Unlike many, politicians have to re-apply for their jobs every four or five years and the decision about whether they should be re-appointed is in the hands of voters.

And voters can be rather unpredictable and prone to switch allegiances, as the recent county council election showed rather dramatically.

So, we should not be surprised that a number of Conservative backbenchers in the county voted last night for the 'rebel' amendment on the Queen's Speech.

There is nothing like a bruising mid-term electoral lashing to concentrate the mind and the Kent MPs who backed the amendment no doubt had given careful consideration to the dramatic UKIP surge in the county council election.

So, this was a convenient way of sending a message to the electorate that they are as sceptical about Europe as any UKIP candidate who might be on the ballot paper in 2015.

Their decision to blow a raspberry at Mr Cameron will prove particularly helpful in election literature to post through doors in a couple of years.

Conservative backbenchers in Kent know that the issue of Europe is not going to go away. Those who knocked on doorsteps during the recent election campaign found that Britain's membership of the EU and immigration were often not far from voters' thoughts.

While UKIP is unlikely to win Parliamentary seats at the next election, that is not the point. It is whether UKIP will cost them votes in sufficient numbers to lose them their seats.

Marginal seats like those in the Medway Towns, north Kent and Thanet have switched between Labour and the Conservatives over recent years and if there is one thing that current MPs fear it is that a split in the vote for the right will allow Labour back in.

Whether UKIP's surge will be durable is, of course, open to question.

But if the results of the recent election showed anything, it is that voters are deeply cynical about commitments made for some time in the future - and particularly cynical about promises to do things after the election.

MPs who backed the rebel EU amendment understood this. It might be considered gesture politics but it is inconceivable that they did not make a calculated decision that it was worth putting a marker down now - even if the election is two years away.

In the weird Alice in Wonderland world of European justice, good drivers who happen to be women will not be rewarded for their ability to steer away from trouble.

Men, especially young ones, who steer into trouble stand to be rewarded Men who are set to die at a younger age than women will now suffer plunging annuity rates.

Although women should benefit from sex equality, fourth fifths of annuities are bought by men. Male pensioners are already penalised in so many ways and this is another blow to their ability to financially survive old age.

All this in the name of European justice. This week’s ruling on a claim by an obscure Belgian consumer group that gender equality should be applied to insurance is nonsense. It undermines the whole basis of risk assessment. It also removes the need for actuaries. Who needs risk forecasts when you treat everyone the same?

The ruling opens the way for younger people to claim they are victims of age discrimination because of high insurance premiums. Older drivers with an immaculate record could then find themselves facing premium hikes to fund the costly accidents of the young.

Will Saga be outlawed for serving the over-50s market? Will young people’s holiday companies be forced to accept pensioners on their camping expeditions?

And as Kent-based insurance expert Danny Cooper rightly asks, is it fair that people living in London should pay higher premiums than those in Cornwall?

Bizarrely, there seems no right of appeal against this ridiculous judgment. Its likely introduction at the end of 2012 will penalise the best and reward the worst. How’s that for common sense, logic and fairness?

The whole thing brings the European concept into disrepute and gives further ammunition to those groups who are calling for the UK to get out of the EU.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of being a guest on BBC Radio Kent to discuss immigration and its effects on the South East. When discussing our association to Europe and the freedom of movement of people, it seemed many in the county were quite sceptical to the EU.

I was informed, whilst on air, that countless e-mails were flooding in regarding EU membership and it does seem the majority in the county would vote to leave the EU, if given a chance. Due to the debate being about immigration, I was unable to expand further. Why would you, if you're in favour, vote to leave the European Union? Is it just due to immigration or the undemocratic nature of the organisation?

Note: I truly apologies for the lack of blogging lately – I've been rather busy with other projects and medical problems, too. I'm trying to manage everything more coherently, seeing I do have another blog and other freelance work, too.

Oh the joys of election day, that wonderful moment in which we get to hold our officials to account. Democracy is a wonderful, beautiful and the most significant form of government known to man – true reflection of a civilised society.

But what about those who violate and betray the trust? The criminals, and those who are -more importantly- removed from society and isolated in prisons. Should this group cast a ballot?

Answer: No.

You betray the trust of the wider society then you must be punished. This includes exclusions to participate in the functioning of government and society. Voting is not a human right, but a democratic one – you cannot guarantee an open and free election in a prison. Voting is not a birth rate, there are requirements before you are entitled to it

But, more importantly, this is a moral issue. Victims uphold the decency and moral right for their antagonist to be held accountable. Including facing strict punishment, if necessary. The decision by the European Court of Human Rights signals another decline in the criminal justice system within Europe. The victim is now the little guy, with the criminal regard more important in the eyes of the law.