The news that Iraq war veteran Tim Collins has bowed out of the race to become Kent's first elected police chief will disappoint Home Secretary Theresa May.

He was paraded before the Conservative party conference last year and hailed as the kind of person the government wanted to see take strategic leadership of police forces. "I wouldn't like to be a criminal if he gets elected," Ms May quipped.

Now he is out the Conservative slate looks like being one with a little less stardust and Ms May's party could end up with a candidate from the local government world - not exactly what was envisaged when it came to finding people to galvanise the electorate.

There was in any case some doubt about whether Tim Collins would win the race: there were mutterings among some local activists who disliked having a candidate with Central Office backing semi-imposed on them and it was entirely possible he may not have made it through the hustings.

It does seem odd that he withdrew after discovering he would not be able to attend all the relevant selection meetings, possibly indicating he was in any case cooling on the idea.

He did some damage in his comments that he could take on the job part-time - not exactly ideal PR when you consider the post carries a salary of £85,000 and at a time of austerity and high unemployment.

For what it is worth, my money for the Conservative candidacy is the county councillor Bryan Sweetland but when constituency activists are involved, anything could happen.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The flak coming Shepway council's way after unveiling that it wanted to get people's views on a possible nuclear waste site must have got the authority wondering why it has bothered. The idea has been trampled on by just about everyone with the leader of Kent Council heading the charge and making it abundantly clear that he wants it buried as far under the ground as any of the nuclear rods that would be trundling through the county in 25 years time.

The only politician to have been rather more cautious is Ashford council leader Peter Wood, who had a go at those who had damned the proposition without giving it a fair hearing (I wonder who he had in mind?)

It's hardly a surprise that there has been an outcry locally but the political backdrop to this is that Kent Conservatives at County Hall are particularly sensitive - away from anything else - that they will be on the campaign trail next year .

The last thing they want is to have to confront voters on the doorstep anxious about a procession of nuclear lorries or trains loaded up with toxic nuclear waste material carving through the Garden of England.

The real story of the council elections is not the advances made by Labour and the slide of the Conservatives and Lib Dems.

It is, or at least should be, the fact that the turnout was so appalling - the lowest, so it is said, for ten years.

Hundreds of councillors have been elected on turnouts of about 30% - meaning two thirds of potential voters simply weren't interested. Hardly a resounding mandate.

In one ward in Maidstone - Parkwood - just 18% of voters turned out. Even in Tunbridge Wells, where you might have thought there would be a greater interest, turnout was around 30%.

You can call it apathy, indifference or disillusionment. But however you describe it, it represents a significant and profound challenge to our politicians who have - on all sides - singularly failed to come up with ways of resolving this long-standing crisis afflicting local government.

Thatcher thought the solution was to hit voters in their pockets via the poll tax - a kind of shock therapy that did indeed get people interested in councils but not quite in the way she intended.

Labour tried implementing cabinet government and executive mayors. The argument was that people would know where the buck stopped and greater accountability would transform the public's appetite for local democracy.

More recently, the coalition has gone for a transparency revolution with equally mixed results. There have been various attempts to make it easier to vote.

All have failed to effect any kind of revolution and appear to have left as many of us as indifferent and disinterested as before. This is not to say people are turned off by politics. They are often engaged in issues that really ought to mean that council elections matter more than Parliamentary ones.

Somehow they don't. Why? Many councillors do an admirable job taking up constituents' interests but I am often struck by how inward looking many are - often seeming to consider that in serving 'the council' by attending lots of meetings, they are somehow serving residents.

Political interests are often elevated above those of constituents, with members fearful of uttering anything that could be perceived as being disloyal to their party or damaging to the image or reputation of the authority - let alone damaging their prospects of preferment and a possible job in the cabinet.

Politically, the result is that every party begins to sound the same.

Despite endless consultations and PR, councils are  still too often seen as doing things to people, rather than with them or for them. They suffer, like national governments, from the perception that they are distant and remote, patrician bureaucracies that ask us to accept implicitly that 'they know best.'

Of course, council elections are seen through the prism of the national political scene. So, we see the line trotted out that the apathy factor is more about discontent with the government of the day than lack of interest in the local council. (I accept the media falls into this trap, too).

Note how defeated local councillors are directing their ire at their national representatives and how the party leaders are rationalising their results by talking about Parliamentary mid-term blues.

But if politicians spent as much time discussing how councils could better connect with residents as they did in a blame game explaining away their electoral losses, perhaps we might get nearer to finding a way of resolving this lack of interest.

The antidote to apathy - worth a watch

UP-DATED TUESDAY MAY 1/2012

A couple of developments since we published our original story about the number of private school pupils being offered places at Kent's grammars. First a story in which KCC underlines that coaching is not permitted and emphasising that schools (both independent and state) could face sanctions if they breach its rules.

And here, courtesy of KCC, is an extract from the rules sent to every school each year about the 11+. What intrigues me is that it is very evident from anyone you speak to that coaching and preparation takes place at many schools. Whether they are technically in breach of these rules is anybody's guess but it is hard to imagine, given the intense competition for places, that there aren't some who sail pretty close to the wind.

KCC - what it tells schools they can't do:

Back in 2007, the then Conservative education spokesman David Willetts made a keynote speech in which he had the temerity - some say bravery - to announce that a future Conservative government would not re-introduce selection or the 11-plus. 

Why? Because the party believed that grammars no longer offered a leg up to children from poorer backgrounds and the argument they enhance social mobility was not borne out by the evidence.

He said: "If the evidence were different and if grammar schools could still work as they might once have done, transforming the opportunities of many children from poor backgrounds then we would be obliged to look very seriously at the case for their introduction. But the fact is that grammar schools don't any longer work like that."

It is an argument that is reinforced by data we publish today detailing the impact - significant in many grammars in Kent - that fee-paying schools have in terms of taking up places.

In some senses, the statistics do not come as a surprise. There has always been plenty of anecdotal evidence around that prep schools are seen as a way, for those who can afford it, to secure a place at a top-performing state selective school.

But the figures, coupled with the strikingly low number of children on free school meals at grammars and the intensive private coaching culture used by parents to advance the prospects of their children passing the 11-plus, show David Willetts had a point.

Despite the hue and cry among those in the party who were aghast that the Conservatives were ditching a totemic policy, it is hard to advance an argument that there is a level playing field when it comes to the 11-plus.

Of course, the argument can be made that the way to counter the impact of private schools and improve social mobility would be to have more grammars. 

But unless they could somehow be ring fenced for pupils at state primaries, the likelihood is they would become vulnerable to the same phenomenon - and it will be interesting to see what will happen to the intake of the new satellite grammar school planned for Sevenoaks. I imagine the thriving independent sector in that part of the county will simply see the availibility of more places as something to exploit and there will be nothing anyone - least of all Kent county council - can do to stop it.

It's worth making the point that independent schools, unlike state primaries, are not encumbered by the key stage one and two tests meaning they have a further advantage.

So, given that the selective system is not going to go away in Kent, is there a solution? KCC has asked headteachers to examine whether there could be changes to the tests that would make them less susceptible to the coaching culture.

It is a conundrum that no-one has yet been able to resolve - the existing tests were said to be immune from coaching but that has long been acknowledged as a fallacy.  

It is hard to disagree, in the face of the evidence, with David Willetts' conclusion that "the uncomfortable truth is that our schools are not still spreading educational opportunities, they are entrenching social advantage."

Kent has plenty of challenges on the education front.

But if our politicians are to tackle the disadvantages faced by children from poorer backgrounds and wish to be able to claim that grammars do act as agents of social mobility, they will have to do much more to tackle the disparity between the intakes of selective and non-selective schools.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ever wondered what county councillors might do if they were forced by the public to debate a plan to reduce their numbers and cut the amount of money they cost the taxpayer?

Well, a petition demanding just that has appeared on KCC's website for e-petitions. It has a bit of a way to go before reaching the threshold for a debate but here's a thought: if our elected representatives are so sure of their value for money, surely the best thing to do would be for them to sign it so we can all hear their arguments?

Read the petition here:

https://democracy.kent.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=192&RPID=4216050&HPID=4216050&TPID=4216052

testsrules.doc (20.50 kb)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EVER since Kent County Council got its fingers singed over the £50m it had invested in three Icelandic banks, it has acted with all the caution of a meerkat emerging from an underground burrow surrounded by hungry predators.

This safety first approach - quite understandable in the circumstances - saw the council opt to invest any money in the Treasury's Debt Management Office, where it has seen a paltry return of 0.25% interest.

But it has begun to make deposits in other banks where the rate of interest paid is marginally better and in recent months, has made several agreements. One is with the RBS where KCC has £35m invested earning 1.25% interest; another is with the Bank of Scotland, where KCC has £27.5m on deposit earning 0.75%.

This is good news in one sense: financial advisers to KCC say that these better rates of interest mean the council is generating an extra £802,500 over a year.

But the degree to which the authority has been scarred by its nasty Icelandic experience was notable at a recent meeting where Conservative backbenchers were clearly alarmed that KCC had begun to make deposits with Santander Bank.

Chief worrier was Cllr Keith Ferrin, who appeared to have forgotten that last year, he complained that KCC ought to be rather more aggressive in its approach to finding better deals than the one on offer from the rather parsimonious HM Treasury. "There's every difference between a bank with a head office in the UK and one in Madrid," he pointed out.

Given the turbulence in the Spanish economy, he argued that KCC ought to take Santander off its approved list. When he was told that the bank was considered a safe bet by KCC's advisors, he made the fair point that KCC had been told exactly the same about Icelandic banks.

Finance cabinet member Cllr John Simmonds emphasised that KCC could take its money out of Santander quickly and there was a distinction between the bank's UK division and the Spanish division. "We've not taken this decision lightly and have had a good deal of advice," he said.

There is a reason why Conservatives are wringing their hands and getting out their worry beads. Many have painful memories of contesting the last county council election against the backdrop of the then unresolved Icelandic saga and recall how it was a genuine doorstep issue with voters.

The last thing they want is to fight next year's elections, where they already face losing seats, against a similar backdrop and having to account for another episode in which public money is at risk because of they got seduced by the attractions of Spain.

If the eyes of the nation weren't exactly turned towards County Hall, as one over-excited Conservative county councillor claimed, Kent County Council's decision to back new grammar school places is an undeniably significant one.

Kent to get 'new' grammar>>>

There was, to be frank, never that much doubt that the plan would receive the backing of the council, given the huge Conservative majority at KCC and especially in view of the wriggle room created by Michael Gove's decsion to allow the expansion of schools to meet demand for places where population growth creates the need.

KCC had been careful to emphasise that it was considering the case on these grounds alone and was not being driven by an ideological zeal to see the return of selection - which the Conservative party has banned.

Nevertheless, the debate at County Hall gave a vivid illustration of just how totemic the issue remains for many in the party. Some county councillors were clearly delighted to have the unexpected chance to actually do something to demonstrate that whatever David Cameron might have said, many believe the cornerstone of the party's education policy ought to be a commitment to restore the 11-plus.

The rhetoric showed the debate had not, for politicians on both sides, really moved on. In fact, I half expected to step out of County Hall to be confronted by people wearing flared trousers and tank tops and billboard posters encouraging me to go to work on an egg.

There was plenty of old-fahioned rhetoric from the Conservative backbenches about how Labour's abolition of the 11-plus had kicked away the ladder of opportunity from the working class and how anyone who dared vote against the plan would be depriving them of that chance - although there was no reference to the fact that these days, in many parts of Kent and especially the west, grammar schools are not really giving many from this 'leg up' because of the intense coaching culture that has evolved.

Cllr Jim Wedgebury (Con) told the meeting how KCC would be opening the floodgates for a host of new grammar schools across the country - fundamentally inaccurate as such expansion can only take place in pre-existing selective areas - but it gives you the sense of feeling that some felt the best thing KCC Conservatives could do would be to organise a march on the citadels of comprehensive areas and tear them down.

His colleague Andrew Bowles, also the leader of Swale council, made a pitch to head the crusade in a speech in which he declared that it was not just Sevenoaks that should have a new grammar but every town the length and breadth of the county - conjuring up images of an army of grammar school freedom fighters marching through the Garden of England with spades and forks, digging the foundations for new schools and handing out pamphlets extolling the virtues of selection.

Labour sought to deflect these attacks by adopting the political ruse of asking for a review of admissions and the 11-plus and suggesting that County Hall Conservatives were engaging in the educational equivalent of tax evasion - a tactic which didn't work out too well.

So, in political terms, there will be ripples from this decision and it certainly will give ballast to the large section of the Conservative party who think Cameron was mistaken at the outset to rule out more grammars. But it does not presage a full-scale restoration of grammars up and down the country whatever county councillors in Kent might believe and hope.

Parents in Sevenoaks mobilised a well-organised campaign which was based around their view that if they lived in a selective area, then it was wrong for their children to have to travel miles away to attend a school and that was entirely reasonable.

I never once heard any of them argue publicly that this was based around a view that selective schools were somehow 'better' and that is to their credit. And to be fair to KCC's cabinet member Cllr Mike Whiting, he has been scrupulous in sticking to the line that this is all about meeting a legitimate demand for places.

But it will be interesting to see how the story unfolds. There are any number of practical hurdles to overcome - the money, the site and the possible challenges that may come from other schools in the area who are concerned they may be adversely affected. One option that is apparently under consideration is for an academy chain to be invited to run the school - something Michael Gove would no doubt find acceptable.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One interesting thing that came out of yesterday's debate was the news that KCC has asked a group of headteachers to carry out a review of the 11+plus test. The authority is concerned that the the extensive coaching that some children get to take the 11+ has effectively disproved the accepted notion that children cannot be 'taught' to pass it.

And because coaching costs money, the argument that grammars improve social mobility is if not blown out of the water, badly under-mined - especially in view of the heightened competition caused by the emergence of a group of super-selective schools.

Two education stories involving Kent may, at first glance, appear unrelated.

The first involves parents in Sevenoaks petitioning Kent County Council for more grammar school places; the second involves Ofsted failing Kent's first secondary school academy and placing it in special measures. Seven years after it first opened its doors, the Marlowe Academy in Ramsage has been deemed to be offering students an unacceptable education.

Marlowe Academy failed by Ofsted>>>

Nothing could better illustrate just how stark the differences are in Kent when it comes to schooling. In one of the most prosperous and least disadvantaged areas of the county, parents are making the case for more selective places while in another - the county's economic blackspot where nearly 15% of 18-24-year-olds are out of work, the life chances and prospects for hundreds of children are being undermined because a school that cost £30m is, according to inspectors, failing.

The failures of the Marlowe cannot, of course, be laid at the door of those in Sevenoaks - which has the lowest unemployment rate in Kent and fewer 18-to-24-year-olds out of work than anywhere in the county -  where parents say they are simply arguing for increased capacity in the area to avoid children having to travel out of the area.

But the impact of selection on some schools in many areas cannot - and should not - be underestimated when it comes to making judgements about their achievements. Imagine being in a 100-metre sprint against Usain Bolt and just as you line up ,the marshal instructs you to move 25m behind the start line.

That is how many non-selective schools feel about the impact that grammars, which top slice the 25% of the most academically able children,  have. To their credit, many choose not to offer that as an excuse and are justifiably proud of what, in many cases, are outcomes that are - given their starting point - arguably better than some schools which select.

Roger De Haan, the chairman of governors at the Marlowe, says selection hasn't helped the challenge of improving the prospects of its pupils but you won't ever find Ofsted acknowledging - or even taking into account -  the potential impact that a selective system has on a non-selective school's performance.

It is often said by those in charge at County Hall that the "diversity" of Kent's schooling system is one of its strengths, and that such diversity affords parents the kind of choice not available elsewhere. Except, of course, that presumes a system in which all schools are doing equally as well - which is patently not the case.

To its credit, KCC has sought to bridge the gap between selective and non-selective schools in some ares through federations and partnerships and has set up the Kent Challenge to address the shortcomings of under-performing schools.

But the fact remains that there is a wide - some suggest widening gap - between the outcomes of pupils that is not being adequately addressed. Indeed, KCC's own director of education Patrick Leeson has been candid enough to say that there is less social mobility achieved in Kent through its schools than elsewhere and that the gap between the achievements of less well-off pupils and the more affluent is "extremely unacceptable."    

The damning Ofsted inspection of the Marlowe Academy is a striking reminder for both KCC and the government - which is ultimately accountable for academies - of just how far things still have to go before there is a genuine level playing field in Kent when it comes to schools and the outcomes and prospects for all children.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IT is now more than two years since an audit inquiry into Kent County Council’s extensive commercial trading operations cleared the authority of competing unfairly with private business.
The probe followed well-publicised complaints from the private sector about KCC having an unfair competitive advantage over others and allegations of cross-subsidies.
The Audit Commission cleared KCC of this but noted in a report that to allay concerns it needed to be more transparent about the activiites of its companies like Kent Top Temps and Kent Top Travel.
In response, the council set up a committee to oversee the various companies that together have a turnover of £400m a year, called the Governance and Audit Trading Activities Sub Group. Given the extent of KCC’s commercial trading companies, and in the face of an on-going trial involving fraud allegations, it is something of a surprise to discover that this committee has not met since May 2010

Are we to believe that there has been nothing of note to record about any aspect of commercial trading at KCC? Nothing like a high level independent review of the way they are governed, for example?

Two things stand out from the budget for Kent and both are issues that could, in time, store up difficulties for the government from Conservatives in the county.

George Osborne confirmed directly and in the strongest terms yet that the idea of a new airport was now firmly on the table and would be a key part of the government's consultation on aviation capacity.

MPs were told: "I also believe this country must confront the lack of airport capacity in the South East of England – we cannot cut ourselves off from the fastest growing cities in the world."

It would have been interesting to see the reaction of Kent backbenchers in the Commons but we didn't - it is hard to imagine they were doing anything but grimace.

It is clear the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have, if not completely won round, are becoming much more enthused and interested in the idea, particularly in view of the possibilities the scheme holds for regeneration.

Kent's Conservative MPs are united in their opposition and only this week several signed an open cross-party letter to the Daily Telegraph underlining their concerns about the consequences.

The politics of this are intriguing. What Kent backbenchers are undoubtedly anxious about is the potentially awkward timing. Government consultation gets underway shortly and will last, according to the Chancellor, until the summer.

Thereafter, it is unclear. The proposal could, of course, be killed off completely.

But if isn't - and knowing how long it can take for major infrastructure projects to move forward - the issue could be left hanging in the air. What will worry Kent Conservative MPs is, if the uncertainty is prolonged and the government prevaricates, they could be going into the next election not knowing where they stand.

If the government ultimately decide to press ahead with the idea, they could have to be campaigning against a key commitment.

It is, of course, some way off but if Boris Johnson wins the mayoral election in May, it is unlikely that he will let go of the idea and it is widely thought that he has the ear of the Treasury and the Chancellor.

The related issue is the government's determination to push ahead with planning reforms that many fear will result in a developers' charter, making it much harder for councils and others to resist development because of a new 'powerful' presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Out in the shires, the unease has been marked among Conservatives - and others - who fear the reforms represent a real threat to the Garden of England and will lead to vast swathes of green fields being concreted over.

One of Kent's most effective PR campaigns, masterminded by the late KCC leader Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, was to resist the Labour government's plans to increase house-building in Kent under John Prescott's grand schemes for a huge expansion in house-building numbers.

Kent countryside was described as being "non negotiable" and it was very effective, too. One of the first things the coalition did was scrap these house-building targets and promise that local councils would determine what they wanted to see built.

Now it seems another front has opened in a battle over the Garden of England many thought they had won.  

For an organisation that spends more than £2bn a year, there are times when you wonder whether KCC would be capable of arranging a celebration at a brewery. This week, the council had a scheduled meeting of its Selection and Members' Services committee. To be frank, what happened bordered on farcical. It reminded me of a children's tea party which begins with some degree of order, with the table neatly laid out, before unravelling into disorganised chaos.

The meeting had rather an inauspicious start when councillors were presented with a report which was a late item - meaning no-one had seen it until it was circulated. The report ran to 104 pages and detailed some rather important changes the council is making to the way it is run.

So new was this report that it appeared that KCC leader Paul Carter, who has been leading the re-organisation, was heard to mutter that he hadn't seen it before and was expecting something rather more succinct.

The committee chairman Peter Homewood, who had an afternoon he will probably wish to forget rather quickly, then decided councillors should get ten minutes to read it before discussing its contents. To be fair, several members piped up to say they were rather unhappy about that and the item was put on hold.

The real meat of the meeting, however, centred on two related items about an issue that is proving rather awkward for KCC: the use by members of private taxis and chauffeur-driven cars. The agenda included two separate reports, one detailing the results of an internal audit into members' expenses claims and one on KCC's policy for the use of chauffeur-driven cars.

What was NOT on the agenda, however, was the recent external auditor's report investigating claims that some county councillors, including the deputy leader Alex King, had made duplicate claims for travel in their own car when in fact they had been using a KCC chauffeur-driven car. This report has not even been formally published yet and is due to be discussed at a meeting in April - although its findings have been well publicised.

So, you might have expected members of the committee to steer clear of debating the outcome of a serious investigation which was a) not on the agenda anyway b) has not yet been formally published and c) actually involved some of the councillors sitting around the table.

It is true that there was a debate on the findings of the internal report but time and again, the discussion veered on to the report which wasn't supposed to be being discussed. At one point, Cllr King - one of the subjects of the investigation - declared the report that no-one had had made clear that nothing untoward had happened and that "nobody could read into the external report that any member had acted improperly, inappropriately or illegally...we are not on the fiddle and this report proves that."

Of course, that may well be the case but nobody on the committee was in a position to challenge this assertion because no-one had the report in front of them - including the Press. Opposition Liberal Democrat leader Trudy Dean intervened at one point to ask the council's monitoring officer Geoff Wild whether there was any need for anyone to declare an interest given the way the debate was going but was told "the subject matter does not relate to any individuals so no personal or prejudicial interest arises." He was, of course, referring to the internal auditors' report.

Mrs Dean said she felt the committee was in a rather precarious situation as both Cllr Carter and Mr King "are both sitting around the table taking part in the discussion."

However, the debate continued, with Cllr Carter pointing out that the costs of the external report by the district auditor had cost £25,000 and that would have to be borne by taxpayers.

After a while, it seems a message was communicated to the committee chairman that perhaps it was not in order for members to be discussing an item that wasn't on the agenda and related to a report involving some of those present and no-one actually had a copy of.

Belatedly, he advised the committee that it was not appropriate to be discussing the external auditor's findings but the words "horse, bolted and stable doors" sprung to mind.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The issue of whether county councillors ought to be using KCC chauffeured cars and taxis for private purposes has already created an awkward situation for the authority. One of the questions KCC has faced as a result of the inquiry was whether its policy permitted their use in such a way and has focused on the fact that the leader has in the past occasionally stopped off at his business premises when he has been en route to and from London on official council business.

It is important to emphasise that Mr Carter set up arrangements to reimburse the authority when he did so and in fact, appears to have overpaid.

As a result of the investigation, the auditor Darren Wells noted in his report that KCC had stopped the practice - presumably because it felt there was a question mark over whether it was legitimate. However, Cllr Carter argued at the meeting that he hoped when the rules are revisited on chauffeur-driven cars that the practice is not ruled out and members are permitted to use them for private purposes in some circumstances. It would, he said, be a "retrograde step" to not permit their occasional use where it was sensible.

Watch this space. I can't help thinking that the council would be facing something of a PR disaster if it does do so but sometimes KCC does do strange things.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some eloquent tributes have been paid to Edwin Boorman, the President and former chairman of the KM Group, who died this week.

One of the admirable qualities was his steadfast refusal to use his position to influence editorial coverage. There were plenty of times when his political friends would ring him up to badger him about a story that I had written - sometimes stories I hadn't yet written - but he always batted them away, saying it was up to editors what went into papers and the last thing he was going to do was interfere. The editorial integrity of his papers and their freedom and independence were things he cherished. I never once was told to steer away from something because it might embarrass one of his many friends in politics.

In fact, he sometimes told me he thought that we didn't give politicians a hard enough time.

But he regarded our role in holding decision makers to account as vital. I lost track of the times he would come up to me and say firmly: "Never let them forget it is our money they're spending, Paul."

A great man.

AS MPs discovered to their cost when the expenses scandal unravelled, perceptions are rather important when it comes to the public making judgements about the way in which elected politicians act and behave.

Auditor accepts that admin errors were to blame for councillors expenses mistakes>>>

KCC will no doubt hope that the outcome of a prolonged investigation into complaints about how some councillors have used private taxis and the authority's own chauffeur-driven cars will draw a line under what has, frankly, been a messy saga.

The district auditor says he accepts KCC's explanation that administrative errors were to blame for mistakes made when a small number of councillors submitted claims for travel in their own car when they had actually been travelling in a taxi or chauffeur-driven car.

His eight-page report records that the princely sum of £430.80 has been repaid for these administrative errors by among others, the deputy leader Alex King and the former KCC chairman Bill Hayton.

On the issue of whether Cllr King was within the council's own rules when he used taxis and council cars for a string of meetings to London's St Stephen's Club and the Atrium restaurant, the auditor writes: "I have no evidence to suggest that this explanation is untrue".

So, in the strict sense, the only reason KCC has had a mild rap on the knuckles is because of administrative errors.

But the sensitivity around the issue is reflected by the fact that KCC and the leader Paul Carter "have accepted the use of chauffeur-driven cars for private purposes is inappropriate and have stopped this practice."

And we have already reported how the deputy leader was advised to stop using them to travel to and from his home as there was a question mark over the rules.

Had there not been an investigation triggered by a member of the public, it is highly likely that the council would have continued to allow the practice.

Whether you consider it necessary for county councillors to have access to chauffeur-driven cars or not, KCC has not exactly covered itself in glory over the matter. There may be an argument to be made that providing senior councillors with access to chauffeur-driven cars on some occasions is sensible, especially if the costs of paying members expenses would leave the taxpayer with a higher bill.

But KCC appears to have lost sight of how these things can appear, especially at a time when taxpayers are struggling with bills and pay freezes and indeed many of its own staff face redundancy.

It needs to ensure not just that councillors know the rules, but that the public can be reassured that whatever arrangements are in place, they are not susceptible to abuse or exploitation.

ERIC Pickles cannot be faulted for his commitment to greater open government. He has forced councils to do much more in terms of publishing details of how they are spending our money - a long overdue step.

But just how effective has his transparency crusade been? Has his belief that greater transparency would unleash an 'army of armchair auditors' who would scrutinise council accounts and come up with ways of saving the taxpayer money come to fruition?

Mr Pickles asserted last year that the creation of a 'citizen samizdat' had proved a 'triumph.' He told council finance chiefs that the publication of invoices of more than £500 had played an essential role in 'eliminating waste and inefficiency to deliver value for money to the taxpayer.'

If a survey we have done is any indication, Mr Pickles' grand claims do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, far from sparking the creation of an auditors' army, it seems there has been monumental indifference to the transparency revolution.

We asked councils in Kent a series of questions relating to their monthly publication of invoices above £500 over last year. The questions concerned how many FOI requests they had received for information about individual invoices; how many general inquiries from the public they had received; whether any of these requests had led to a change in policy that may have saved money and finally, how much it had cost them to publish the invoice details over the year.

The request was sent to Kent County Council, Medway Council and the 12 district and borough councils.

Here's a summary:

Councils who received no FOI requests: Medway; Ashford, Swale, Maidstone, Gravesham, Tonbridge and Malling

Councils getting one request: Tunbridge Wells; Thanet; Dover

Councils getting more than one request: Kent county council (5).

Responses to the question about general inquiries about invoices were equally dismal. Several councils said they did not keep records anyway; most others who did either had zero or one. KCC did say that its website had received 3,945 hits.

Perhaps the most telling statistic came in the response to whether councils had changed policy as a result of any scrutiny of their invoices either by the media or the public. Not one council indicated they had.

As to the costs, some councils - contrary to earlier complaints about the expense - said they had not spent anything additionally on complying with the new rules. These included Ashord, Thanet, Medway. KCC said it cost about £120 a month to process the data.

For others, the costs were relatively modest: Tunbridge Wells (£1,300 per year); Gravesham said it had spent £1,500 setting up the system and was spending £320 a month doing it; Swale said it was spending £4,900 to use an outside company to do the work; Maidstone spent £4,000 setting up the system and £50 on staff time each month.

What does this tell us? The answers suggest widespread indifference to the tsunami of information the public now has access to but I do not think it is that simple.

The problem is that the data is produced and presented in a way which makes it impregnable to any meaningful analysis. Visitors to council websites are presented with gargantuan spreadsheets that offer only the most basic of information and crude figures, lacking any context of even explanation.

True, the persistent armchair auditor can sometimes elicit more through FOI requests but it hardly looks like the kind of revolution Pickles had in mind - and is far from the triumph he has claimed it to be.

This is not an argument against the principle of transparency; it is about whether the mechanisms councils have in place are sophisiticated enough to allow the public to properly understand how taxpayers' money is being spent.

If councils are to properly engage the citizen, they will need to do considerably more than publish each month reams and reams of impenetrable spreadsheets.

 £500 invoices.pdf (6.40 mb)