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.

 

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 always difficult to extrapolate from the result of a by-election what wider messages the voters have sent to politicians and how they might affect the parties' prospects in other areas.

So, is it possible to draw anything about Kent's political landscape from the outcome of the Eastleigh by-election?

Only in general terms, perhaps - particularly given that this was a seat where there was a two-way fight between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives which really has no parallel in most of the county's parliamentary constituencies.

The Liberal Democrats did not so much gallop to victory as hang on by their fingernails, which against the backdrop of the Chris Huhne affair and the Lord Rennard allegations, was arguably no mean feat.

The Conservatives had a miserable result, losing ground yet again to UKIP in a result that suggested that David Cameron's pledge for an "in-out" referendum on the EU did not help shore up the party's core vote.

That will worry Kent Tories who are very jittery about UKIP and see Nigel Farage's party as more of a threat to their prospects at May's county council election than anyone else. It was interesting to hear Michael Gove cite immigration as one of the "doorstep" issues mentioned by voters during the Eastleigh campaign - that, coupled with voters' concerns over the EU - make UKIP more than just a natural repository for protest votes.

Cameron's dilemma is whether to stick to the centre ground or adopt more right-wing policies to neutralise the UKIP threat.

For evidence closer to home of the potential for UKIP to take votes away from the Conservatives, the result of a by-election in Ashford is telling: UKIP came third in a contest won by Labour (it was a safe seat) but came within two votes of beating the Conservatives to take second place.

On the other hand, Labour should be equally alarmed that Ed Miliband's efforts to depict his party as a "one nation" party appears to have had little resonance with voters.

The phenomenon of Labour's "southern discomfort" is something the party is desperate to resolve: if it cannot attract voters back in the constituencies in Kent that it won during the Blair era, it will not be in a position to form the next government.

Eastleigh was never a seat where Labour had any chance of winning but it will have to ask why, given all the coalition's woes, it did not fare better.

UKIP didn't win but will undoubtedly be happiest at its surge in the polls.

The question now is whether in places like Kent, it can sustain its momentum in a way which means it is regarded by voters as  legitimate part of the political mainstream - and not just somewhere to register a protest against the others.

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)

I was lucky enough to attend and steward at this year’s Smugglers Festival. The first thing to strike you is the intimacy of the festival: the campsite itself is small enough to see from one side to the other at all times. The main area consisted of two main stages, where the music alternated from stage to stage, meaning that there was constant music playing, and no worry of two bands clashing, which can be truly devastating for some. Outside the main area, in the woods, was the Little Rig stage, a beautifully decorated caravan with a small stage attached. The festival featured fantastic performances by Zoo For You, Cocos Lovers, The Boot Lagoon among many others. The standard of music, albeit nothing like what you’ll find in the charts, was fantastic, unique and refreshing to listen to instead of all the “wub wubs” we seem to hear on the radio and in clubs. Smugglers, though it is a small festival is not short on things to do during the weekend; it has a children’s area, artwork hidden in the woods, campfires dotted around the woods, a disco, an absinthe bar and so much more! The atmosphere at Smugglers festival was absolutely brilliant- everyone was so nice! It’s the kind of festival where you needn’t be worried about rowdy youths around each corner, and where you can easily converse with a complete stranger, it’s a lovely thing! For anyone debating whether to come next year as a family, I would highly recommend it. Smugglers Festival offers a brilliant family atmosphere. There is plenty of great activities for children in the kids’ area, as well as a cinema to engage the family, and what’s more, the family camping is absolutely silent at night time so you won’t be disturbed by the usual festival riff raff! And for any ‘usual festival riff raff’ who are just out to have a cheap weekend of music and fun, I can’t recommend Smugglers any more. I thoroughly enjoyed it- by far my favourite festival, and in relation to the bigger festivals, it is right on my doorstep!

Strange how defining accents are, isn’t it? We can all spot a Brummie from a Welshman, and the difference between a Cornish dairy farmer and a Lambeth Londoner is clear.

Recent cult programmes such as Made in Chelsea and Geordie Shore have crafted clear (though not always flattering) stereotypes of their respective geographical areas, and thanks to the (bizarre) success of TOWIE, everyone now knows how an Essex-gal sounds: ‘Alriiiiiight Joey, just gonna go down the salon to get me tan and vajazzle before the party toniiiiiight’. It’s not a direct quote, but it should (and could) be.

But mention a Kentish accent, and most people are stumped. Of course, those of us who live in the Garden know our Shepways from our Bearsteads and our Chavvvams from our Canterburys without a problem. We know all the stigmas and stereotypes, and can flawlessly impersonate a typical Maidstone ‘youth’ going ‘daaawnnn liquid tonight bruv’.

Some of us are even mildly sad that the initially excitement-inducing Facebook group entitled ‘The Only Way Is Kent’ has sadly faded into the distance and perhaps will be only ever considered now by Maidstone Studios when the free tickets to the Trisha show have all run out (if the programme even exists...). However, all this takes place inside our little Kentish bubble; a bubble which, let’s face it, is probably made out of fermenting beer in a countryside oast house.

You will understand, then, my utter surprise when a French boy in Le Havre at a weekly languages café I attend recently asked me to take part in his university study on the Kentish accent. ‘Uhhh yes’, he assured me when I enquired if it was really Kent he wanted to analyse, ‘Eeeet is Kent, becauzzz zeere izzz a lot of differences in zee accent’.

Now, I’m not sure what your opinion on this is, but I personally don’t see a massive scope of variety, particularly when Kent is compared with say, the diversity of London. However, Pierre (we’ll call him that) was adamant, and so, reluctantly, I agreed to his proposition.

The following week, I returned to the café, only to be greeted not only by Pierre, but also by his project buddy Marie (definitely not her real name), and a dictaphone. My first task was to read out a poem ‘azzz naturally azzz posseeeeeble’.

Believe me, this was no mean feat with a microphone in your face and an eager roomful of English-loving Frenchies all listening intently to my every word, but somehow I managed a slightly stuttering recitation.

Afterwards, Marie played me a recording of an English lady (apparently a teacher in a Kentish grammar school- not sure which one, though I know it wasn’t MGGS) reading the same piece aloud, and I had a quiz to fill out.

Questions included ‘how educated do you think the woman is?’, ‘can you tell she teaches at grammar school?’ (Ooo, controversial...) and even ‘what type of house do you think she lives in?’ to which I answered ‘big, detached and modern’, in case you were wondering.

Yet the main thing that struck me about this recording was the fact I wouldn’t have been able to recognise the voice as Kentish. As far as I was concerned, this woman could have come from anywhere in the South of England- hence my surprise at Pierre’s choice of university study!

Anyway. The next activity was a vocabulary recognition test, for which an enthusiastic Pierre whipped out his textbook with a grin, which soon faded as it quickly became evident that French academics do not know anything about Kentish accents.

In the South East for instance, we do not say ‘sooooon’ instead of ‘sun’, nor ‘Rome’ instead of ‘gypsy’...well, as far as I’m aware anyway! I must admit, I did feel a little guilty being the bearer of such bad news, because essentially, I unwittingly proved the entire project to be void.

Moreover, I made poor old Pierre and Marie begin to doubt the previously-accepted omniscience of their assigned course resources, and they left the café with their once-wagging tails between their dejected French legs.

Still, it was a lesson learnt by all, and now that I’m back in England, I’ll definitely pay more attention to the diversity of complexity of the Kentish accents which surround me. But for now, jus’ gonna go daaaawn taaawn mate. Gotta nail and hair sesh booked innit. Laterzzzz!

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 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.  

 

 

 

 

Woke up this morning to a flood of tweets and Facebook posts showing concern of a big freeze/siberian snowstorm to hit the UK and naturally any snow that comes with it. This is generating a lot of excitement and for some, concern which I would expect. So I shall try and explain what is happening right now and for the next couple of days to ease any worries, fears caused by the national tabloids.

As I posted last time, for the past week minimum, the infamous forecast data has been on a knife edge as to whether or not UK weather will be influenced from the West or from the East, and has really been a very difficult decision to make. The problem in making such a call stems from a "fight" for territory and who could push into the UK with the bigger influence - the cold from the East or the milder weather from the West.

As of now, for us in Kent (and the South-East generally) we look pretty confident to be influenced by colder temperatures brought in from the East. However, the colder weather currently is not able to push West far enough to affect the UK as there is high pressure to the W/SW. So we currently have a colder, drier setup.  What we need are weather front's to push in from the East (which they are having problems doing = high pressure). So the other alternative is for fronts to push into the cold air from the West... But this is also having trouble as it's high pressure to our NE trying to move in from the East and blocking any fronts. So we are almost in "no mans land" with cold temperatures certainly! A big freeze as hyped by national newspapers? Unlikely.

Until either high pressure gives in we remain at a sort of stalemate, plus the colder weather influence is only really just beginning anyway so it is still difficult which one will win out. It is from Sunday/Monday onwards that the decision is likely to be officially made but until then feel free to follow my Kent-Weather Twitter and Facebook as I shall be posting occasional weather ramblings there.