Opinion

Like many by-elections, the battleground has left political casualties strewn across the battlefield but how do we assess just who were the winners and who were the losers? That challenge became even more tricky with the outbreak of hostilities between America and Iran. I had pondered not bothering to post this - it was written before the war on Iran started - but it seemed to me that there was not much point in that either. So here we are - largely unedited.

Labour lost. Or maybe “Love’s Labour’s Lost.” Okay, that’s not the most penetrating quote but the puzzle for Starmer is how to counter voters’ appetite for insurgency and satisfy their hunger for more.

The swing against Labour should set alarm bells ringing for its MPs and would-be MPs in the county - voters have discovered that there are times when their voice counts more than others.

Leader Starmer may be right in his diagnosis that voters are angry but doesn’t appear to accept that the anger is directed at him but some other force. Is he on borrowed time? Possibly but ironically, you can argue that he is safe for now as those who want to trigger his downfall don’t have an alternative successor plan around which the party can unite. It looks like their campaign will otherwise burn up as it hurtles back to planet earth.

The Tories lost but not quite as badly as Labour. Again, not the most incisive analysis but they too have the same conundrum as Labour. Just how does the party rebrand itself in a way that convinces voters that the party is standing up for what Theresa May coined as the “just about managing?” as well as those who want a more radical programme and those who are leaving because they suspect a plot to re-enter the EU.

There is a policy vacuum on key issues, for example. What precisely is its position on irregular migration and how to stop boats crossing the channel? It’s difficult to put any kind of spin on a result that was the worst by-election in its history.

The Reform Party: Has discovered that the flipside of being outside the mainstream has a limited shelf-life. Trading on its slogan that “we are not like the others” goes so far but can that really sustain it for the next three years or so? And for all his political guile, Farage’s magic touch has become a touch jaded. It may sweep up votes in a general election but his avuncular man-of-the-people image has lost some of its sheen. Progressive politics works to the left as well as the right.

The Green Party: Winning is becoming a habit - almost. The party that struggled for years to get a foothold in politics in the Garden of England has discovered a way of winning that capitalises on voter unease about the big parties. From scrabbling around for votes in the foothills, it has hoovered up support in a way in which it poses a threat to the Lib Dems as much as the Tories and Labour. The possible dilemma comes where both parties see support that is evenly spread in seats which are three-way marginals. On issues like water pollution and house-building, it is on similar ground; will tactical voting become common practice?

The Lib Dems: Once the repository for protest votes, the party now has the Greens fighting on another flank. Issues like water quality ought to be natural territory for Ed Davey and his gang but it no longer has exclusive access rights; house-building, for example and concerns over concreting over the countryside are no longer the preserve of the party. However, it can point to a significant breakthrough at the general election when it returned an MP in Tunbridge Wells. And it has cemented its role as the official opposition at County Hall, proving that you can be an effective political force whatever the size.

Can it build on its momentum? That is the key for a party undeniably taking advantage of the woes of Labour and the struggles of the Conservatives to convince enough supporters to back them.

Long live the Dolge!

Yes, if anyone had doubted the Reform Party and its determination to pursue ways of saving money, then they have been rapidly disabused by the news that it is to appoint a cabinet member at County Hall with responsibility for cutting out waste and encouraging prudence.

The county council’s Reform regime is clearly determined to ensure that the momentum behind its drive - such as it is - to eliminate waste is not lost after a shaky start.

As with most things to do with the Dolge initiative, there have been plenty of bumps along the way and the present situation is that Cllr Chris Hespe has been appointed to the cabinet to fill the role.

Before that there was the departure of the finance cabinet member who paid the price for some indiscrete words in which he claimed that the party had not discovered the extent of financial savings it expected.

Cllr Matthew Fraser Moathe fell on his sword after his candour about the success of the scheme and the twin pressures of doing that job with his own.

Mr Hespe’s first priority was keen to ensure everyone understood the scheme was not being abandoned, and he did so with carefully nuanced words which left open a number of doors should things get a little sticky.

He told councillors that “reports of dolge’s death are greatly exagerated; it is alive and kicking and it is not just about cuts. I don’t own either a salami slicer or a chain saw. Dolge is about creating a culture of seeking efficiencies and saving money.”

He challenged the other parties represented on the council to say if they were genuinely interested in some of the initiatives already flagged up by Reform as ways of saving money for the hard-pressed council tax payers. He also reminded those who had previously been in charge of County Hall they had failed to meet that challenge.

Nothing can disguise the fact that local government finance is in an unholy mess and it will take a major effort to put it back on track.

The importance of the scheme to the Reform party was underlined by its leader Linden Kemkaran making the announcement, praising Cllr Hespe for the work he had already done.

In terms of its resonance with the wider public, however, it could be a hard sell. And if inefficiencies are uncovered over time, then Reform will have to face the possibility that simply blaming their political rivals will only go so far.

Messaging around Dolge is designed to exert some pressure on management to make them more cautious when considering the benefits and - horrible word alert - disbenefits.

The irony is that the measure of success will be judged against how much waste there actually is within County Hall; and whether there is a commonly agreed definition of waste.

There is also the delicate question as to what constitutes waste. There have been a few lame jokes about pot plants in offices being a drain on resources and no doubt there will be more.

Either way, Reform appears determined to continue with one of its flagship policies even if it causes some embarrassment along the way.

MEANWHILE, a Freedom of Information request to the council asking for details of whether it had appointed any external contractors and for other details of its Dolge scheme drew a rather odd response:

In relation to the county council’s “efficiency” unit that is investigating potential areas where costs could be cut by the council:

Who has been commissioned to conduct a review of the authority’s expenditure? Please provide relevant details of individuals or companies. Was any of the work put out to tender; if not, why not?

“No individual or organisation has been commissioned to conduct a review of the authority’s expenditure.”

Are outside organisations or individuals on DOGE charging a fee for their work?

Answer: No.

If so, who has been commissioned to conduct a review of the authority’s expenditure? Please provide relevant details of individuals or companies. Was any of the work put out to tender; if not, why not?

“No individual or organisation has been commissioned to conduct a review of the authority’s expenditure.”

In the end, there was to be no coup, no rebellion, no putsch, no revolt.

Labour had - we were told by an endless stream of commentators, observers and pundits - that Starmer’s days were numbered. Even his hours were ebbing away.

The party’s dissenting voices had risen to fever pitch but no-one seemed to have thought of what would happen after Starmer had been booted out.

Captain Mainwaring and Lance Corporal Jones could not have been more inept and the pollsters and predictors suddenly disappeared from the airwaves to mull over what they had done. Which was not terribly much and as quick as the political tide threatened to overcome the Labour machine, it receded just as quickly.

Correspondents specialising in spreading doom gradually moderated their tone to one which allowed them to say that a putsch might still be on the cards - only not that particular day.

Starmer survived not because his MPs suddenly had realised how good he was but because the PM was in mortal danger and when you looked at the alternatives, they were largely second rate; if not even worse.

As Ed Miliband, who has experience of this thing, put it: “They looked over the precipice and didn’t like what they saw.”

Of course they didn’t. Would you have done anything different?

So, what next? Well the party’s prospects are still rather unpredictable but there does not seem to be either an appetite for change or an appetite to go through more agonising hand-wringing.

Kent’s new batch of Labour MPs stayed quietly loyal, predictably so, but only because they knew just how volatile politics is and can veer off course in the least expected way.

And like buses, leadership contests tend to come in bunches so they may get another shot at it in the not too distant future.

Sketch

Treason, treachery, lies and lies. No, not the latest shenanigans in an episode of “Traitors” (although it could have been) but the political furore over the disgraced Labour figure of Peter Mandelson, who appears to be in some kind of race for the number of resignations he can complete in record time.

The drama played out in the Commons on Wednesday with the other key ingredient of Sir Keir Starmer under fire - again - for his role as the man who both knew a fair amount of what other MPs did and at the same time did not, an invidious position for any politician to be in.

It was a test of his political acumen: could he escape, houdini-like, from the chains that bound him or was he trapped in a political vortex from which there was no escape? No, he couldn’t.

It sounded like he was trapped, tied down in ropes on the unforgiving green benches in the chamber, not the most pleasant of scenarios unless you have in mind the image of Mandelson in his Y-fronts that you can’t erase.

Starmer may have been given a duff hand but it was largely his own making.

As Labour MPs piled in, there was no mistaking the genuine outrage. For once there was nothing synthetic about it. Where will this complex psycho drama go?

Who knows - but Mandelson can’t possibly survive this? Can he? More importantly, can Starmer survive?

As civil servants bury their heads in bundles of papers detailing the options for the county that have been sent en-masse from council offices to Whitehall so too will plenty of council taxpayers.

Given that this is being billed as a once-in-a-generation shake up, you would expect public bodies that oversee annual multi-million pound budgets to have the skills to at least hazard an educated guess.

And let’s be fair to councils: there is no real precedent or template for this level of upheaval to draw on.

But submissions being made by individual councils can be hard to decipher. The bewildering mass of statistics that appear in the county council’s business case for becoming a stand-alone unitary authority is spread across some 300 plus-pages. Not exactly bed-time reading.

Meanwhile, councils are trying to sugar the pill in not altogether convincing ways - suggesting that any financial ramifications can be deferred in the same way manufacturers advertise on TV offering tempting deals to cash in on low interest rates and no obligation to start paying for four years.

The individual costs of the impact for each new proposed authority are not precisely identified but KCC figures outline how savings affect the collective group of the proposed newly-formed unitary councils in each option.

Among those catching the eye under KCC’s single unitary is a reference to the recruitment of 27 “additional community navigators” to explain and advise what the changes mean to the public at an estimated cost of £1.1m.

Other savings will come from “consolidating back-office functions” such as Human Resources (HR), Finance and Information Technology (IT) to streamline operations, enhance efficiencies and unlock savings.”

The greatest cost savings will come from cuts in the workforce but even here there is not much meat on the bone.

The authority’s leader makes no bones about the consequences of creating multiple unitary councils. Cllr Linden Kemkaran said:

“This would be to the detriment of the entire county, but for some areas it is an existential threat and breaking up Kent and Medway would undermine “the county’s ability to respond to national challenges, destabilise critical response arrangements and erode the strategic resilience that currently benefits the whole country.”

An existential threat? That’s serious stuff if you believe how it is defined, namely “as an event that causes the destruction of the earth originating intelligent life or permanent irreversible destruction of humanity’s long-term potential…unlike mere disasters, these are terminal.”

So, what are the headlines for the one-off implementation costs for Kent County Council and other authorities?

Option 1 - Kent governed by a single pan-wide unitary authority at a set-up cost of £99m; would eventually save the tax-payer some £69m a year. Favoured by KCC but not by others.

Option 3a - Medway plus three unitaries: implementation costs £127.7m; then £69.4m saved annually. Supported by many councils: Gravesham, Medway and Swale in the north; Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Malling, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells in the west and Ashford, Canterbury, Thanet, Dover and Folkestone and Hythe.

Option 4b: Kent divided into four unitary councils, taking into account existing communities and boundaries to provide all services. Set up costs £130.9m; £67.5m annual savings. Supported by among others: Dartford; Gravesham; Medway; Maidstone; Sevenoaks; Tonbridge & Malling; Tunbridge Wells; Ashford; Folkestone and Hythe; Swale, Canterbury;Dover, Thanet.

In total, the five options under consideration could mean an admission fee of millions of pounds.

For those who harbour enthusiasm for the brave new world of council re-organisation, the government is being pretty uncompromising.

It has been explicit in making councils aware that the initial burden of transition costs will fall to them rather than the government.

No doubt civil servants will be pouring through submissions to make sure they are not just accurate but valid.

This scrutiny is important - as it allows for a careful and measured assessment of the worth of the individual authorities who are joining forces.

As things stand, Kent council leaders who represent district and borough authorities seem to be in limbo while they wait anxiously for news from the government.

As do residents pondering if devolution is the way ahead.

Sketch

Nigel Farage has form when it comes to staging political ambushes but not everything always goes to plan and even by his standards, the unveiling of Robert Jenrick as the Reform party’s latest defector took some beating.

Chaotic doesn’t really do justice to events in a sweaty room at a conference centre in London but it soon became clear why - for once, Nigel was not leading but reacting.

The man at the centre of this latest drama Robert Jenrick had inexplicably handed the Conservative leader the advantage by carelessly leaving his resignation speech on his desk for all to see.

Reform hastily arranged a press conference which was not quite the conference it had in mind. Behind the scenes, Jenrick and Farage set about how best to present this latest defection after his ‘plotting’ led to him behind a desk, this was a test of his ability to turn events around as journalists peppered him with reminders of how he had insulted Jenrick on many occasions, to which Farage simply responded that he had changed his mind.

On occasion, he spluttered indignantly at some perceived slight and sounded as if his batteries had short-circuited as he waited for his new friend to appear.

Jenrick was rather delayed which led to a short-lived period of speculation that he had changed his mind but of course he hadn’t.

It looked like he had had a haircut of the kind that schoolboys have before term starts - rather too short - but deemed necessary.

Anyway, Jenrick made light of his delayed arrival and proceeded to have the same kind of awkward questioning that Farage had to fend off.

It was hard to keep tabs on the number of times he referred to “broken Britain” (a lot) and exhorted his fellow former colleagues to join the Reform party (a lot), as they were only ones he said were capable of turning things around.

But if he had known about the challenge of fixing broken things, why was it that he hadn’t when he was in the Conservative party?

He didn’t really have an answer to that and Farage simply wafted the question away or pretended he hadn’t heard it.

So, another scalp for the Reform party but one that comes as a little tarnished. The rate of attrition among disillusioned Tories continues apace but there is a limit to the cumulative impact.

Next week, there comes the promise of news of another high-profile defector - this time from the Labour ranks.

The Reform roadshow rolls on; but the appetite for constant change is possibly wearing thin.

Voters won’t be satisfied if all the Reform party can do over the next three years is produce a never-ending list of people who are fed up with everything (all of the time).

That is the proposal for the authority to set up “assemblies” to ensure the single unitary council that KCC wants for the whole of Kent does not concentrate power at the top and leaves smaller communities without a role.

The draft document that sets out the new framework contains more than 60 references to the concept, with the inevitable references to “hubs”.

Although it is not directly comparable, the Conservatives and indeed Ukip were consistently opposed to the government’s efforts to regionalise parts of the country to help turbo charge the economy.

This was in the form of regional assemblies made up of business and political leaders - with Kent being in what was a much unloved body that was appointed rather than elected.

So, what to make of the model put forward by the Reform party that embraces the concept of “assemblies?”

According to the document setting out the authority’s blueprint, assemblies will have a pivotal role to play in shaping the new unitary authorities, acting as a second tier (sound familiar?) in the case of KCC’s preferred model. At least we think so: the report sent to the government was a little woolly in terms of detail.

In a preference to the huge report setting out the council’s plans, the leader Linden Kemkaran emphasises their importance, saying three new “area assemblies will ensure “that locally focused services are delivered in ways that best meet the needs of our unique communities.”

And Area Assemblies, [we] would provide local responsiveness, flexibility and innovation in community services, working with local partners and people.”

Suitably vague, a further stab at explaining comes later in the report:

“A single unitary paired with Area Assemblies balances strategic capacity with local responsiveness. Assemblies in North, East, and West Kent reflect travel, education, and healthcare patterns, supporting local identity without fragmenting services or infrastructure.”

And more: the assemblies could as a single unitary ‘potentially avoiding service fragmentation entirely by maintaining a single top-tier authority. It ensures continuity of service delivery, simplifies governance, and reduces transition risk.” Note the word ‘potential’.

This doesn’t seem to be a model of power sharing or devolving power downwards - the give-away is the word “influence” in certain operational matters. The commitment to set up assemblies is, it seems, designed to provide “local responsiveness” that will see them “shape community services like libraries and family hubs to meet local needs.”

The concern here is that there’s no specific powers set out for these assemblies - what, for example, does “shape community services” mean in practical terms? Would assemblies actually have any power to force the executive (cabinet) to consider a different decision?

And what guarantee is there that “community services remain locally grounded?” There’s not too much the county council’s Reform administration has to say on that front either.

As to elections to these assemblies - or possibly appointed - the process is a little fuzzy.

Would would-be members of these assemblies would stand for election in a poll that would see them elected as members of a single-tier county authority rather than as a member of one of these assemblies.

Again, that tilts power towards the executive. And so too does the necessity for a not-inconsiderable number of council staff with responsibility for “engagement” - some at top tier salary levels.

Overall - and given their apparent significance in the makeover - there is rather more for us to learn about these assemblies than less. Devolved powers are all well and good but they have to be seen as serving a particular purpose.

As things stand, it looks like their primary focus is to fill in the gaps in a Heath Robinson-style - no consultation, the bare necessities, some loose padding - all factors that raise questions about what the real point of assemblies might be…

But let’s give the former Conservative MEP Dan Hannan one cheer for acknowledging that he is partly to blame for the introduction of crime commissioners.

The government has announced that it is to scrap commissioners after concluding that the idea has failed and they should be ended.

So, why has Dan done the equivalent of walking into a police station and asking to be arrested for the charge of bringing forward the idea?

Scroll back to 2020 and you will find his admission in the pages of the Daily Telegraph, for whom he was writing a column for the newspaper.

Hannan first pitched the idea in The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain, a 2008 book co-authored with Douglas Carswell, a Conservative MP who later defected to UKIP.

So what was the problem? Actually, it was the first of several problems with the concept of crime commissioners, not all of which were immediately recognisable.

“When I asked what was wrong with ‘sheriffs’, the name originally proposed, I was told that Home Office focus groups had rejected it as ‘too American’,” he declared.

The idea of crime commissioners came about as a result of the perceived difficulties people had in identifying clearly who was ultimately the individual accountable for the actions of their local police force.

And the best way to resolve that was - according to the government - to have a crime commissioner, democratically-elected and charged with scrutiny of the force to ensure it was doing what it should

Unfortunately for the government, its blueprint failed to galvanise both the public or the force for which there are a multitude of reasons, not least the challenge of getting people engaged in discussing how best to tackle crime.

And there was confusion over exactly what powers commissioners had, with the general public inclined to be even more sceptical once they learned that they had no powers beyond strategic oversight.

The police authorities that were the non-political, non-partisan predecessor bodies - were, it is true - slightly more accountable but were also left with the delicate balancing act of meeting its main objectives.

These were to ensure the force was cracking down on crime effectively and, er, that’s just about it.

So, the government has acted and says they will be replaced. By what?

Well here’s the thing: their role may be absorbed by those areas who are moving to having an elected mayor and in those areas where there is no mayor, the role will fall to crime boards made up of council leaders.

There is a familiar ring to this but just can’t nail down what it is..

Tempers flared at a cross-party meeting at Kent County Council today after opposition parties accused the Reform party of interference in a report on identifying savings.

The clashes came in a debate on a report setting out the progress the council had made in the work to save money and the role played by the ‘Dolge’ unit - Kent County Council’s Department of Local Government Efficiency.

There was a row in which opposition parties accused the Reform party of talking up the progress it had made, with committee chairman Cllr Chris Hespe in the firing line.

He denied that he had sought to ‘talk up’ the work of ‘Dolge’ but faced a barrage of complaints that, as the chairman of a watchdog committee he was wrong to have done so.

“I don’t want to go into detail about particular savings now, that is not what this report is about,” said Cllr Chris Hespe (Reform).

Cllr Harry Raynor (Con) made a scornful attack on the Reform party’s progress.

“Is that all there is? After the razzamatazz of last year, after a visitation from on high, of the threats made to staff if they did not co-operate? Well, I call it pathetic.”

Replying, Reform Party cabinet member Brian Collins said that he was disappointed by the Green party councillor Mark Hood and Lib Dem councillor Antony Hook, who both sit on the committee.

Cllr Collins said: “We have already made savings and there will be more to come…it is a bit like turning round an oil tanker.”

Cllr Hood made a further jibe at the Conservatives reminding them of the financial legacy they had left while criticising the committee chairman.

Cllr Hespe was drawn into the row but said he had done nothing wrong and had consulted the authority’s lawyers to assess his position.

The Reform party has made bearing down on unnecessary spending a key objective in its budget plans. It is reflected in the creation of a dedicated cabinet role to ensure expenditure is kept as low as possible.

It being the pantomime season, it was perhaps inevitable that ruling county councillors from the Reform administration got themselves in a tangle over the authority’s accounts recently.

The county council, like every other authority, is required to submit their accounts on a yearly basis. This lengthy document sets out how it has managed to balance the books and highlights where it has spent taxpayers’ money - matters which in these days of financial austerity are rather significant.

And the publication of this report is generally held to be one of the most important for the county council. It is not just that it is an independent view of the financial situation over the year but that it accords with the need for transparency and checks and balances.

However, there was a rather “epic fail” over the most recent accounts which bordered on farce when they were presented to a a cross-party committee last week.

While the accounts were published and made available, no-one from Reform was similarly available to answer questions from the committee about how a £1.2bn budget was spent.

The Reform party appeared to have forgotten that it should have someone who is responsible for scrutiny of the report by the all-purpose Governance and Audit Committee.

The purpose of this committee is to provide independent and high-level focus on the adequacy of governance, risk, finance, and control arrangements.

The absence of anyone from the cabinet to take questions inevitably led to questions from opposition groups.

Green county councillor Mark Hood described the situation as “highly irregular” and suggested that the committee wait until someone was available. Which they did.

Tory group leader Harry Rayner was underwhelmed to say the least and he had a list of issues he wanted to address. He brusquely set about a litany of complaints, telling the committee it was “totally unacceptable” and that you could not have a meeting about auditing the accounts without the cabinet member for finance present or someone else in their place.

There followed a stand-off and the meeting hastily adjourned while someone from the Reform group was found to field questions.

The unlucky councillor was Brian Collins, who is the deputy finance spokesman and reluctantly put his head above the parapet to take on the interrogators.

He did at least apologise for the confusion and said that he had inquired the night before if he was needed and told he was not - only for that instruction to be rescinded.

Not that he was going to divulge anything, telling the committee he had really only come to observe.

As arguably the most important financial report concerning the capacity and the challenges KCC confronts as it marches towards a new future, a detailed analysis of the financial landscape ought to have been given careful consideration.

But as we are constantly reminded, Reform does things differently - though not always better.

With more leaks than certain water companies and more banished banshees than in your average episode of “Traitors,” the Reform Party is facing the challenge of dealing with that most dangerous of threats - dissent from within.

This could play out in a myriad of ways but whatever the outcome - if there is one - it won’t look good in terms of how voters view the Reform Party.

Here’s my take-away of the key moments of the week and where it leaves the parties:

• Suck it Up

  The Reform party’s leader’s clash with some of her colleagues reveals that the party remains in the grip of internal strife and warring factions which could lead to deeper political fractures. The leaked video footage to the Guardian suggests that some of the ruling party are apparently in open revolt over aspects of the leadership and are disgruntled at the fact that pledges made before the election are not likely to be fulfilled any time soon.

Up to standard?

The unbecoming language and general lack of courtesy at recent council meetings has been highlighted as undesirable by the current chairman of Kent County Council, Richard Palmer. He said some comments made at recent meetings were arguably in contravention of the Nolan principles of conduct in the public life. That he chose to intervene personally reflects his - and it has to be said, many others - disquiet at some of the behaviour of elected members

However, while there are already some formal complaints submitted to KCC’s standards committee about behaviour, there won’t be any resolution soon. That’s because each complaint is firstly examined by a panel which determines if there is a case to answer. The progress can be slow, especially if the first phase involves solicitors or legal advisers.

• Pointless political stunt of the week goes to the seven Labour party MPs who have written to Nigel Farage asking him to expel the under-fire county council leader of Reform. As if Farage would open his mail, read through the request and immediately get on the phone to Reform HQ…

• Losing their advantage

  The distractions afflicting the Reform party in Kent mean there has been relatively little open debate about the council tax, which poses another threat to the party. The figure of a 5% hike in council tax - if proposed - is likely to trigger another bout of factional internal fighting, if only because during the election campaign, council tax rises were ruled out by Reform UK.

• Under Pressure

The fate of Reform leader Linden Kemkaran rests not on her popularity - or lack of it - among members but whether she is regarded as an electoral asset by voters. She’s certainly a tough talker but her inability to pull together the party and her abrasive style make her vulnerable. Out within a year? It’s possible…

If you’re flummoxed by this, don’t panic - you are not alone: the government is pushing ahead with plans for local government reform that will see the introduction of sweeping powers and freedoms for a new generation of local unitary authorities.

Now, the single unitary option has one or two obstacles in its path: the chief one being that it is not one that county councils are being encouraged to set up.

Unfortunately for KCC’s high command (that’s the new Reform Party administration), there is resistance from a number of directions - with the leaders of all twelve districts and boroughs refusing to endorse KCC’s plan, leaving it a touch isolated to go it alone.

A report which set out the latest situation was studiously neutral on the possible problems KCC faces when a cross-party committee known as The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet probed the report on the plans it had.

More criticism came the way of the authority when a Conservative election strategist warned the plans were labelled as “unmanageable and unworkable.” Conservative county councillor Andrew Kennedy told the meeting:

“I am not sure that the policy being developed by this council is right; this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, creating a council that will be the largest in Europe with 1.9m people; is larger than thirteen American states; larger than 83 countries. It will have to have, by the Boundary Commission guidelines, 160 members. That is twice what we have at the moment - it will be unmanageable. But most of all, it will create a top-down organisation that will have few links with the communities it is created to serve.”

“All this is being done without a single piece of public consultation” - a claim that was not strictly accurate as on the same day, just such a public consultation got underway.

Reform Party spokesman Cllr Chris Hespe denied the council was going to end up as a ‘top down” authority claiming that “we would not call it a ‘mega’ council’ but an inclusive one.”

Chris Hespe denied that KCC was taking a parochial position: “We are not looking at this as a parochial thing…and I’m not saying that other council leaders are…the local consultation will guide us as to what people want from the local government review or indeed if they want anything at all.”

There was a measured but damning appraisal of the authority’s masterplan from Lib Dem group leader Anthony Hook, who filleted the alternative Reform Party scheme delicately, saying that when the leaders of all councils met to discuss it, not a single one supported the idea.

“The big problem with this idea of regional assemblies is that it is going to end up with over centralisation; the best safeguard is actually to have other councils; the idea of a ‘mega’ council vacuuming up other councils is not attractive.”

The notion of having three regional groupings as part of the plan is a case of whether a square peg can be found to fit in a round hole. Any type of “regional” set-up has in the past been vilified by the Conservatives and it’s a surprise - or maybe not - to find the Reform Party embrace the concept so fulsomely.

Still, at least there is some reasonably solid financial evidence base to it - notwithstanding the caution that needs to be exercised when deliberating on these matters. The chief beneficiary is likely to be services for the elderly, where the pressure on council budgets is huge and according to the county council calculations, could save it and Medway some £16m on vulnerable children and adult care services.

That initial saving could be followed by needing to spend £40m less each year on the same services.

The government will need some persuading if it is to grant some kind of a special exemption for Kent.

When it does eventually land on a desk at the Department for Local Government, it will probably get a shrug of the shoulders and be sent back for more work to be done.

One interesting dimension to all this is that as things stand, Kent would be the only authority in the entire south east region not to have some kind of elected mayor within any new set up.

And as intriguing is the fact that the Conservatives are leading the charge over this: the apparent support for retaining so-called ‘regional assemblies’ is an example of how the law of unintended consequences might impact the Garden of England.

A tale of two county council meetings…

Part 1: Doors slammed shut, foul and abusive language, support for alleged terrorist groups: just an average meeting of Kent County Council?

If you have ever wondered what county councillors actually get up to when they attend meetings, then perhaps you should take a peek at a recent gathering for an invaluable insight into their behaviour.

It is not usual to offer such a recommendation but events at two recent full council meetings deserve to be in the public domain. The first meeting took place in July, and as full council meetings usually do, sparked some argumentative, not to say testy exchanges.

So, why was the meeting in July so combustible?

For that, you need to flip the county council calendar forward to September 18, the date of next full council meeting.

The Reform Party chairman of the council Cllr Richard Palmer was back in charge, after an unforeseen diary clash that meant he could not be present for the afternoon debate in July.

He had taken the trouble to watch a webcast of the July meeting he had missed and was not impressed by what he had seen.

And he had decided that members needed a rap on the knuckles for failing to abide by the conduct required of them at public meetings.

Cllr Palmer said the conduct of some was so poor that it breached the Nolan Principles that public officials are required to heed by.

Chairman of Kent County Council Cllr Palmer criticises members over their behaviour

“To be quite honest, the behaviour of some members fell short of the Nolan principles; there was a lack of respect, not just to members but to members of the public. It is members of the public who voted us in and we are leaders within our community. We owe it to members of the public to listen and to challenge reasonably and fairly.”

He was particularly underwhelmed by councillors who had “slammed the doors” of the council chamber as they left the meeting in high dudgeon and of “using foul and abusive language.”

“That is the kind of language you hear in the pubs on a Friday night. Certain language only inflames the public,” he said.

Members needed to consider how they came across to the public. “All I ask is that they show respect and put [their] our case firmly but fairly without resorting to abuse of anyone.”

Like a recalcitrant schoolchild, members listened in stunned silence - not something that happens often at County Hall.

Seconds out, round two:

Had the message about being on their best behaviour got through? Not exactly.

The leader duly delivered an account of what the authority had been up to and the opposition parties questioned and challenged the account. The protocol of these meetings is for the leader to have a final right of reply.

In her formal response, Cllr Kemkaran prefaced her speech with a remark that she hoped that the opposition party leaders had “got that off their tiny little chests.”

But before she could get much further, the Labour group leader Alister Brady had jumped up to complain she was breaking an all-party agreement “not to be patronising to one another.”

The leader replied that she would correct her remark with the hope that “they had got it off their big, manly chests…honestly I was beginning to feel like an agony aunt”.

The dispute then turned to a scarf being worn by Green county councillor Stuart Jeffery which the leader said possibly appeared to be in support of a terrorist group Hamas.

Not surprisingly this prompted a furious reply from Cllr Jeffrey, who demanded a retraction and apology, saying it was “bang out of order.”

This in turn prompted an intervention from the chairman of the council Cllr Palmer, who urged the leader to “reflect” on her comments which could be wrongly interpreted.

He reminded members the constitution of the council included a requirement not to question the motives of councillors.

Cllr Kemkaren said she was always happy to reflect but did not retract the comments.

Does all this mean anything more than the standard knock-about you get in most councils?

Maybe, maybe not.

Either way, councillors insulting one another at public meetings is not the most edifying of spectacles.

And voters might baulk at the idea that the suggestion a reform package will help end this ya-boo Punch and Judy style of politics

There is very little that connects the 1981 version of David Steel’s Liberal Democrat party and Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, version 2025.

That is bar one thing: both were and one still is supremely confident of their election prospects and so confident that the two leaders have felt emboldened to urge their respective parties to return to their constituencies and prepare to form the next government.

We know what happened next: the Lib Dems alliance failed to do as well as expected. But the Reform Party? Predicting the outcome for that is a bit trickier.

Nonetheless, Farage has every right to be content after a period of high-velocity politics that has catapulted Reform UK into the driver’s seat. The Dick Dastardly of UK politics is in top gear and even by his standards, is experiencing another spell in which he is outflanking the main parties and is on the crest of a wave that has left his rivals floundering in the political shallows.

The man who had battled eight times to win a seat in Parliament - including several times in Kent - is even more cheery after the Labour party went close to a complete implosion in the midst of the resignation of Angela Rayner after she admitted failing to pay the right amount of tax on a new house.

Farage is, then, riding high and how David Cameron must regret labelling the party as a bunch of “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” in 2006.

What does all this mean for Kent?

The electoral map of Kent has changed its hue from shades of blue to red to turquoise and green - not by way of a rainbow alliance but because it is no longer what used to be known as a true blue Tory heartland. The new electoral force of the Reform Party is compelling the other mainstream parties to think of ways in which to outflank Nigel Farage, without becoming a shallow imitation of the real thing.

They have all got a plan to deal with migrants…but none seem to work:

Like it or not, the political attritional arms race over small boats is going to continue to be the single most important key issue in Kent. Nigel Farage has upped the stakes as the parties battle over who has the best solution to resolving - in other words blocking the continuing influx of irregular migration. His pledge to deport all asylum seekers within two weeks could become a pledge too far. He has already rowed back, saying the two-week deadline means two weeks after legislation has been passed permitting the government to return arrivals.

It doesn't take long for things to go wrong in political parties.

After the justifiable euphoria, the Reform Party UK, has already seen one or two hitches and glitches within the ruling administration at Kent County Council. Under its leader Linden Kemkaran, not everything is going to plan.

Even Nigel Farage has had to admit there are councillors who have been elected who would perhaps never made it on to a shortlist had they checked thoroughly before their name went on the ballot paper. How many years until the next election?

Brexit

Remember those heady days when we were promised all manner of goodies if we left the EU? Well, for many the sweet jar is empty and remains so. The pledges of a new era in which we could do our own thing without having to run it past dozens of EU member states? That promise to fund hospitals £350m a week with the money saved by not being member states? You could be forgiven for thinking you might have missed it. But like a lot of things to do with leaving the EU, not everything is what it seems - and we’ll be revealing more of that in the coming weeks.

Subscribe now

The government has ordered all authorities to come up with alternative plans to run and provide services through unitary councils, saying the two-tier system - made up of district and county councils - needs reform.

But an analysis of how re-organisation could work suggests that under some options, councils in Kent have little or no money to fund the change and the costs of transition.

According to a 240-page document on the transition costs, some options could damage councils and create further funding pressures for them.

The report has been drafted as a contribution to the debate on how the county should now be run.

Several councils say it could be years before they are in a position to pay the bill. But others could see extra funding. Transition costs could be for redundancies, changes in offices and consultants’ fees.

For the option of dividing the county into three unitary authorities, the report says there could be “moderate net recurring benefit of £9.3m” - before transition costs are applied, with it taking eight years to pay back the set-up costs.

And it could see a fillip for services for the elderly and young children - with an estimated increase in annual spend on children’s and adults’ social care and SEND across Kent and Medway of £14.9m.

The sum excludes any demand pressures that would also be added over time.

For other options, the outcome of reform is mixed. A split into four unitaries would see a loss of income, identifying a figure of £5.4m. According to the report:

“There is no predicted payback period as recurring costs continue to exceed benefits. New unitaries tax and / or reductions in service delivery.”

But there are more positive predictions. On the proposal that Kent could become a single unitary, there could be “high net recurring benefit of £49.4m (before transition costs).” Saving in spend on children’s and adults’ social care and SEND across Kent and Medway could be in the region of £16.2m per year.

One of the great imponderables about the prospect of splitting the county into unitary authorities is exactly what it would mean for council tax bills.

Given the successive increases that all councils have imposed in recent years in the tax it is no surprise that it is one of the key issues in determining what arrangement there should be in terms of the number of unitary authorities.

There is an incredible amount of detail in the 242 pages devoted to analyzing the options councils will have when eventually the decision comes. Unfortunately not a great deal of the content answers the key question council taxpayers can be expected to ask: how will this re-organisation affect our bills?

To which the answer is, no-one really knows.

There is a reason for this: it will of course be up to the new unitary authorities and indeed any form of elected mayor to determine council tax levels.

The report does allude to the challenges of dealing with new authorities which could contain areas of social disadvantage alongside more prosperous communities. It foreshadows a situation that is both frustrating and lacks clarity, suggesting we’d better hang fire until the smoke has cleared.

As the report sets out, it will be for the new unitary councils to make policy, that includes council tax rates.

There are some tantalising hints as to what might be on your council tax bill in the forthcoming two years but don’t be too surprised if the political outlook is as changeable as the weather.

As the report concludes on a rather gloomy note: “It is impossible to predict future policy decisions. The new unitary councils that would be created through LGR (Local Government Review) will make policy decisions and design their operating models as they see fit. This will have an impact on the outcomes of LGR that cannot be predicted.”

ANALYSIS

Bills, budgets and banks and the brave new world of local government finance…how it could look for councils:

The county council report exams in detail the potential impact of new council structures on the local government map of Kent. But it limits itself to general conclusions and options, applying each against different criteria to give each a point score under what it terms an “options appraisal”

It is distinctly wary on the financial ramifications, limiting itself to general conclusions and avoiding anything but broad findings - usually on the numbers of council taxpayers who might be better off and the number who could see bills increase.

On the options to split Kent into four unitaries, it states they would be the “least financially viable and deliver lowest efficiency. In this option, 57% of residents could face higher Council Tax.”

There is a similarly cautious assessment of another option to split into four saying there would be “no net benefit, high transition costs and no payback period. This option would also create an inequitable distribution of debt across the unitaries.”

There are mixed messages on council tax bills, with an assessment of a single tier arrangement forecasting it “would have the highest proportion of residents paying higher council tax, at 65%.”

The report flags up the contrasting financial challenges facing councils grouped together, with the level of debts lowest in more affluent areas such as west Kent and highest in those less well off, such as Medway.

Perhaps the best that can be said is that it is only when the historic split does occur that we will be able to judge the success or otherwise of the review.

Until then, we will have to abide by the words of former secretary of state Donald Rumsfeld who asserted that there are “unknown unknowns” - the things we don’t know we don’t know.”

The mother lode has landed and landed heavily - as you might expect, dealing with such a complicated and far-reaching re-organisation of the local government apparatus.

Across 240 pages, the local government version of “War And Peace” sees the county council spelling out the options facing the 12 local district councils, Medway council and Kent County Council. You want detail? Stand well back.

It’s a smorgasboard of suggestions and solutions that many will find not to their taste but we now have something on paper which - like it or not - sets out a rationale for a re-organisation that would see Kent split into unitary authorities.

This is, we are told, not necessarily what Kent will end up with but is closest to what the government has said should be the key considerations and aligns with its agenda for a wholesale re-jig.

That is of course a giant simplification. As the report strains every sinew to emphasise “a recommendation is not given…the options have been scored but there is no recommended option. The evidence and options appraisal are presented objectively to support members to form their policy position.”

The report is littered with such caveats; the council has not yet engaged with the public; policy may change; scoring is based on current information; it is impossible to predict future policy; Government criteria are open to interpretation and so forth.

So, treat with caution should be the mantra but we are at least making headway - of a kind. And as countless politicians will tell us over the coming months, this is a marathon not a sprint.

Oh, and as to that preferred option? It says the closest model to what the government wants is one in which Kent would be split into three do-it-all councils: one for west Kent; one for east Kent and one for north Kent.

So far as north Kent is concerned, that is notable for the inclusion of what is already a unitary in the form of Medway; the option places it with Swale council, Gravesham and Dartford.

West Kent would be created via unitaries for Maidstone, Tonbridge and Malling, Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks; and finally, east Kent, which would be made up of Ashford, Dover, Canterbury, Thanet and Folkestone.

As to why, it seems that the premier option scores highest because it aligns with the government’s priorities, although some of these are fairly under-whelming. It emphasises that it would create fairly equal authorities with ‘least disparity’ in some key areas - not exactly a call to arms - while KCC says it “balances moderate financial sustainability with proximity to local communities.” Not exactly what you would call a game changer.

In total, the report sets out potentially six options, four of which have been endorsed by council leaders.

Perhaps a more intriguing aspect of the inaugural debate on local government reorganisation was the claim that KCC was missing a trick and needed to be bolder.

The encouragement was led by the Reform party county councillor Chrispe Hespe, who was previously the authority’s sports development officer before throwing his weight behind Nigel Farage’s party.

He told colleagues that an alternative option would be for KCC to simply have a single unitary body to run services.

“We are trying to put a square peg into a round hole. None of the options appear to be ideal for Kent. Even our best option only scores 21 out of 30; Kent has unique characteristics, such as a long coastal line….one unitary east, west, north..like a shamrock. Benefits? A unitary hybrid, economies of scale; we’d easily outscore the others.”

Council leader Linden Kemkaran was quick to respond when pressed on whether KCC should examine in detail what looks like a seventh option. But she also expressed concerns that the general public were disinterested and did not know what was happening.

“The whole thing is a muddle; will people want to get down in the weeds with us or simply let us get on with that?”

It’s Hobson’s Choice…and not many winners.

The government says it would not be in the public interest to release information about its controversial devolution plans, which could see some kind of elected mayor for Kent and are likely to impact on thousands of council employees.

The Ministry of Local Government has blocked our request made under the Freedom of Information Act, citing a public interest exemption.

The plans for devolution and a reorganisation of local government are set to scrap Kent County Council and replace it with an as-yet unknown number of unitary authorities. It has been cited as one of the most radical shake-ups in local government in a generation.

Despite the significance and repercussions of devolution, it is not known what is driving the government’s devolution agenda.

The ministry said disclosure of documents would “unacceptably erode” the safe space needed by politicians to consider the devolution policy and would be liable to cause a "chilling effect".

It has been argued that while it holds relevant information about the shake-up, releasing it now would inhibit the government from deliberating on the devolution policy and local government reorganisation.

It has refused to put the information in the public domain on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest.

It invoked an exemption under the Act that permits public bodies to withhold information because the government is still considering the policy in question. Section 35 is often deployed by the government and is known as the ‘catch-all’ exemption.

Among the material we asked to be disclosed were the specific concerns the government had about population disparities in Kent and the evidence considered by minister Jim McMahon and civil servants.

We also asked if a cost-benefit analysis had been considered in the context of the likely costs of re-organisation caused by large scale redundancies.

In its reply, the ministry said the information on these issues was deemed exempt from disclosure as it related to the formulation of government policy.

It acknowledged that where the exemption was used, public bodies still had to weigh the public interest arguments. On this occasion, it said those were not greater than the grounds for withholding it.

Its formal response stated: “There is always a degree of benefit in making information held by public authorities available, as it increases public participation in decision making and aids the transparency and accountability of government. The department recognises this public interest allows for the scrutiny of government policy and decision-making processes, in particular with regard to increasing public understanding of this subject.”

It continued:

“However, the department must also consider the public interest which lies in maintaining a ‘safe space’ in which policy officials and ministers are able to formulate policy, ideas and reach decisions away from external interference and distraction.”

As a result, it had decided that the information we requested related to a live policy and disclosure of this information would unacceptably erode the aforementioned "safe space" and would be liable to cause a "chilling effect".

“Officials and ministers must feel able to consider the information and advice before them and be able to reach objective, fully informed decisions without impediment and free from distraction that such information will prematurely be made public.”

ANALYSIS

So, what is the counterargument and the case for disclosure?

For councils having to calibrate and second guess what the government’s intentions are, such information could be considered to be fairly significant. Engaging the public in the case for and against devolution won’t be enhanced by secrecy and will arguably harm the government’s case.

Council tax payers will certainly want to hear if their bills will go up while businesses will be keen to understand if their rates are to rise.

KCC’s previous Conservative administration had complained bitterly about the exclusion of Kent and Medway from a group of councils who would be placed on a priority “fast track” for devolution.

Kent and Medway council initially sought a devolution deal that would create a combined authority with an elected mayor, similar to other areas like Manchester and the West Midlands.

But former Tory leader Roger Gough said he had still not received an explanation as to why Kent had been excluded from that list in the run-up to the county council election, labelling it as “totally incomprehensible and confusing.”

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government did release a copy of two letters it had sent to Mr Gough in which the minister Jim McMahon said “there was nothing further to add” to previous exchanges on the matter.

There are growing concerns about the timetable for devolution and the reorganisation of councils in Kent. In particular, there are fears the process is being rushed through with councils given until November to come up with their proposals.

Share

Sketch

After the euphoria of victory in the Garden of England, the Reform party is beginning to grasp that with victory comes the rather trickier business of running what is the largest council in the country.

The party has already has already had an unwelcome taste of internal dissent with the alleged ‘sacking’ of one of its new county councillors and the suspension of another facing charges of threatening to kill his wife.

Like its predecessor Ukip, the party’s approach to these ‘local difficulties’ is to try and ignore them, something it achieves quite successfully - on others, less so. The new administration is finding its feet and has the advantage of a huge majority - which, to be fair, also brings it problems.

In its first meeting of the full council this week, the party leader went out of her way to emphasise that she was developing an exciting programme of activities.

That most of these decisions also appealed to the party’s core vote was not a co-incidence. It knows that it is in prime position to consolidate its power base in Kent.

So, we were treated to a series of pronouncements in a speech that did not shy away from spelling it like it is. Or is at least in Reform party’s eyes.

In the efforts to stop KCC’s debts from rising, the leader announced that the authority was looking to block the sale of Invicta House that had been agreed by the former Tory administration.

And there was further good news - apparently - on the efforts to reduce the level of debt.

This had reduced by some £16 million, a saving of £2000 per day in interest payments alone. The “no more borrowing” policy would reduce this debt even further by over £33 million by next March.

The opposition parties suspect a sleight of hand with these savings but with no papers available to check the claims, it was impossible to say.

Some of these actions would normally be subject to the rules around transparency and involve executive decision-making. Perhaps they will be. Otherwise, we could be in for a lengthy time-span.

The sweltering temperature in the council chamber led to officials wheeling in two high-powered air conditioners but the noise distorted the webcast feed and were switched off - not before the chairman Cllr Palmer slipped in the old joke about the hot air caused by elected members.

Slightly more serious were comments made by the leader Linden Kemkaran about the continuing arrival of irregular migrants on small boats. That’s standard stuff from the Reform party playbook but provocative all the same.

She said men from “deeply misogynistic” and “unenlightened cultures” were “invading” the county.

This was lapped up by the Reform party backbenchers, who to a man and to a woman were continuing to abide by the sartorial code requiring them to wear something a shade of turquoise.

It rather made them look like the cabin crew of a low-cost budget airline.

Still, the meeting offered a glimpse into the party’s approach to its challenges - even if one or two of its members were absent due to certain other pressing matters.

Chin chi

We are, of course, talking about the ongoing conundrum of how best to deal with the thousands of migrants continuing to drift over the Channel to the UK.

When you hear a politician say that they face ‘serious challenges’ on a particular issue, you know that whatever they proposed before to deal with it has in all likelihood, failed.

But how do you acknowledge failure at the same time as defending the measures that did not work and are being replaced?

If there has been one issue that has vexed all political parties, it is finding a solution to the ongoing crisis of would-be migrants turning up in their thousands in often unsafe dinghies to reach the UK.

Night after night, day after day, hundreds of “irregular” migrants are able to claim asylum the moment they step foot on UK soil.

The more punitive the measures - and the are - , the more the numbers go up. The more they promise to crack down on the criminal gangs, the greater the number of clandestine crossings.

Having a plan is one thing, but it is next to useless if it can’t deliver what is needed on the ground.

Unfortunately, politicians do not measure the success or failure of their policies by declaring that elements of their latest crackdown have worked while others have been less than successful.

It’s an all-or-nothing strategy; one which raises the stakes significantly.

Our elected representatives live in fear of being found out, which is why it is so difficult to contrive a package of measures that would satisfy everyone.

And governing by crude slogans achieves next to nothing beyond - well appealing toto your core support. The Conservatives penned the underwhelming “Stop the Boats” which had the merit of simplicity but little else.

And everyone had - and has - a plan. You couldn’t move for plans which led to a blizzard of policy proposals and arguments.

The plans the Conservative party had drawn up left the former Dover MP Natalie Elphicke so unimpressed, she jumped ship and defected to Labour in the run-up to the general election in 2024.

She said the Conservatives had failed to deliver on its promises and that the Rwanda plan was flawed. It had taken the former MP until just a few weeks from the election to reach this position, a curious piece of timing.

Labour leader Sir Kier Starmer spent the election campaign telling everyone he had a plan to “smash the criminal gangs.”

He didn’t specify how serious the threat was and how he intended to ‘smash’ those behind the smuggling.

Vacuity is the name of the game; if you can heap blame on someone else, it’s all for the good.

Meanwhile, Dover MP Mike Tapp has vented his anger in a video posted on X in which he said the criminal gangs were ‘mocking’ us.

There was a plan - of course - to deal with these gangs - but it was the mood music that counted and the theatrical flourish with which he identified gang leaders who had already been captured and put on trial signalled his intent.

The trouble is that outrage won’t get you very far and neither will a plan which fails to say what will be done.

Immigration remains a touchstone issue for all parties but there is a common theme - that the only way it will be resolved is if the UK gets support from Europe.

The key problem is that the French authorities are not pulling their weight despite being given millions of pounds from the UK taxpayer.

You don’t have to go far to see stories suggesting the French aren’t really giving the issue the attention it merits. Images of French immigration officials, soldiers and police standing back and watching groups clambering onto dinghies attest to the futility of those who try to intervene.

Still, we may see some impetus on new legal powers that would enable the French to intervene directly and tackle the phenomenon of so-called ‘taxi boats.’

But the choppy waters around the issue remain: will the government be able to hail success in curbing the numbers by the time of the next election? On present form, you would have to say it is doubtful.

Reform party: after the euphoria of victory in Kent, comes the reality of being on the political frontline. And it was no surprise when Kent Labour MPs lined up to take fire at the new political kids on the block - it was almost as if it had been planned - with denunciation of the party led by the Dover MP Mike Tapp.

In a letter - described as strongly worded - he told the party leader, Linden Kemkaran, that decisions under her leadership appeared “driven more by populist rhetoric than by sound governance or the best interests of Kent’s residents”.

Not one to take such accusations lying down, she replied:

“The first thought that springs to mind when you mention ‘chaos, infighting and imported gimmicks’ is that people who live in glass houses probably shouldn’t throw stones,” she wrote.

Meanwhile, the Labour leader of Medway council, Vince Maple, voiced concern over the tone of a letter sent by the Reform party to staff, which he said was ‘threatening’ and a disgrace. The letter warned KCC employees that they should co-operate with an investigation into the county council’s finances.

Cllr Maple said that the threat was ‘disgraceful’ especially as it had been signed by two people who had nothing to do with the authority.

Closer to home and the probably inevitable news that the Whip had been removed from one of the 57 newly elected Reform county councillors after it emerged police were investigating an unspecified issue.

The party had hoped that its careful sifting of candidates might spare it from this kind of publicity - and it is important to stress no action has been taken by police - but altogether, it has been a week in which the Reform party has discovered that there is something about the saying that politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose.

As to how this sniping will affect cross-party collaboration on the key issue of devolution, there is a growing sense that there won’t be much harmony between the Reform party and others when it comes to determining how the county council will be replaced by a group of unitary authorities.

It is quite possible that there could be some kind of legal challenge over the government’s proposals, for which support is not so much lukewarm as decidedly chilly.

Budget blues

So far as Kent was concerned, there wasn’t much to hang out the bunting for. Despite record numbers of irregular migrants continuing to find a way to cross the Channel, the Home Office budget will fall by 1.7% between 2025-26 and 2028.

And there is a presumption in the statement that suggests the government is pencilling in council increases of 5%.

Despite this, the Chancellor repeated a pledge to MPs that the government “will be ending the costly use of hotels to house asylum seekers, in this Parliament” by way of something called the transformation fund. This would, she told MPs, be achieved in this Parliament and save £1bn .

But where would they go? You can’t just stop using accommodation and close the doors to dozens of hotels. It was a question that went unanswered as the Chancellor ploughed on through her statement.

With Labour now having to fight its corner with the political up-starts from the Reform Party, there were some trinkets for 25 areas where Labour might be deemed vulnerable.

Some 25 so-called “trailblazer neighbourhoods” stand to receive up to £20m each over the next decade to tackle social problems - and, hurrah, they include Maidstone - the only place in the county to qualify for a slice of funding.

Note the careful language - it is not a £20m handout but a scheme in which ‘up to’ £20m might be available. And the money will be over a ten-year period.