And after £500,000 on consultants, a £21.2 million price of abstention, and an 8.98 per cent tax rise, Worcestershire residents are entitled to ask:
If those in charge cannot deliver—why are they still in charge?