Adam Kent: Worcestershire’s nine per cent Council Tax rise was Reform UK’s choice. It could have been avoided.

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:

• The organisation lacks internal capacity.
• Senior leadership cannot deliver change at pace.
• Consultants are required to fill the gap.

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:

• Reducing organisational overhead
• Management rationalisation
• Recruitment control
• Procurement efficiency
• Cutting reliance on consultancy itself

Crucially, it protected statutory frontline services, targeting inefficiency rather than delivery.

It offered a route to:

• Limit the tax rise to 4.98 per cent instead of 8.98 per cent
• Restore financial discipline
• Refocus the organisation on delivery

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:

• Identify specific roles for deletion
• Design staffing structures
• Produce operational delivery plans

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:

• Senior officers are paid six-figure salaries to manage and deliver
• Consultants are paid £500,000 to design transformation
• Councillors are told to produce operational detail—or be ignored

That is not accountability.

It is institutional confusion.

Responsibility for this sits squarely with Reform UK.

They came to power promising:

• To cut waste
• To reduce bureaucracy
• To deliver better value

Instead, they have overseen:

• A £500,000 consultancy contract.
• A confirmed 8.98 per cent council tax increase
• A political arrangement that raises serious questions

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:

• Senior officers, unable—or unwilling—to deliver transformation without external consultants
• Reform leadership, abandoning its own principles on waste and tax
• Liberal Democrats, accepting the price of abstention and then distancing themselves from the consequences

Each has played a role.

Each shares responsibility.

Strip everything back, and the position is clear.

The Council’s own documents confirm:

• Transformation is essential
• Capacity is lacking
• Consultants have been brought in

At the same time:

• A credible savings plan was rejected
• Council Tax has risen sharply
• Millions have been committed to secure political support

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?