In the last episode, I explained what the City of Doncaster Strategic Risk Register is and why it matters.

Today, I want to focus on the single most serious risk on that register.

Not housing.
Not crime.
Not social care delivery.

But something that underpins all of them:

The Medium Term Financial Strategy – or MTFS.

This is the risk the council itself has rated at the highest possible level.

And once you understand it, you’ll see why nearly every other problem in local government flows from it.

What Is the Medium Term Financial Strategy?

The MTFS is essentially the council’s financial survival plan.

It sets out:

• How much money the council expects to have

• How much it expects to spend

• What savings are required

• And whether the books can be balanced year after year

Unlike a household, a council:

• Must deliver statutory services

• Cannot simply stop caring for vulnerable people

• Cannot choose which laws to comply with

• Cannot easily raise new income

If the MTFS fails, the consequences are stark:

• Emergency budgets

• Sudden service cuts

• Reduced local control

• Government intervention

That’s why the MTFS risk sits at the very top of the register.

How Serious Is the Risk?

According to Doncaster Council’s own Strategic Risk Register:

• Inherent risk: Maximum (20)

• Residual risk: Maximum (20)

• Direction of travel: Deteriorating

• Current position: Persistent overspends and under‑delivery of savings

This is important.

The council is not pretending everything is fine. It is formally acknowledging that, even after controls, the risk remains extremely high.

That level of openness deserves recognition.

What Is Driving the Financial Risk?

The MTFS risk is not caused by a single failure. It is driven by a perfect storm of pressures:

1. Adult Social Care

Demand is rising. Fees to providers have increased dramatically. The council is coping — but at a growing cost.

2. Children’s Services

More complex cases. More residential placements. More reliance on expensive out‑of‑area care.

3. SEND Pressures

The Dedicated Schools Grant deficit continues to grow. The costs don’t disappear — they accumulate.

4. Workforce Pressures

Agency staff. Recruitment challenges. Retention costs.

5. One‑Off Fixes

Reserves and contingencies are being used repeatedly. That may stabilise one year — but weakens the next.

Put simply:

The council is delivering more with less, and paying more for each service it provides.

Why “Coping” Isn’t the Same as Being Sustainable

One of the most important things scrutiny has uncovered is this distinction:

• Services may be functioning operationally

• But the system funding them is increasingly unstable

A care package delivered today still counts as:

• A budget pressure

• A future commitment

• A structural cost

So while residents may not see collapse, the risk is being stored up — quietly, cumulatively, and expensively.

That is exactly why the MTFS risk remains red.

Why This Risk Can’t Be “Managed Away”

Some risks can be mitigated. This one largely cannot without fundamental change.

That’s because the council:

• Doesn’t control national funding formulas

• Doesn’t control NHS discharge pressure

• Doesn’t control care market inflation

• Doesn’t control demographic trends

The tools available are limited:

• Savings

• Efficiency

• Service redesign

• Delay

When those run out, the choices become political and painful.

What Scrutiny Has Been Asking (And Why It Matters)

Overview and Scrutiny has been asking some basic but vital questions:

• Are savings genuinely recurring, or one‑off?

• Are reserves stabilising the system or masking the problem?

• What happens if a single assumption fails?

• How much risk is being passed to future budgets?

These are not “anti‑council” questions. They are responsibility questions.

Because if the MTFS collapses suddenly, residents don’t get gradual change — they get crisis decisions.

Why Transparency Matters Here More Than Anywhere Else

If there is one area where transparency is critical, it is council finance.

Because:

• The impacts fall later

• The warning signs are technical

• The consequences are sudden

A red MTFS risk is not a failure of staff. It is a warning to members and residents alike.

And warnings only matter if people are allowed to see them clearly.

What This Means for Doncaster Residents

The MTFS risk affects:

• How many services the council can afford

• How fast inequalities widen

• Whether difficult decisions are planned or forced

• Whether local democracy stays in control

This isn’t about balance sheets. It’s about honesty.

You cannot have serious conversation about reform without understanding the financial position first.

Closing: Why This Episode Matters

I’ve started with the MTFS for a reason.

Because:

• Every other risk depends on it

• Every ambition is constrained by it

• Every reform must start with it

In the next episodes, I’ll explore how this financial risk intersects with:

• Adult Social Care

• Children’s Services

• Inequality

• And major projects

But for now, the key message is simple:

Doncaster cannot reform what it refuses to face honestly.

Transparency is not negativity. It is preparation.

And Doncaster deserves nothing less.

Doncaster Deserves Reform

When people hear the phrase “Strategic Risk Register”, it can sound abstract, technical, even dull. Something that sits in a spreadsheet, discussed behind closed doors by officers and councillors, far removed from everyday life.

But in reality, the Strategic Risk Register is one of the most important documents any council produces.

It tells us:

• What the council is most worried about

• Where things could go badly wrong

• How confident the organisation really is about the future

And crucially:

It tells us what risks are being managed honestly – and which ones may be being downplayed.

Today, I want to explain:

1. What the City of Doncaster Strategic Risk Register actually is

2. What it does and doesn’t show

3. What the current high‑risk items are

4. Why some scores make sense – and why others deserve challenge

This isn’t about politics.
It’s about transparency, accountability, and public understanding.

What Is the Strategic Risk Register?

Every council in England is required to identify and manage strategic risks.

These are not day‑to‑day problems. They are big, system‑level threats that could seriously affect:

• Services

• Finances

• Legal compliance

• Public trust

• Long‑term sustainability

Examples include:

• Financial collapse

• Failure of children’s services

• Major cyber attacks

• Unaffordable social care demand

In Doncaster, the Strategic Risk Register lists:

• The inherent risk – how bad the risk would be if nothing were done

• The residual risk – how risky things are now, after controls

• The target risk – where the council hopes to get to

• A direction of travel – improving, stable, or worsening

This register is reported to senior management, Cabinet, and scrutiny committees.

In short:

It is the council’s own statement of what keeps it awake at night.

What the Register Does Well

To be fair, there are areas where Doncaster’s risk register shows honesty and maturity.

For example:

• Safeguarding Children & Young People
  This risk has reduced following a recent Ofsted inspection that rated services Good.
  The reduction is backed by independent external evidence, not just internal confidence.

• Major Cyber Attacks
  The inherent risk is scored at the maximum level – acknowledging the real global threat.
  The residual risk is lower because of controls, testing, and response planning.
  That is a sensible, evidence‑led judgment.

These examples show what good risk management looks like:

• Clear threat

• Clear controls

• Clear evidence

But… not all risks on the register meet that standard.

The Biggest Strategic Risk: Council Finances

The most serious risk on the register is the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

This is the council’s ability to:

• Balance its budget

• Fund statutory services

• Deliver savings year after year

Right now:

• This risk is scored red at the highest level

• The council is forecasting multi‑million‑pound overspends

• Savings plans are slipping

• One‑off fixes and reserves are being used repeatedly

In plain English:

The council is struggling to afford the services it is legally required to provide.

This risk is being scored honestly. It is high. It is persistent. And it threatens everything else.

Which brings us to a major problem…

Adult Social Care: When the Scores Don’t Match Reality

One of the most puzzling entries on the register is Rising Demand for Adult Social Care.

This risk is scored:

• Inherent: Red (very high)

• Residual: Green (very low)

The explanation given is that:

• There are no waiting lists

• Care packages are being delivered

• Providers are in place

Operationally, that may be true.

But here’s the contradiction:

Adult Social Care is one of the largest and fastest‑growing areas of overspend in Doncaster.

Year after year:

• Fees increase

• Demand rises

• Budget pressure intensifies

The service is coping – but at ever‑increasing cost.

This raises a fundamental question:

If a service is only working by becoming more expensive and less affordable, is the risk really “low”?

From a public accountability perspective, this looks like:

• Good ethics

• Strong operational effort

• But a strategic risk being under‑scored

It is a classic example of risk displacement: The crisis is avoided, but the cost is pushed into the future.

Children’s Services: Where the Pressure Is Building

Several children’s services risks sit in the amber zone, including:

• Residential placements outside the borough

• Children’s social care workforce recruitment

• SEND and Dedicated Schools Grant pressures

These risks are interconnected:

• Fewer staff → higher caseloads

• Higher demand → more expensive placements

• More spend → financial instability

The register often describes activity:

• Recruitment drives

• New strategies

• Partnerships

But OSMC scrutiny has rightly asked:

At what point do these pressures stop being “managed” and become system failure?

Especially when:

• Overspends are persistent

• Market costs keep rising

• Workforce shortages are national

These are not short‑term problems.

The Airport, Partnerships, and Optimism Bias

Some high‑profile projects, such as the airport, appear better mitigated on paper.

Why? Because they attract:

• Leadership focus

• Political commitment

• Programme activity

But scrutiny has raised legitimate concerns about:

• Financial exposure

• Lease and contractual risk

• Governance arrangements

• Independence of oversight

Activity is not the same as risk reduction.

And in governance:

Confidence must never be mistaken for control.

What the Risk Register Doesn’t Show (But Should)

Here’s the key takeaway.

The Strategic Risk Register is not dishonest.
But it is incomplete if read uncritically.

It does not always show:

• How risks interact with each other

• How service “success” creates financial fragility

• How long‑term risks are being postponed

That is why scrutiny matters. That is why transparency matters. And that is why the public deserves to understand these documents.

Why This Matters to Residents

Strategic risks are not abstract.

They affect:

• Whether libraries stay open

• Whether care is affordable

• Whether services collapse suddenly or decline slowly

• Whether decisions are made early – or in crisis

When risks are downplayed:

• Problems are inherited by future councillors

• Shocks become unavoidable

• Trust is lost

When risks are faced honestly:

• Choices can be made democratically

• Trade‑offs can be debated openly

• Residents can be treated like adults

Closing: Transparency Is Not Disloyalty

Asking questions about risk is not negativity. It is not opposition for its own sake. It is basic democratic responsibility.

A Strategic Risk Register should never exist to reassure. It should exist to warn.

Doncaster deserves a council culture where:

• Risks are scored honestly

• Financial reality is not hidden behind service success

• And the public is trusted with the truth

That is what Doncaster Deserves Reform stands for.

Spend time in the borough — on the high street, at a bus stop, at a school gate — and you hear versions of the same sentiment voiced in different ways:

“I’ve voted all my life, but I don’t know anymore.”
Or, more bluntly:
“What difference does it make?”

That isn’t disengagement. It is frustration mixed with curiosity. And it helps explain why Barnsley, long one of the most predictable council areas in England, is now being talked about not only locally, but across South Yorkshire.

This article explores why Barnsley matters now, how it compares with Doncaster, what issues residents consistently raise, and what any new council structure — particularly one involving Reform — would inherit financially and politically after May 7th.

A Long Political Memory: Barnsley and Power

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council has been under continuous Labour control since 1974 — more than half a century.

Supporters of that record often frame it as stability. From a Reform‑supporter’s analytical perspective, however, the concern is not about individual decisions but about what long‑term political dominance does to institutions over time.

When electoral defeat feels unlikely, incentives change. Challenge weakens. Decision‑making can become inward‑looking. Even good intentions risk turning into habit rather than scrutiny.

For many years, this was reflected in how local elections were reported. Coverage was often administrative: who retired, who replaced them, how large the majority remained. One former local journalist once described Barnsley council elections privately as “important, but rarely surprising.”

That language has shifted. Local and regional reporting now uses terms such as volatile, knife‑edge, and unpredictable. This change matters because language usually moves only after assumptions have already begun to crumble.

Why This Election Is Different

Structurally, the upcoming election is unlike most Barnsley residents have experienced in decades. All 63 council seats are being contested at once following boundary changes and the move to whole‑council elections.

From a Reform perspective, this is significant. Incremental elections allow dissatisfaction to be absorbed gradually. Whole‑council elections force voters to answer a bigger question in one moment:

Do we still want the same council, or not?

That question generates hesitancy even in people who ultimately vote to maintain the status quo. And hesitancy itself signals political change. Conversations that once ended with habit now involve weighing risk and consequence. Barnsley has moved from political routine to political choice.

Doncaster and Barnsley: Two Stages of the Same Story

To understand where Barnsley might be heading, many Reform supporters look to Doncaster.

From this perspective, Doncaster and Barnsley are not opposites — they are connected points on the same political path. Doncaster is further along it.

In Doncaster, frustration has largely consolidated into anger. Politics is discussed less in terms of individual council services and more in terms of systemic failure. One frequently hears sentiments along the lines of:

“We waited, we voted, we complained — nothing changed, so we stopped waiting.”

Barnsley is not fully there. Frustration exists, but it is fragmented. Loyalty has softened rather than collapsed. Risk is still debated rather than dismissed. Reform supporters often describe Barnsley today as resembling Doncaster five to ten years ago — but now facing an accelerated moment because all seats are up simultaneously.

How Barnsley Feels on the Ground: A Ward‑Level View

Across Barnsley, political mood varies considerably by area, but patterns are visible.

The Dearne Valley

Politics in the Dearne is rarely abstract. It is discussed through the cost of living, food prices, energy bills, and whether younger families can afford to stay local. Reform supporters often argue that voters here are not ideological; they are exhausted by pressure and impatient with delay.

Central Barnsley, Stairfoot, Monk Bretton

In more urban wards, disengagement is often masked by humour. Jokes about voting for whoever fixes pavements or sorts litter are not flippant. They reflect expectations that have fallen far enough that institutional promises no longer resonate.

Penistone and the Rural West

Here the tone is calmer but firmer. Concerns focus on planning decisions, development pressure, and being subject to policies that residents feel were designed elsewhere. Caution exists, but so does dissatisfaction.

Across the borough, a recurring theme emerges: many residents do not feel ignored, but managed — consulted procedurally rather than meaningfully.

The “Hot Potato” Issues Residents Keep Raising

Before considering political change, it is necessary to understand the issues people themselves keep returning to.

Cost of Living and Council Advocacy

People regularly acknowledge that councils cannot control national economics. What frustrates them is the perception that councils manage hardship rather than challenge it. A common refrain is: “I know they can’t fix everything — but are they really fighting for us?”

Housing, Condition and Trust

Housing concerns manifest differently across wards, but trust is the unifying issue. Whether discussing repairs, tenancy security, or new developments, many residents do not feel decisions are made with them — only around them.

Visible Decline and the “Small Things”

Litter, broken pavements, inconsistent enforcement, street lighting — residents understand budgets are tight, but also believe visible neglect erodes confidence faster than major policy disputes ever could.

Consultation Fatigue

Barnsley residents are frequently consulted. What breeds cynicism is the sense that outcomes rarely change. This fatigue feeds disengagement and creates fertile ground for protest politics.

The Financial Reality Any New Council Would Inherit

Barnsley is not financially collapsed. It has not issued a Section 114 notice and is generally considered more cautious than some authorities. That said, it faces the same structural pressures confronting councils nationwide.

Costs are rising fastest in adult social care, children’s services, staffing, contract inflation, and infrastructure maintenance. These consume increasing proportions of the budget before political priorities even enter the conversation.

From a Reform analytical perspective, the argument is not that councils are hiding vast sums, but that difficult decisions and assumptions have often been postponed or treated as untouchable.

Any new council — particularly one created by political disruption — would inherit tight finances, limited flexibility, and very little public patience. Change would shorten the honeymoon period, not extend it.

What a Reform‑Led Barnsley Would Represent

From a Reform perspective, the significance of a Reform‑influenced or Reform‑led Barnsley Council lies less in individual policies and more in breaking a long‑standing assumption: that Barnsley does not change politically.

Symbolically, it would signal that no council is immune from challenge. Practically, it would disrupt regional consensus and introduce new scrutiny into decision‑making spaces long accustomed to agreement. A frequently heard sentiment among Reform supporters is simple:

“At least they’d have to explain themselves.”

The South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority: Where It All Connects

The South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA) controls transport priorities, skills funding, and investment strategy. To many residents it feels distant, but its decisions are deeply consequential.

From a Reform‑leaning analytical view, SYMCA reflects Labour dominance and technocratic consensus. Reform representation from Doncaster — and potentially Barnsley — would not guarantee agreement, but it would guarantee challenge. Consensus would be contested. Funding decisions would be questioned. Transparency would become unavoidable.

A Practical Reminder: How Voting Works

Most Barnsley wards will elect three councillors, meaning voters usually have up to three votes. These can be split or partially used. Using only one vote does not strengthen it; it simply leaves other votes unused.

Many residents express concern about “doing it wrong” and therefore under‑vote. In close contests, this misunderstanding genuinely matters. Ballot papers explain entitlements clearly, and polling staff are there to help.

Conclusion: A Region Watching Closely

Whatever happens after May 7th, Barnsley is no longer the political constant it once was. In South Yorkshire, when one town moves, others pay attention.

Doncaster already has.
Rotherham is watching.
Barnsley is deciding.

That decision will shape local government debates in South Yorkshire for years to come.

This is the first of a regular Sunday Supplement, I hope you found it interesting.

I hope you enjoyed this conversation, there will be many more to come …

This is about rights, responsibilities, and the rulebook councils must follow.

Introduction

This episode is not about whether Doncaster Sheffield Airport should reopen.
It is about how decisions of this scale must be made in law.

Local government is not run on trust, goodwill or political convenience. It is governed by statute, common‑law principles and formal codes of conduct.

When those rules are bent, selective or ignored, the entire decision‑making process becomes vulnerable — legally and democratically.

1. The Legal Status of a Councillor

An elected councillor is not a junior stakeholder.

Under the Local Government Act 1972, every councillor is a statutory decision‑maker when sitting at Full Council. That status carries both authority and responsibility.

Councillors are expected to:

• understand what they are voting on

• assess financial and legal risk

• scrutinise evidence

• and act in the public interest

They cannot lawfully do that without access to relevant information.

2. Members’ Code of Conduct – Duties, Not Discretion

The Members’ Code of Conduct requires councillors to:

• act with integrity

• make decisions based on proper consideration of professional advice and evidence

• and avoid bringing the authority into disrepute

Crucially, it also assumes councillors are given the information required to meet those obligations.

A system which withholds or filters information from some members while sharing it with others undermines the very framework the Code depends upon.

3. Fiduciary Duty to Taxpayers

Councillors owe a fiduciary duty — not to officers, not to leadership, but to residents and taxpayers.

That duty includes:

• safeguarding public money

• understanding borrowing risk

• considering long‑term financial exposure

• and protecting the authority from imprudent decisions

When councillors are asked to approve major borrowing without sight of:

• full financial models

• independent reviews

• or contract‑critical arrangements

they are placed in an impossible legal position.

Voting blind is not fiduciary prudence.

4. Access to Information Is a Legal Right

The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 and general principles of public law make this clear:

Members must be provided with sufficient information to enable them to make informed decisions.

This applies before the decision, not after.

Selective disclosure, excessive redaction or reliance on summaries can all breach the spirit — and potentially the letter — of this requirement.

5. Key Legal Tests for Decision‑Making

Courts assess council decisions against well‑established tests, including:

• Legality – did members have the information required to lawfully exercise the power?

• Procedural fairness – were all members treated equally?

• Rationality – were decisions based on evidence rather than assertion?

• Wednesbury reasonableness – did the decision fall within the range of reasonable outcomes?

If councillors are denied access to material documents, the decision itself becomes vulnerable.

6. Why New Councillors Matter

A large number of newly elected councillors increases — not reduces — the duty of transparency.

New members:

• must be supported

• must be informed

• must not be managed out of scrutiny

Experience is not a legal prerequisite for access to documents.

Equality of access is.

7. Scrutiny Is a Legal Function, Not Political Dissent

Scrutiny is not opposition. Scrutiny is not sabotage. Scrutiny is not disloyalty.

Scrutiny is a statutory function of councillors.

Attempting to portray legal questioning as political disruption misunderstands the system entirely — or misrepresents it deliberately.

Conclusion – Why This Matters

Transparency protects everyone:

• councillors

• officers

• the council

• taxpayers

• and the project itself

If a decision cannot withstand open scrutiny, it is not robust enough to proceed.

Local government does not work on blind trust.
It works on evidence, equality and law.

And that is why governance is not optional.

If residents want confidence in major public investment, they should expect:

• open books

• equal access

• and lawful decision‑making

That is not controversy.
That is democracy working as it should.

DONCASTER DESERVES REFORM

Recent claims suggest that councillors were fully briefed and adequately informed on the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield Airport. Those claims do not withstand examination when measured against the legal obligations owed to elected members.

The Legal Position Is Clear

Under the Local Government Act 1972, the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, and the Members’ Code of Conduct, councillors are entitled to be provided with all information reasonably necessary to make an informed decision on the business before them.

This includes:

• sufficient financial information to understand risk and exposure

• access to relevant reports, reviews and analyses

• disclosure of material contractual arrangements

• and the ability to scrutinise assumptions relied upon by decision‑makers

These are not optional courtesies. They are statutory governance requirements.

Two Tiers of Access Cannot Be Justified

It is now evident that access to information was uneven.

Senior political figures, cabinet members and executive officers were permitted sight of detailed material relating to:

• the airport business case

• independent assurance and review

• financial exposure and liabilities

• and commercial negotiations, including lease arrangements

However, a large proportion of elected councillors — including newly elected members — were not afforded the same level of access, despite being the prime voters on the borrowing decision that underpinned the project.

That disparity raises a serious governance question:

How can councillors lawfully discharge their duties if they are denied the same information as those promoting the decision?

This Engages Fiduciary Duty

Councillors owe a fiduciary duty to residents and taxpayers. That duty requires members to:

• act in the public interest

• understand financial risk

• safeguard public funds

• and make decisions based on proper evidence

Where information is withheld, summarised or redacted to the point that members cannot test risk or assumptions, that duty is compromised — not by councillors, but by the process imposed upon them.

Voting on trust is not a substitute for fiduciary responsibility.

Decision‑Making Must Meet Legal Tests

In public law, major financial decisions must satisfy established decision‑making principles, including:

• legality – the decision‑maker must have the information required to lawfully exercise the power

• rationality – decisions must be based on evidence, not assertion

• procedural fairness – elected members must be treated equally

• Wednesbury reasonableness – conclusions must fall within a reasonable interpretation of the evidence available

A process which restricts access to material information for some members, while others enjoy full visibility, risks failing these tests.

Redaction Is Not Neutral

Redaction of key financial and commercial information may be lawful where confidentiality is justified. However, it must be proportionate and necessary.

When:

• a business case is heavily redacted

• an independent review is summarised but not released

• and lease renegotiations are treated as off‑limits

members are prevented from conducting meaningful scrutiny. That undermines both confidence and compliance with governance standards.

If the case is robust, full disclosure should strengthen — not weaken — it.

Information Control Is Not Governance

A large intake of new councillors required more transparency, not less.

Instead, information appears to have been managed, filtered and rationed. Only now — as councillors fully understand their rights and responsibilities — has the scale of the information gap become clear.

This is not obstruction.
This is councillors finally fulfilling the role the law requires of them.

Scrutiny Is Not a Threat

Scrutiny does not “kill projects”.
Opacity does.

Raising legitimate questions about access to documentation, contractual terms and financial risk is not anti‑business, anti‑growth or anti‑airport. It is precisely what the Members’ Code of Conduct expects councillors to do.

The Way Forward Is Straightforward

If confidence is to be maintained:

• publish the full, unredacted business case

• release the complete independent review

• provide full transparency on commercial and lease arrangements

Equal access to information is not a favour.
It is a legal requirement.

Doncaster Deserves Governance That Stands Up to Scrutiny

This airport matters.
But so does the process by which decisions are made.

Doncaster deserves:

• lawful decision‑making

• equal treatment of elected members

• openness, not managed narratives

• and governance capable of withstanding scrutiny — now and in the future

That is not politics.
That is public duty.

And that is what Doncaster deserves.

DONCASTER DESERVES REFORM

To Come - Episode 2 - Interview with Irwen Martin, Chair of Reform UK Doncaster.