County Hall is a febrile place just now after the dust settles on the election that saw the ruling Conservatives come within a whisker of losing control. UKIP has confirmed its leader will be Roger Lachford, the former Conservative deputy leader of Thanet council.

But there are developments involving the other parties, too:

A Conservative cabinet reshuffle is underway and is expected to be officially announced later today.  Leader  Paul Carter has been forced to rejig his top team after the defeat of education cabinet member Mike Whiting. If my sources are correct, that job will go to the well-regarded Cllr Roger Gough, who interestingly is a Sevenoaks councillor and will take control of the council's efforts to open a new grammar school annexe in the area.

One of his key tasks will be to win over Michael Gove who for some reason many Conservatives find hard to fathom has stuck his oar in and decided the site Kent wants should be offered to a free school instead.

After the election hammering, Gove may just be open to the idea that it might not be such a bad thing to be seen to be supporting the scheme, given the fact that UKIP now seems more enthusiastic about selection than the national Conservative party.

The other change likely is that Cllr John Simmonds, who has the finance portfolio, will take on the job of being deputy leader, replacing the long-serving Tunbridge Wells councillor Alex King. Another interesting move (he will retain the finance job) and a sign of complete rapprochement between the two. We don't yet know why Alex King has gone but he has been in hospital with a fractured leg.

Over in the Labour camp and an unexpected leadership contest is looming. Cllr Mike Eddy, who regained the seat he lost in 2009 and was the former opposition leader before the party's meltdown is to challenge Gordon Cowan for the job of leadng the 13-strong group.

He says he has "unfinished business" but denies his bid for the role implies he feels that the party under-performed at the election, having forecast that it could capture 20 seats.

It will be interesting to see if any other names enter he fray - there is some suggestion that Cllr Roger Truelove, returned to Swale Central, could throw his hat in the ring. I am not sure a leadership contest is exactly what Labour need just now.

It might give the impression they are a divided group and it could be better to wait and see how UKIP acquits itself as a formal opposition group.

 UP-DATED, Thursday May 2.

If I knew who was going to take control of Kent County Council in tomorrow's election, I would, of course, be hurrying down to the bookmakers to place my house on the outcome.

But I don't and neither does anyone else - despite what the politicians are all telling me. There's nothing new or revelatory about that but the battle for Kent County Council's 84 seats is for once, much more unpredictable in 2013 than it was in 2009 when Labour went into meltdown as Gordon Brown's premiership was in its final death throes.

The unpredictability of the outcome has much to do with the high-profile campaign being waged by UKIP, not just in Kent but right across the country.

It is unusual for one party to have such a disproportionate impact on any election but UKIP has, for better or worse, been the dominant feature of this campaign. The media has been criticised for giving them too much publicity and for failing to subject some of their candidates and policies to greater scrutiny.

That may be  valid but so too is the fact that they are - like it or not - a party seeing a popular surge in support, just as the Social Democrats did in the 1980s and the Greens did when they made a breakthrough in the European Parliamentary elections in 1989.

Quite how it will perform on the day is anyone's guess. In Kent, the party has high hopes of making some kind of breakthrough but that could be anything from one seat to half a dozen or more. It could conceivably gain no seats and simply post a lot of 'good' second places.

In Kent, the party that has most to fear from UKIP is the Conservatives although it is true that it is disquieting both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, too.

It is a sign of the Conservatives' concern that recent days have seen one or two Kent MPs and Conservative candidates go on the offensive against the Nigel Farage gang, a tactic that may not be wise given that it has the effect of drawing more attention to a rival you would prefer voters to ignore.

The Conservatives' greatest fear is not just that UKIP will win seats but that its 70-plus candidates could cost them seats they would have expected to win.

That leaves open the tantalising prospect - or nightmare scenario for the current administration - of the Conservatives just failing to reach the 43 seats they need to continue running the council.

I see that as a long shot but given that no-one can tell how the votes will stack up on Friday, it is what makes this election rather more intriguing and interesting than it was back in 2009.

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

Even before the ballot boxes are emptied, the political spin doctors will be working out how to put the best complexion on the results. So, what would be a good result for each of the parties in Kent and how might they explain away a poor result?

Conservatives: Retaining control of County Hall with a comfortable, albeit smaller, working majority will be depicted as a good result, given these are mid-term elections. Losing control, or being forced into some kind of joint administration, would be a pretty gruesome result but could be blamed on the national political picture, the recession and the unpopularity of some Conservative policies, notably gay marriage and the EU referendum being held back until 2017.

Labour: A result that sees it recapturing the seats it lost in 2009 and taking a couple more would be a good result and probably enough for the party to claim that it is winning back support in the critical middle England territory. Falling short of that would be awkward but will probably be blamed on voter antipathy to all the mainstream political parties rather than a vote of no confidence in Ed Miliband.

Liberal Democrats: Has made it clear that is has modest aspirations and retaining its seven seats on KCC would probably be portrayed as a decent outcome. Anything that sees their numbers shrink might start hares racing about Nick Clegg's leadership. Likely spin: "We are now part of the government and that is different to being in opposition. Voters have used the election to give us a message."

UKIP: Given the hype and publicity surrounding the campaign, a failure to win any seats would be a disappointing outcome. Breaking through and taking a handful away from the Conservatives would be a good result. Likely spin if no seats won: "We increased our share of the vote; these elections were really a staging post before next year's European elections; we have a solid base of support to build on."

The Green Party: A very good result would be winning a seat somewhere in the county; a good result would be increasing their share of the vote above 2009.

It has not been a good week for Kent's police commissioner Ann Barnes, after a spectacular public relations car crash over the appointment and then swift resignation of her 17-year-old youth tsar, Paris Brown.

There are arguments on both sides about the events but no-one can deny that the normally sure-footed commissioner has had a setback.

After a day or so basking in generally positive coverage of her appointment, her team was forced on the defensive in the face of a media maelstrom that raised questions about her judgement and the perceived failings of the recruitment process.

Worse, it had triggered two separate police inquiries and a request for a report from a cross-party group of councillors.

And on top of that, suggestions of a degree of tension between the force and the commissioner.

The entrails of this grisly saga have been well and truly poured over. One issue it has vividly illustrated is that commissioners are acting in quite different ways to police authorities.

The government argued that the concept of directly-elected police chiefs was better than a system in which anonymous, largely unknown and appointed police authorities had responsibility for strategic governance. Hard to argue with.

The trouble is that anyone elected to public office has, in the back of their minds, just what the voters will think of them when they next go to the ballot box.

And it is this that in some senses has arguably been at the root of the commissioner's difficulties this week. The idea of a youth commissioner appeared to be a good one and certainly played well - at last initially - with the media and public.

Had it worked out, you can bet safely that the initiative would have featured heavily in Ann Barnes' election publicity in 2016.

The question is: would a police authority - for all their faults - have championed the idea? Kent to my knowledge never did and neither has it been something the chief constable has ever exhorted.

But elected politicians know they are accountable to voters and are always seeking initiatives that will mark them out as distinctive.

Unfortunately, they run the risk - as in this case - of being accused of gimmicks or PR stunts in the cause of enhancing their own reputation.

Strategic governance and keeping an eye on the money is what commissioners are really about but it is not awfully sexy.

Which is why we are seeing some of these more colourful ideas being promoted. It actually adds to the public's confusion over their role - it is already evident that many misunderstand the powers of commissioners, equating them with sheriffs riding into town and clearing out the hoodlums. 

And unfortunately, when you court publicity, it can sometimes backfire.

Politicians profess to care about many causes - and many are genuine about it - but the causes they espouse most vigourously are often the ones that connect most directly with voters and ones that can yield quick returns.

Which goes some way to explain why successive governments have opted to kick into the long grass the tricky issue of how society will deal with - and pay for - the increasing number of elderly people needing care in the coming years.

There are signs that the head-in-the-sand approach adopted by ministers may very slowly be changing. The issue is getting traction after years in which the Treasury particularly has had its collective head in the sand deeper than most.

The Dilnot Report, which set out reforms that it said would relieve many of the anxieties caused by the uncertainty of knowing how they will pay for care when they need it, has been gathering dust amid warm words from all parties about how they endorse the principles but are still considering how best to set a cap that would limit how much we pay.

Former care minister Paul Burstow stepped into the fray this week with a suggestion to means test winter fuel allowances to release the £1.7bn needed a year to fund a cap of £35,000 on the amount people would have to pay for their care. He was roundly criticised but whatver you think about his case, he has at least outlined one way forward - which is more than anyone else has done.

In Kent, the Conservative leader of Kent County Council Paul Carter has initiated a petition to Downing Street calling on the government to implement the Dilnot reforms by 2015 (before the election), arguing the £1.7bn bill is "a price worth paying" for the horrendous costs many will face when they are older.

Opposition parties may quibble about the fact that KCC is pushing this at a time when it is making £18m in savings from its own adult care budget but if the petition helps to generate debate and focus on the ticking time bomb, it deserves to be supported.

Many Conservatives are privately bewildered by the government's unwillingness to tackle the issue at the same time as ring-fencing money for things like International aid and apprehensive about how they will be explain to voters what the policy is when they are out canvassing support for the elections in May.

The issue is particularly pertinent for Kent, which has a higher elderly population than many parts of the country. By 2026, there will be about 658,000 people in the county over 50; compared to about 537,000 now. The demographic trend is only going in one direction.

And even politicians get old.

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

To say the voters of Kent were underwhelmed by the first election for a police commissioner would be something of an under-statement. A turnout of 16.5% was hardly a sign of voter engagement.

In an effort to get people interested, the Home Office did, during the campaign, produce leaflets for each area detailing candidates' election statements. You had to formally request these in writing as the government dtermined it would be too expensive to allow every candidate a free mail shot.

So, of the 1.2m voters in Kent, how many requested a copy of the one for Kent, which contained 16 glossy pages? In response to a Freedom of Information request, the Home Office has revealed that a grand total of 4,712 leaflets were ordered by residents thirsting for information about who was after the £85k a year job.

Across the country as a whole, 120,361 leaflets were ordered.

And the cost to the taxpayer of printing and distributing these broachures? A total of £191,862.96

No issue has proved more toxic for politicians in recent years than the scandal of their expenses.

Rightly, the disclosures of how the system was being widely abused led to much-needed reforms in an effort to "clean up" politics and restore public faith in our elected representatives.

But the issue is back centre-stage and one of the county's MPs is at the middle of the latest maelstrom.

Maidstone and Weald MP Helen Grant has been left to fend off criticisms of her own arrangements that have left many not just perplexed but deeply irritated.

Let's be clear. Helen Grant's expenses are within the IPSA rules, odd though they may strike many. But that is precisely what causes resentment and prompts cynicism among voters.

As MPs discovered to their cost first time around, that kind of  justification does not wash with the public and is even more tenuous if it appears their claims are regarded as being outside the spirit of the rules.

MP Grant caught up in expenses row>>>

To hear the same 'yes-but-it-is-in-the-rules' justification trotted out after the latest set of revelations involving not just Ms Grant but others suggests that particular lesson has not yet been learned.

And it is even less credible at a time when MPs are - rightly - incandescent about the very same justification that large corporations are using to account for their evasion of corporate tax bills in the UK.

There are several aspects to the situation that Helen Grant is in that make it especially damaging.

The first is that her principal home is in a constituency - Reigate - where the sitting MP is disqualified from claiming a second home allowance because it is deemed to be near enough to Westminster for an MP to commute to.

On top of that, it has struck many as strange that she herself no longer has a home in her own constituency, especially in the light of her pre-election declaration that she intended to maintain one.

Constituents are very sensitive - some may say too sensitive - about this sort of thing. 

While they may tolerate their MP living just outside their constituency, they are reluctant to countenance the idea that their MP should live in an entirely different county miles away. It has not helped that the disclosures follow the news that the Maidstone MP is considering closing her constituency office.

It has allowed the impression to be created - and it is one vigourously denied - that the MP is neglecting her constituency.

Equally pernicious is that a large number of her constituents have to endure a daily commute to London to work and pay heavily for the privilege.

To discover that their MP is able to claim for a flat in London to help her with her duties, and that they are, as taxpayers meeting those costs, has unsurprisingly stirred up further resentment.

Plenty of those commuting from the County Town do jobs that involve irregular and unpredictable hours and late-night travel and have to do so because they have no alternative - much as they might like to have one.

And the claim that MPs are often detained at Westminster by late night sittings is over-egged. True, they sometimes do but much less than they used to because of reforms designed to make their working hours more sensible.

I accept that MPs do work long hours and are genuinely committed to the job. So, too, do people in many other professions.

The issue is that perceptions matter in politics. MPs cannot afford to be seen to be out of touch with voters. And rightly or wrongly, this episode has created a perception problem for Mrs Grant for all sorts of reasons.

She has certainly forfeited some goodwill among her hard-pressed constituents that may take a while to recover.

Conventional wisdom has it that elections are lost rather than won. In the case of the race to become the county's first elected police commissioner, it was a case of both.

Ann Barnes, an independent, deftly exploited the public unease that there was something wrong about the idea of having a party politician in charge of policing - even in a strategic role - and exploited it for all it was worth. She was aided by the fact that the issue of policing independence was also dominating campaigns elsewhere and media coverage duly reflected that. It is worth noting that she was not the only independent voted in on Friday - five others were, too.

The campaign never really got into the issues that it probably ought to have been about - which candidate had the best and most credible manifesto for cutting crime and making our towns and villages safer.

To the extent that it did, all six candidates pretty much said the same thing - more visible policing, a crackdown on drug dealers, better value for money etc - leaving voters, already perplexed at the whole concept, wondering just what the difference was between them in any case.

For the Conservative team in Kent - who I am told knew on Thursday they had lost and had tipped off Central Office to tell them so - the frustration was that they were seen as the party that was responsible for "politicising" the police and were tainted by association, no matter how many times Craig Mackinlay, who deserves credit for accepting defeat graciously,  declared he was his own man.

Still, it was a bitter defeat for the Conservatives, who tried unsuccessfully to portray Ann Barnes as a Liberal Democrat in disguise and actually fought a reasonably solid and clear campaign.

But they knew that even among their own supporters, there was disquiet about the idea and plenty chose not to vote or if they did, either backed Ann Barnes or chose her as their second candidate - or simply stayed at home.

Ann Barnes' campaign worked because it struck a chord with people and that chord kept playing throughout the entire campaign. It was a simple, coherent message and she was even able to avoid too much focus on the fact that she had, as chairman of the police authority, spoken out against the whole idea.

Of course, winning the election is one thing. She now has the arguably much more important job of implementing her crime plan and dealing with the shrinking police budget. Overshadowing that is the story of the arrests of five officers facing accusations of manipulating crime figures.

It will not be easy and as a candidate who has vowed not to countenance more cuts to the budget, she may face some awkward decisions. One of the problems with commissioners is that they will be balancing want against need in a much more direct fashion than the appointed police authorities.

And it would be naive to expect any commissioner not to have one eye on their popularity with the public as their term of office gets underway. They know, even if they are independent, that come the next election, they will be judged on results and whether crime has been cut.

The debate about politicising the police will no longer have quite the resonance it did this time round.

Like it or not, Ann Barnes will be just as much a political figure as anyone who comes from a mainstream party political background.

IT is one of the ironies of the government's proposals for directly-elected police commissioners that public indifference to the idea is in stark contrast to the importance voters place on crime and safety.

(You see the same with Europe and voter turnout in the EU elections).

So, if the forecasts of pollsters are credible, turnout in tomorrow's ballot looks like being pretty dismal although there are some surveys suggesting that it might not be as bad as some fear.

Read our special report on the elections and find out who the candidates are

Plenty of people dislike the concept of elected commissioners and are uneasy about the idea that politicians who have to serve the twin interests of their party and residents may be in charge of such an important public service.

Many others remain thoroughly confused by what is going on and are labouring under the misapprehension that they are voting for American-style sheriffs, who will have control of the police force on a day-to-day basis.

Even some of Kent's candidates have failed to grasp the distinction between their strategic role, outlining pledges that stray into the chief constable's territory.

The government has to shoulder some responsibility for this confusion and apathy. It has not done as much as it should to promote the elections and explain clearly what they are about.

But this week's ballot is not on the government's handling of its flagship policy, much as some want it to be.

It is about who you think is the best person to do the job of ensuring Kent Police is keeping the streets, towns and villages safe and making sure that taxpayers are getting value for money.

And while there are undoubtedly imperfections in the arrangements for commissioners, the policy, for the first time, gives voters a direct say in who they want to do that job.

No-one has ever voted for anyone to be on the police authorities and the checks and balances on what they did were pretty non-existent.

Police commissioners, on the other hand, will have to be more transparent and accountable to residents. They will also be answerable to independent crime panels, who will be able to summon them to account - in public - about their decisions.

So, many may not like the idea but it would be wrong to stay at home as a way of registering disapproval.

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

Making a prediction on the result appears to be beyond even those involved in masterminding their candidates' election campaigns.

The low turnout, coupled with a new voting system involving second preferences could skew the outcome in unpredictable ways.

For what it is worth, I would be surprised if any of Kent's six candidates win by securing a majority on first preferences.

Which brings us to which two candidates will make it through to the final round and the tricky issue of where second preference votes will go.

Best guess? There will be a run-off between the independent candidate Ann Barnes and the Conservative Craig Mackinlay.

But knowing where second preferences will go is virtually impossible. Possible scenarios? The Conservatives may pick up second preference votes from UKIP supporters - whose campaign has bordered on invisibility - and some of those backing the English Democrats.  

There is no natural second home for Labour supporters but I would guess they will go for an independent candidate (if they use it) as a strategy to stop the Conservatives winning.

Liberal Democrats have no candidate but it's a stretch to think they will back a Conservative or Labour candidate and are most likely to go for an independent and that will be Ann Barnes. Some may opt for Dai Liyanage who is a former Liberal.

One thing that could tip the scales is postal votes. Ann Barnes sent out a personal letter with the postal voting pack and her team believe it has paid dividends. For some reason, the Conservatives did not and feel they may have missed a trick.

Given all the uncertainties, perhaps the only safe thing to predict is that by Friday we will have Kent's first-directly elected police and crime commissioner...

It would be overstating matters to say that there has been a sudden rush of interest in the race to become Kent's first-directly elected police commissioner. I certainly don't detect any Obama type bounce.

Voters will go to the polls next Thursday and there remains a fear the turnout will be dismal - possibly as low as 15%.

That is not to say people are uninterested in the issue of crime and policing.

It is one of the ironies of the government's flagship reform that public apathy towards a new generation of elected police chiefs is in direct contrast to polling which consistently makes crime - and fear of crime - a major pre-occpuation of voters.

The problem with the election is that when you examine the manifestos and policy pledges of the six candidates standing, there isn't an awful lot that separates them.

They all believe in giving greater support to victims. All - to varying degrees - oppose creeping privatisation. All want to give the criminal fraternity a harder time; all believe in the importance of visible policing; they all want to improve social cohesion. And so on.

It's as bland a set of commitments as the bowls of rice contestants in "I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!" face over the coming weeks.

The candidates were given a chance to air their views and proposals at a hustings meeting at the University of Kent's Medway campus last night.

During the evening, someone tweeted: "I promise to prioritorise visible policing and get tough on crime. Not just tough, zero tolerance tough...have I won yet?"

Sarcastic, yes but they have a point.

The specific policy pledges, such as they are, have often been eclipsed by soundbite politics in which, it seems to me, the candidates have been more inclined to talk in generalities about their aims and aspirations and have been a little fearful of being too specific.

Partly, this is a reflection of the fact that the commissioner has a strategic rather than operational role and candidates are wary of stepping into territory where they might be regarded as interfering in day-to-day policing.

While they understand this, in general the public don't - or are at least confused.

At the hustings meeting, there was a telling moment when the candidates were asked to identify a single strategy proposal for bringing down crime that did not involve the words "zero tolerance". The answers were as woolly as a flock of Romney Marsh sheep.

Which brings me to the issue that has set a few sparks flying - the debate about the danger of policing becoming politicised by commissioners.

Actually, the argument has been about the party politicisation of policing, which is not exactly the same thing. Even independent candidates will become - if they win - "political" figures, albeit under a non-party political banner.

Some people are genuinely concerned about this and contend that it will be the issue that determines the outcome.

There's an instinctive unease among many about the idea of police control being vested in a politician. (It reminds me of the quote about education being too important to allow politicians to be involved).

Ann Barnes, who is one of the leading independent candidates, has made the issue the centrepiece of her campaign.

The campaign literature of Dai Liyanage, another independent, is headed "Not Just Another Political Puppet."

But is this an issue which has the resonance on the doorstep some think it has?

At the hustings meeting, it was striking that the audience didn't actually seem to care terribly much about the candidates' political colours.

The questions they asked were not party political ones but focused on what would be done, for example, to tackle anti-social behaviour or drug dealing.

In other words, who would do the best job to make our towns and villages safe?

And that, it seems to me, is what the election should ultimately be about.

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

ONE of the complaints made about the election is that not enough has been done to publicise it. Public disengagement has certainly been an issue.

So, why has the Police Area Returning Officer Nadeem Aziz decreed that the media are to be banned from using social media like Twitter and Facebook to report from the election count at Dover town hall?

To call it bizarre is an under-statement and there are questions about whether it as any legal force, especially when these are the ways in which many people now expect to get news.

We are challenging the ban and so too are some of the candidates and their agents. Let's hope commonsense prevails.

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

The six candidates standing in the election have, as a result of a challenge by a member of the audience at the hustings meeting, agreed to declare the donations and expenses of their campaign's before polling day. (Electoral law means they don't have to until after the election)

We'll be publishing all these when we get them all.

One of the many arguments advanced for  elected police commissioners  is that they will improve the accountability of police forces and will replace the bureaucratically-appointed police authorities.

It is claimed that as they are directly-elected, commissioners will be much more responsive to the public's concerns around policing.

You only have to read some of the candidates' policy pledges to see that this is something they are already attuned to, with many committing to populist policies like putting victims first, dealing with low level anti-social behaviour and being less harsh on motorists.

But if  you want greater accountability, you generally need greater transparency and arrangements for strong checks and balances in the system. Which is where the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel come in.

This panel, already operating in shadow form, is an important part of the new arrangements.  Its primary job will be to hold the elected commissioner to account - on behalf of the public. It will have strong statutory powers to call the commissioner to meetings, question them about decisions and policy and additonally can veto the commissioner's budget and the appointment of a chief constable.

Which is all to be welcomed, especially as these sessions will generally be held in public.

When it comes to what information the commissioner will be required to provide to the panel, the statutory requirements again appear robust.

The key word here is "appear." A document setting out the protocols - called the Information Sharing Agreement - has just been published and will be considered by the panel next week.

It raises some issues for me about whether there could be too much leeway for commissioners to withold from the panel information they have asked for and whether important discussions around the commissioner's activities could take place behind closed doors.

First, the positives: the protocol states that the panel will be able to review any decision taken by a commissioner and those decisions will have to be published by the commissioner. There will be regular performance reports to the panel as well as reports on a range of subjects from the budget, complaints and the police and crime plan.

The panel will additionally be able to request information "on an ad-hoc and unplanned basis" to help it  "scrutinise the actions of the commissioner." 

However, there are qualifications around such requests for information. The protocol says the information must be "reasonably required" by the panel. Unfortunately, there is no definition in the legislation of this - and it will be for the commissioner or their representative to determine whether a request is reasonable or not.

More concerning is the section of the protocol headed "Incidences when information will not be shared." Clearly, it is hard to counter the argument that information will not be disclosed where it might compromise the force's operational ability to tackle crime.

But the document states that "members of the commissioner's staff are not required to disclose to the panel..evidence or documents containing advice given to the PCC. This also includes political and legal advice."  

Suppose a chief constable was to advise a commissioner that a policy proposal, or spending commitment might be unviable or have adverse consequences for crime detection? Under the protocol, any written advice could be witheld.

Suppose a force chief executive was to advise a commissioner that their action strayed over into operational affairs rather than strategic ones? Again, it need not be shared with the panel.

It also states the panel will have no powers to "request information from the Force...other than general rights under the Freedom of Information Act" - which presumably means that police chiefs, including the chief constable, could not be asked about anything - something that the soon-to-be-scrapped police authorities do at their meetings. (It is not clear at all whether the panel has any powers to summon the chief constable to answer questions).

Another section, headed "Requests for information to be exempt from public disclosure" states that the commissioner will be entitled to request that information provided to the panel "is not published or [be considered] exempt from public disclosure".

It adds that while the commissioner "recognises the Panel has a duty to operate in an open and transparent manner, there is certain information which is sensitive in nature and which would not be appropriately released in the public domain."

Where the panel accedes, the sensitive information may be debated in "closed session."

The protocol emphasises that these occasions will be the exception to the rule but even so, it appears that there are loopholes that could allow our elected commissioner to be less accountable than they should.

If elected police commissioners are to gain public confidence , it is important they discharge their duties in as open and accountable way as possible.

That applies equally to the panel charged with scrutinising what commissioners are up to.

Read the Information Sharing Agreement here:

kentpccpanel.pdf (139.45 kb)

Education secretary Michael Gove, as we all know, is something of a stickler for standards. But when it comes to his own department, standards are something that his officials seem to have a rather casual - not to say cavalier - approach to, at least so far as Freedom of Information goes.

A year ago, I lodged a request with the DfE asking for any information it held in private emails exchanged between Mr Gove and his officials, along with Kent County Council, relating to the council's involvement in a legal dispute with the department after the abrupt cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme.

The request was made last October and should have been responded to within 20 working days. To date, I have not had a formal response as required under the law; I have not even had a refusal notice telling me that the DfE does hold information but isn't prepared to give it to me.

The request I made was triggered by the disclosure of a leaked email obtained by the Financial Times, written by Mr Gove using his private account, sent to special advisers and a civil servant around the same subject. This led to a number of FOI requests on the subject but the DfE has sought to argue that as private account emails, they are not government-related and, therefore under the law, exempt from the Act.

That argument has been demolished by the Information Commissioner (the FOI watchdog) who has ruled that it is the content of emails that matters when it comes to determining whether they are captured by FOI - not whether they are sent from a private account.

Frustrated by the DfE's prevarication and despite any number of (unanswered) reminders, I eventually made a formal complaint to the Commissioner, who has now ruled that the DfE must give an answer within ten days.

It could still reject my request, of course. It could tell me that any emails that might have been sent no longer exist (how convenient). It could give me everything I have asked for (being optimistic here). All I'd like is an answer of some description.

Whatever the outcome, the episode is a good illustration of why journalists retain a healthy scepticism when it comes to the utterances of politicians who preach the virtues of transparency and accountability and then do completely the opposite. So far as Mr Gove is concerned, it is a perhaps a case of "could do better." Maybe he should be served with a notice to improve...

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

Should Kent County Council be taking the axe to funding for sports development? The Conservative administration's line is that a cut of £200k is acceptable and justifiable because it it simply taking the budget back to pre-Olympic levels.

But opposition is growing and there is dissent in the Tory ranks.

Cllr Mike Jarvis, a backbencher, says it is wrong and risks squandering Kent's Olympic legacy because the authority should be building on the interest in sport the Olympics has prompted and using it as a catalyst to get more people active - entirely reasonable arguments. KCC says that it is protecting funding for the Kent School Games, which is true.

But they started before the Olympics and it is unclear what additional plans the authority may have to further develop new programmes or schemes - and without any money, it is rather hard to see how they might happen.

Cllr Jarvis rather tellingly points out that KCC spends colossal sums on external consultants and suggests that if the council is looking to save money, this ought to be an area the council takes a look at first.