UKIP did not win control of any councils and three quarters of people who turned out did not actually vote for them. But it is a measure of the impact it had on the political landscape on Thursday that it has succeeded  in becoming the talking point in the debate about whether the the political map of Britain has been radically redrawn.

No mean achievement for a party dismissed as clowns, loonies and fruitcakes by their opponents.

The Kent County Council election  results and reaction>>>>

Nowhere was their success more shocking or stunning than Kent where against even the most optimistic predictions they came tantalisingly close to depriving the Conservatives of securing control of County Hall for the first time in two decades. From a standing start, they took seat after seat from the Conservatives, who were paralysed with anxiety that their grip on KCC was being loosened. To end up with more seats than Labour and the Liberal Democrats and become the formal opposition was truly staggering.

There are lots of reasons why UKIP did well and it may be that in Kent, sensitivities around issues like immigration and asylum seekers were more pronounced and resonated more with voters than elsewhere. It is telling that the areas where they did particularly well - Thanet and Shepway - are both places which have had deep rooted problems with economic deprivation and have also been areas where the impact of new communities have been seen and felt at first hand.

In fact, while the party did target Thanet, it did not have a concerted campaign in Shepway yet nearly pulled off a clean sweep of all five seats with very little canvassing. Gains in Swale - another area where the recession has hit - were also notable.The exception is the affluent west Kent town of Tunbridge Wells, where it also won seats.

More than that, UKIP has tapped into widespread voter antipathy and disenchantment with mainstream politics and mainstream political parties: its success has a lot to do with people regarding it as anti-establishment; anti-elite and somehow outside the system - a perfect repository for protest votes. But it has also tapped into a major issue that the big parties have spent too long pussy-foting around - Britain's role and future in the EU. The unwilllingnes of the main parties to be explicit (particularly in terms of time scale) about when people might be given a say has been devastating for them.

But after the euphoria of Thursday's results, there comes the cold reality of the consequences of suddenly finding yourself elected to office.

UKIP county councillors will troop into County Hall next week for an induction programme that will remind them that as locally-elected representatives, they will not be able - much as they like -  to spend the next four years banging on about an EU referendum and immigration. They will all be receiving allowances of around £13,000 to represent constituents whose interests may well be rather more parochial but no less important  - the state of their roads, school places, families dealing with difficult social services issues and planning.

The ability of UKIP to build on the momentum that it has will not be based on how loudly local councillors shout about the need for a referendum on Europe. If they want to be more than a flash in the pan and establish a secure position as a genuine political alternative, voters will need to be convinced they can tackle and influence policy in ways that affect - for the better - the 300 different services that Kent County Council provides. It will also be interesting to see how and if the 17-strong group, all newcomers with one or two exceptions, to the world of local government, remain a cohesive unit.

Parties that achieve success quickly and unexpectedly can sometimes find it awkward adjusting to the demands of being elected to public office and it was intriguing hearing in private how some Conservatives at KCC are already speculating over the prospects of "turning" some of the new UKIP councillors and returning them to the Tory fold.

The other challenge, allied to this, is that UKIP's USP - a movement outside the political system - has actually been undermined by their stunning success. They are, in a sense, no longer outsiders looking in at mainstream politics. If they believe the hype and really do consider they are part of a four-party system, then the consequence is that people will at a council level particularly be judging them on what they actually do rather than on what they say.

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

For the Conservatives in Kent, the election was a sobering moment. Only once in its history have the Conservatives lost control of County Hall, back in 1993. That they came within a whisker of losing outright control last Thursday was a discomfiting experience, to put it mildy. In one sense, they were not being punished because of their track record over the last four years but were being punished for the perceived failings of the coalition, which is what they had expected.

But I do think that the party has to do more than blame the dismal results on mid-term blues. Senior Conservatives in Kent have been quick to turn their fire on the national leadership, with KCC leader Paul Carter being particularly damning - accusing some in his party at Westminster of acting more like Lib Dems than Conservatives.

Implicit in this is the idea that the party's woes can be dealt with by a lurch to the right. I am not so sure. The received wisdom so far as general elections are concerned is that they are won and lost in the middle ground. Tony Blair won three because he realised that in places like Kent, classic middle England territory, you had to appeal to the centre ground to deliver victory. 

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

Labour has insisted that it is satisfied with the progress it has made in Kent but it fell short of its key objective: recapturing all the seats it had lost back in 2009.

For it to have shown it was making real advances, it should have won more and the fact that it has secured too few to even be the official opposition at County Hall is not where it wants or needs to be. Ed Miliband staked a lot by coming to traditional Tory heartland during the campaign but on these results, it seems the party still has a Southern Discomfort issue.

Their one hope may be that over the next four years, there will inevitably be  a handful of by-elections. The Tories need only lose a few seats for the arithmetic to be changed in a way that just might lead to the authority having a different rainbow coalition.

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

We expect the jungle drums at County Hall to be beating with news of a Conservative cabinet reshuffle within a few days. The defeat of the well-regarded cabinet member for schools Mike Whiting means there will have to be changes. Education remains one of the key roles and there are many awkward issues looming, not least trying to persuade Michael Gove to back the KCC plans for a new grammar school.

The other gossip surrounds the future of the deputy leader Alex King, who was unable to be at his count after breaking his leg. It could be that his tenure as the reliable second-in-command could be coming to an end. If it is, perhaps the role could go to the Sevenoaks councillor Roger Gough - well-thought of, intelligent and potentially a good foil to the rather direct style of the current leader.

But I also think he'd make a good education cabinet member. And whenever I make these predictions, they usually turn out to be well wide of the mark so you might be advised to disregard them...

If UKIP was a band, it would probably be the type that comfortably fills mid-size venues but hasn't quite reached the point at which it is capable of selling out big stadium tours. There is a sense in which its supporters are a bit like fans who consider they are in on the next big thing but might actually be a bit regretful if it became a mainstream success.

But there's no doubt plenty of people think it is on the cusp of making the crossover from cult band to chart toppers. Its PR people like to talk about a buzz around the party, a bit like A and R men.

A measure of this progress will, of course, be how it fares at the county council elections.

And the leadership has its eye on Kent as somewhere it can create a few ripples. It is fielding 76 candidates out of 84 - a record number and judging by the unbridled spirit of optimism at the launch of its Kent manifesto on Friday night in Gravesend, many think County Hall will have its first elected UKIP county councillors come May 3.

Actually, the event was not so much a manifesto launch (not much was mentioned about Kent at all) as much as a rally designed to raise spirits for the battle ahead.

More than 300 activists and supporters crammed into a hotel room to listen to Nigel Farage deliver a characteristically flamboyant and colourful speech, in which he fired broadsides at all the mainstream parties (Cameron - "no-one will ever believe him again"; Clegg - "hopeless"; Osborne - "hopeless"; Angela Merkel - "more miserable in private than she is in public"; Miliband - "who cares?") and declaimed like a evangelical preacher that the party's time had come.

Say what you like about him, but he certainly knows how to find a key part of the party's anatomy (in the way it was said of Michael Heseltine and the Tories).

One of his quips about his critics was telling: "They're writing me off as a populist now!" because it touched on why the three mainstream parties are so concerned aboout UKIP.  It has successfully exploited the widespread disenchantment with the big parties among voters who think they all look the same and say the same. It is that disaffection that meant second place in the Eastleigh by-election was depicted as a victory.

The forthcoming elections come at a good time for UKIP: mid-term in the life of any government is a bad time to be going to the polls for those in power and UKIP is picking up support from many Tories in the shire counties that disapprove of the party's position on gay marriage and harbour fears over the impact of immigration.

It has certainly leapfrogged the Lib Dems as the preferred repository of the protest vote. More than that, there is the fact that they have a much more organised campaign and activists willing to trudge the streets with leaflets - the kind of foot soldiers every party needs. And it already has councillors in Tunbridge Wells.

So, you can understand why it feels bouyant. I think the issue, however, is that while it could significantly build on its share of the vote across Kent it may end up in second place in lots of areas, just falling short of victory.

Nigel Farage is typically robust in his assessment, saying it would be a major surprise if Kent - his home county - doesn't have UKIP county councillors next month. He won't say but the target areas are Thanet and Tunbridge Wells, with north Kent also in its sights.

When I asked him if he would have a bet on UKIP holding the balance of power at County Hall, he said he would have to look at the odds. But his smile suggested it may be something the party has contemplated as a possibility.

Such a result is the UKIP dream scenario and the Conservatives' nightmare, which accounts for the current jitters in Tory ranks.

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

Among UKIP's candidates is another defecting Tory.  Roger Latchford, who was at one point deputy Conservative leader of Thanet council, has defected and will contest the Birchington and Villages division in Thanet.

Another former Tory, Brian Ransley, once a cabinet member in Tunbridge Wells council until he lost his seat to the Lib Dems, is standing in Tunbridge Wells North.

IT is probably a little much to declare it a 'victory' - as the inevitable press release described it - but it is undeniably good news that KCC, along with a handful of other councils, are poised to recover  the money they invested in former Icelandic banks.

KCC on course to get Icelandic cash back>>

But while the words "rejoice" may be resounding around the corridors of Sessions House, it is worth making a couple of relevant points.

KCC originally invested the £50m because it was attracted by the rather generous interest rates being offered by the banks, around 5-6%. It put the money there precisely for that reason and no other. It is not, however, money the authority will be seeing - and you can do the maths yourself to see what budget papers usually refer to opaguely in accounts as the "net impairment loss."

According to KCC's audited accounts for 2010-2011, the sum associated with the 'net impairment loss' is £7.6m. Now, I am guessing this is the sum that the council expected to make as a return on its deposit but now won't. Victorious in the courts, yes but that is only part of the story.

And the protracted legal wrangle, which lasted three years, will also have a cost but as the action was being pursued on behalf of 100+ authorities, this may be relatively modest.

There is no doubt that treasury management policies at County Hall were not quite as robust as they should have been at the time this happened, but neither were they at many other town halls and public bodies (and before I'm reminded the now defunkt Audit Commission was among them).

There was the unopened email that meant £3m more was invested when brokers had advised KCC to halt, for example.

One consequence of the saga is that there is now a little more transparency about how and where taxpayers' money is being invested. Previously, little was volunteered about the subject and what was was largely impenetrable to many.

However, much of it unfortunately goes through an informal members group at County Hall, whose meetings are closed to the public.

******************************************************

SOCIAL services chiefs appear to have finally got to grips with the crisis in vulnerable children's social care. A positive Ofsted report which apparently says KCC has successfully addressed many of the problems identified in a highly damning report issued a year ago is due out shortly. We'll know the full details in a week or two.

Having overcome that challenge, another is on the horizon - adoption, where Kent appears to have a fairly dismal track record compared to many others when it comes to the speed with which it deals with applications from would-be adopters.

Clearly,the downward trend began a few years ago but for whatever reason, was not spotted or was but ignored.

Adoption challenge for KCC>>

All of which makes me wonder again exactly how it was that for several years, KCC secured high ratings from inspectors for the quality of its social services.

The suspicion is that County Hall had any number of policy wonks skilled in completing self-assessment forms on which judgements were often based but rather fewer people overseeing what was actually happening at the coal face.

COUNTY Hall has been awash with speculation about a possible leadership contest for some time, with insiders predicting there could be blood on the Conservative carpet come October.

'We want your job' - top Tories vie for Carter's leadership at County Hall>>>

Now the rumour mill that has been in overdrive has spilled into the open and two challengers to Paul Carter have declared their hand.

The question is whether either can gather enough support to topple the incumbent between now and next month.

Any politician in such a job for so long cannot help but make a few enemies along the way and Cllr Carter is no exception. In recent weeks and months, the disquiet among some backbenchers has become increasingly shrill. The planned closure of libraries, hastily abandoned, cuts to the youth service and more recently a stormy meeting over plans to cut the number of community liaison managers from 12 to 7 - leading to a late U-turn - have all been generating angst within the group.

But that is pretty much to be expected. Like other political leaders, Cllr Carter may be paying the price for having too large a majority. His uncompromising and forthright style can on occasion rub people up the wrong way.

Having so many backbenchers with little direct involvement in the decision-making process is a well known recipe for breeding frustration and discontent.

His rivals will undoubtedly seek to exploit this and hope that the mantra that it is 'time for a change’ will be compelling enough.

But Nick Chard and Keith Ferrin run the risk of looking like they are in a grudge match - both have been fired from the cabinet by the man they want to replace.

Either way, it looks like becoming an acrimonious and potentially divisive contest. In an email, Keith Ferrin writes that he hopes “we can all now calm down and conduct a low key civilized contest in which we all remember that much more unites us than divides us.” (At the same time, he suggests that his rival for the role as reneged on an earlier commitment to support his bid.)

That may be a rather forlorn hope as political leadership battles are rarely civilised affairs regardless of how they appear on the surface. Ask Margaret Thatcher.

As to the outcome, I’m told that Mr Carter is bullish about his prospects. On the other hand, neither Mr Chard or Mr Ferrin would have declared their intentions without taking soundings beforehand – but pledges of support in such contests should always be treated with caution. I expect all three candidates to be getting multiple pledges, as Conservatives eye up their prospects of preferment under each.

At this stage, it seems Cllr Carter remains favourite to hang on but a lot can happen in a few weeks. There may be others to enter the fray although one whose name has been mentioned - Dartford council leader Jeremy Kite - has ruled himself out.

But with the council in the grip of drastic budget cuts and a controversial re-organisation, Conservatives may just feel that now is not exactly the best time to give somebody else the captain’s armband.

The age of austerity is pushing councils in all sorts of directions and into proposals they might never have previously countenanced. We've seen one promote the concept of a no frills authority - Barnet's so-called "easycouncil" and others saying they will no longer be directly providing any services - the so-called "virtual council" route.

Kent County Council has given us a glimpse of where it is heading with its launch of "Bold Steps for Kent" document, weighing in at 48-pages and setting out how it envisages services being delivered over the next four years. There's actually a lot of interesting stuff in it and it would have been quite neat to set out 39 such steps but the County Hall PR wizards missed a trick there. (I have to admit that it was a challenge to get my head round all the detail)

Would you run KCC services?>>

Clearly, KCC does not expect to be the same kind of council in 2015 as it is today. There's talk of management buyouts, new trading companies, Big Society start-up grants and an open question: what is it we actually need to provide ourselves and might someone else do it better? This is the commissioning part of the model, breaking up the monolithic one we arguably have now. On the other side of the coin, there is a call for Kent to get more powers along the same lines as big "city regions" - such as transport and housing - and possible collaboration over the NHS. So, some ideological contradictions and political paradoxes but it brings to mind a phrase I've heard at County Hall quite often - "the mixed economy.'

Leader Paul Carter told me he's an unashamed free marketeer and that he believes in a smaller state, so has no issue with outsourcing services if others can do the job better and at less cost. At the same time, he makes the point that private companies often under-estimate just how efficient the public sector can be. "Our job is to open up the market and allow others in. It is going to force people to think differently," he says.

It will be interesting to see how the concept of management buyouts takes off. Those who have spent long careers in local government do tend to like the (relatively) secure environment - notwithstanding the considerble uncertainty there is over jobs. Will there be a huge appetite to plunge into the uncertain world of social enterprises or private companies? The idea of Big Society start up grants strikes me as sensible but I still harbour doubts about the concept. Say a group of volunteers takes over running a village library but after a year or so, some leave; others move or some find they can no longer commit to the project? Who will step in - assuming that it has proved successful?

And what safeguards will there be to ensure proper democratic scrutiny and accountability of these different commercial companies?

Either way, a major upheaval is underway at County Hall even if I'm struggling to come up with a convenient shorthand name for the new model it is espousing.  

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

More Star Trek references creeping into County Hall. After proposing an "Enterprise Directorate" comes the new four-year plan "Bold Steps for Kent." Proceed at Warp Factor Ten, Captain.

We've reported more on how County Hall has spent public money through its corporate credit cards today, along with some other interesting details about how the taxpayer has picked up the tab for a £4.50 taxi ride made by former chief executive Peter Gilroy.

The County Hall Spending Files>>>

There are some who think we have been wrong to present our disclosures in the way we have; some who think we are being too critical and sensationalising the subject and some who think (wrongly) that there is some other reason for our coverage - which has been based purely on our judgement that it is very much in the public interest and a subject our readers will find interesting to read about - whatever their views.

Others believe that if a public body is embracing transparency, then it cannot pick and choose which transactions it would prefer to be transparent about. One point worth making here is that many of the transactions that we have detailed fall below the £500 threshold set by the government at which all councils will be required to put into the public domain data on all invoices above that sum.

So, had the information not been gathered by a concerned resident and passed to us, a considerable amount of it would never have seen the light of day. KCC has rightly come round to the view that being open is a virtue and one that ultimately will be good for it and the residents it is there to serve.

As its own report unveiling its plans for a new transparency regime says, it is important that residents are able to make judgements about not just the costs they, as taxpayers, are bearing but that they can also make judgments about the value of what is being done with their money.

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

Interestingly, the new Labour group leader on the Local Government Association has hit out at the government's transparency plans, asserting that they are a waste of time and councils have better things to do. You can read about it here Some of the comments are illuminating.

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

I've blogged a couple of times about how Ed Miliband might play with the voters of Kent - especially the 80,000+ that deserted the party between 2005 and 2010. I've suggested he might become the Iain Duncan Smith of the party. But I was talking to a colleague who suggested a better comparison might be with William Hague, who had an ill-fated attempt to lead the party out of the wilderness after its nightmare of a defeat in 1997.  Just steer clear of the baseball cap, Ed. 

Former chief executive Peter Gilroy had a controversial reign at Kent County Council, most notably his salary was called into question. To put it into prospective, he earned twice as much as the Prime Minister.

But still, he felt the need to charge the taxpayer for restaurant bills and other expenses.  Alas, we forgive and forget, for they know not what they do. The recent revelation, however, is more odd. 3/4 of a mile taxi ride, for lunch, which cost us £4.50. £240,000 salary and yet, the taxpayer, was billed.

Why is that?

Apparently, Mr Gilroy was recovering from an operation and was unable to walk. Fine, I accept that. However, if the gentlemen was recovering from an operation - then I must ask - why was he at work? KCC statement said Peter Gilroy could not walk or drive. Under Health and Safety guidelines, he should not be in work.

Note to KCC: In future, give staff sufficient time to recover from operations. Much better for the individual and the taxpayer.

Our special reports on KCC spending have caused a stir among senior officers at County Hall. Our coverage centres around the comprehensive details of how the authority’s ‘corporate’ credit card has been used. These have come to light in quite remarkable circumstances. A private citizen, retired hospital administrator Kathy Harrigan, chanced upon a conversation during a train journey when it seems members of KCC staff were commenting on spending by certain individuals which, how shall we put it, weren’t exactly on ‘core services’. We’re talking taxi journeys, hospitality and other privileges.

So angered by what she learnt, she exercised her right to go and inspect some of these outgoings. The result, or certainly part of it, appeared in the KM last week.

Thousands of pounds spent by the legal services team on trips to awards ceremonies in plush London Hotels, membership of the exclusive Royal Commonwealth Club, Thorntons chocolates for staff. There’s more this week by the way.

Coming the day after the authority launched a ‘transparency drive’ it appears to have ruffled feathers in the corridors of County Hall, prompting the new group managing director Katherine Kerswell to write to staff claiming our coverage was a ‘misrepresentation’ and thanking people for ‘going the extra mile’. Many managers in the private sector also find ways of thanking their teams for a job well done. In the current age of austerity it often it comes out of their own wallet rather than the public purse.

There’s a certain irony that the launch of KCC’s transparency revolution has coincided with the publication of fresh disclosures by us of how taxpayers’ money has been spent on corporate credit cards.

The Spending Files: read our report here

First, let’s give KCC credit – it is going much further than it needs to in publishing the data required of it by the government.

I sense a genuine desire to grasp the nettle once and for all over this issue and the move to publish additional details of the pay and expenses of senior staff is particularly welcome.

However, the revelations about how more than £8,000 was spent on celebrating the authority’s success in collecting and being nominated for national awards raises questions about the spending habits in some quarters of County Hall.

I don’t have any problem with staff of any organisation being recognised and thanked for their efforts. It’s something good employers do.

And let’s be fair – KCC’s legal services directorate turns a tidy sum for the authority and its residents each year.

The issue I think some will have is whether it is proportionate – particularly given that it involves public money. I do acknowledge that some may regard the sums involved as modest in the context of the council’s overall budget.

It’s a reasonable point except for the fact that as a public body, perceptions are all important.

Was it really necessary to spend £384 on Thorntons chocolates for 90 staff? Or £224 on commemorative photos? Taxis that came in at £935 when trains would have cost half that?

I wonder whether these expenses would have been made had it been known they would become public.

Yes, awards ceremonies have a habit of overrunning but would  it have really been impossible for those attending the two events in London to travel by train? As we report, there were two trains after the time at which the parties were collected by their taxis to ferry them back to County Hall – which is a stones throw from the station.

KCC has been highly successful in adapting practices from the private sector.

There are, however, some that it can do without and the corporate hospitality culture common to many private sector boardrooms is one of them.

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

It seems some county councillors had misgivings about a decision to invite me to talk to KCC's cabinet scrutiny committee yesterday about the new transparency programme at County Hall. I'd been asked if I wanted to contribute to the meeting rather than cover it (although I ended up doing both) on the grounds that it might be useful for the council to have a media perspective on the initiative.

KCC sets out plans to open its books>>>

I had some reservations about appearing myself but agreed. But it seems my presence as a witness was giving some members cause for concern and before any discussion on the great transparency agenda took place there was a debate about whether my presence could be deemed to be against the council's constitution.

Conservative spokesman Cllr Roger Manning outlined what his concerns were first, which revolved around whether, as a witness, I could potentially ask members questions - although I was there to answer them. "I need to be clear in my own mind that we are acting within our constitution. It seems to me that we are setting a dangerous precedent" he said, before going on to add that he was anxious lest the authority be inundated with witnesses at future meetings who might also ask councillors questions.

Fellow Conservative Jean Law questioned whether it was in the gift of the chairman of the committee - Lib Dem Cllr Trudy Dean - to permit witnesses to ask questions as well as answer them. Cllr Dean replied that it had always been normal practice to allow questions from witnesses.

I was as bemused as anyone who might have been looking in at the webcast of the meeting. I certainly hadn't gone along with any intention of quizzing councillors. Although I'm bound to say it struck me as somewhat odd that some considered the idea that journalists should ask elected politicians questions somehow questionable.

Still, it was interesting to be the focus of a debate about whether, in agreeing to my presence, there might have been some dreadful constitutional crisis at County Hall.

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

Still, I did have a salutary reality check when one member of the committee - Swanley Conservative councillor Robert Brookbank - interjected before the debate to demand to know who I was, declaring: "I have never heard of him." If I was a politician, I suppose I'd be describing that as a wake-up call.

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

There was a robust defence of how the council is looking after vulnerable children at yesterday's meeting by managing director Rosalind Turner, who decried the willingness of agencies to press the nuclear option at the merest hint of possible harm and request KCC to carry out a risk assessment.

It follows a critical Ofsted report that flagged up delays in the time it is taking to assess vulnerable children in Kent.

It's undeniably the case that heightened sensitivities have created the risk averse culture and as always, striking the right balance is incredibly tricky, more so when any failing will inevitably trigger a slew of unfavourable headlines and searching questions.

No wonder it's hard to recruit social workers.

Don't press the nuclear option, says children's chief>>>