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.

by Alan Watkins

A £2million bid for lottery funding could take Fort Amherst a stage closer to the dream of being a world visitor attraction.

Whether the dream is either justified or a reality is beside the point.

Fort Amherst as we know it today was originally conceived in the 1980s as an historic treasure that could create tourist jobs. It came in the wake of the closure of the dockyard.

Nearly 30 years on, some parts of it have been opened up but much of the complex is still closed to the public. In part, this is because of ongoing military use.

Part is because the funds are not there and another constraint is because the mining beneath the Great Lines has never been properly mapped or explored.

A bid is being drawn together by the charity trust set up to look after the former Army gunpowder store and by the council. It will go some way towards regaining the initiative lost when the Great Lines bid for World Heritage Status was turned down.

In my opinion the combination of the Historic Dockyard, the fort and Brompton Barracks was doomed to fail. UNESCO, the people who decide what is of world importance and what is not, had insisted too many of the existing heritage sites are in the UK and the US.

They want to look to Mali, Mongolia, Patagonia or Panmunjon but no longer the west.

Another factor against the bid was, I believe, the failure of our community to get behind the project. Medway is full of people who eat breakfast in the dark, arrive home in the dark and spend the rest of their time (and their money) in London. Others are sceptics.

“We aren’t going to win because we never win, therefore there’s no point in taking part,” seems to be the philosophy of many who live here during the day.

It reminds me of a former mayor’s question to me more than 20 years ago: “Why on earth did you want to come here?” The simple answer is that I like the Medway Towns, and the Medway people, and one day I might actually get the feeling that I am accepted as a Medway resident rather than an incomer.

The trust is seeking to motivate people to back their bid. They‘re inviting people to have a look on February 17 at where the £2 million will be spent.

Much of it will be continuing the restoration of the fort. More will be on opening up the Middle Lines, which have been lost over the years beneath clay and earth.

I wish them well. I might even turn up myself.

I'm staring in the mirror and triple checking that my foundation isn’t five shades darker than my skin. My bronzer is definitely OK, I don’t have hair extensions and can’t wear too much mascara because it plays havoc with my contact lenses.

Admittedly, the last time I put on fake tan it was a bit of streaky (nothing a second application couldn’t sort out), but generally I think I just about achieve the “sun-kissed” look. That’s when I can be bothered to put it on.

I may be a Medway gal (and a Chatham Girl, at that) but I don’t think I’ve ever gone out looking like Kate Payne does by the end her tongue-in-cheek make-up tutorial, How To Get Ready For A Night Out: Medway Style.

Her 10-minute video on YouTube is proving a hit (more than 15,000 views and rapidly rising) as she slaps on the fake tan and gives an hilarious lesson in how to get dolled up with two different types of foundation, lashings of eyeshadow, mascara, bronzer and blusher, scruffs up her locks for “big hair” but dispenses with the lip gloss, because she doesn’t want to look too over the top.

Being born and bred in Medway, and particularly Chatham, has never been easy. I was a wet-behind-the-ears reporter when news of Chatham Girls hit the headlines, and what we were supposedly like.

My editor decided he wanted to send me down the High Street dressed up as the stereotypical Chatham Girl, in a shiny white tracksuit (complete with go faster stripes down the side), branded trainers, a giant sweatshirt, my hair tied up in a scrunchie, wearing the largest gold hoop earrings I could find and a gold necklace with a clown pendant (they were all the rage at the time).

Thankfully, our expense account wouldn’t stretch to buying it all, and I couldn’t beg or borrow it all in time for our next deadline (I really did try, I promise).

It was all a bit of a laugh, as are Kate’s videos (she also has recorded Advice For Single Ladies and a Facebook Rant).

And underneath all that make-up, it proves Medway Townies really do have a great sense of humour.

Watch the video by clicking here.

by Alan Watkins

by Alan Watkins

What is stopping Medway  becoming a city? It’s the 20th biggest conurbation in the country and outside of the capital the biggest in the South East.

It is striving to improve – and hasn’t done badly with four universities, a fine campus and a new bus station. It has support in the community.

At 6/1, it was also second favourite (behind Reading) so someone fancied us. So why were we overlooked?

It could be the cavalier way that Rochester lost its city status, not once but twice (Whitehall has a long memory).

Maybe it had something to do with all the other events in 2012 and we’ve got enough to be getting on with.

There’s 200 years of the Sappers, 200 years of Charlie D, two annual festivals in honour of him and the Diamond Jubilee.

Charlie is that hirsute Victorian author and ex-news hack who wasn’t born here, spent much of his life in Pompey and Broadstairs (when he wasn’t hopping into his mistress’s bed) and died in Gravesham. Medway adopted him, but the government robbed him of his last wish, and buried him in a congested corner of Westminster instead of Rochester Cathedral where he really wanted to lie in eternal rest.

Someone worked out most of his famous scenes were set in Rochester (must have been a council researcher). We’ve bid for the City of Medway three times.

The point now is to start asking why a town like St Asaph (population 3,400) should get the title while 250,000 of us have no idea where it is.

And before any clever Welsh geographer mutters Denbighshire, that’s a county with the same size population as the district of Gillingham, Medway (93,000).

I hope the councillors are now re-examining their laid-back approach to the city bid, and comparing their lack of effort with the energy of the other contestants. Maybe Chelmsford will throw the bouquet our way next time.

It won’t make much difference: the next English city will probably be in the west, and most likely in the north-west.

I suspect the Rochester supporters will have had a collective smirk.

Right, back to the drawing board ...

UP-DATED MONDAY FEB 13.

There has long been a suspicion the government's U-turn that led to its decision to consult on the idea of a Thames Estuary airport was, in part, driven by the Treasury and the Chancellor. It was said they had been won round by the argument that such a project would deliver investment and jobs - along with regeneration - at a critical time.

But how was the Treasury won round? A clue perhaps lies in the meetings George Osborne and his officials had with the backers of the idea that were disclosed to us under the Freedom of Information Act.

Although we aren't being told what was on the table at these meetings as it is not deemed to be in the public interest.

Treasury meetings with Thames Estuary airport backers>>>

What we do glean from the details provided is that there seemed to be a sympathetic ear at the Treasury, where officials met representatives of Foster and Partners and the consultants Halcrow no less than four times to chew over the idea.

The rather gushing email sent by an unnamed representative of Foster following one meeting talks revealingly of how stimulating and reassuring the meeting was given that both sides believed passionately in the same points.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with any proponent of any scheme seeking contacts with politicians and their officials. You wouldn't expect anything less where a project as huge as this was concerned. Access is critical to getting the message across.

But if the government wants to be seen to be playing a straight bat over what is undeniably a massively contentious issue, it will have to better than come up  with the fig leaf of an excuse that it has to withhold information about what exactly was discussed at these meetings.

It is, frankly, an insult to say on that policy discussion needs to take place behind closed doors so  opinions can be expressed candidly. In its response, the Treasury says it acknowledges that there is a public interest in what is a 'live' issue - which in its way makes the case for full transparency and openness - not the case for running away and hiding.

It is interesting to speculate on whether,  had the Treasury been approached by, say, the leader of Medway council, for such a meeting, Mr Osborne or his officials would have proved quite as accommodating.

Either way, it is vital that the government's consultation starts from a position of neutrality.

There are arguments on both sides to be had but public confidence in the integrity of that consultation won't be enhanced if there is any suspicion that one side is getting greater opportunities to promote their views above the other.

Read the Treasury's full response to our FOI request here:

Treasury Meetings FOI.pdf (2.34 mb)

The transcript of the email sent by Foster and Partners to Treasury officials:

“It was a pleasure to meet with you this morning. We appreciate you making the trip over to our office and hopefully the experience of actually seeing us all busily working was useful. We found the conversation we had both stimulating and highly reassuring as you both made so many points that we both passionately believe in.”
“The brief presentation we did of some of our thinking and the initiatives we have been taking around infrastructure seemed to resonate with your interests and I am sure we could have spent a lot more time talking. We look forward to developing these conversations.”

Council chiefs and other politicians in Kent and Medway have been swift to condemn the latest proposal for an airport in the Thames Estuary.

Hardly a surprise. Lord Foster's grand scheme is nothing if not ambitious - it brings together not just an airport but a new river barrier and crossing, and a shipping and orbital rail complex. It makes Boris Island look rather modest.

Given the scale and huge impact it would have, the reaction on both sides has been passionate.

Lord Foster's Thames Hub vision>>

It is a classic situation in which local and national interests collide - a bit like the arguments that raged in Kent over the Channel Tunnel, when there were similar clashes over the blight afflicting the green fields of the Garden of England against those arguing the case for the economic dividend for UK Plc, particularly on the jobs front.

(Remember the scorn heaped on the country when it dragged its feet over the construction of the second stage of the High Speed Link? We were derided by our European counterparts for taking so long and for building a link which, at the time, only went some of the way to London.)

So why won't this idea - dubbed pie-in-the-sky, plane-crazy - go away?

If those advocating different proposals took on board the views of many in Kent, they would run away and hide in a dark room, not spend £100,000 on a report, that for all the criticism that might be heaped on it, at least strives to come up with a credible case that integrates different energy and transport strands and doesn't completely overlook the environmental issues.

One reason is that there is something of a policy vacuum in government - which, according to new transport secretary Justine Greening hasn't completely closed the door on the notion of a Thames Estuary airport - and has only recently finished a consultation on its scoping document setting out its plans for a sustainable framework for UK aviation.

Meanwhile, it has cancelled a third runway at Heathrow and ruled out expansion at Gatwick and Stansted. Triggering the inevitable questions about how it intends to increase capacity and compete in the global economy with those countries who appear to be stealing a march on the UK.

As ever, the government is struggling with the competing interests of those who wish to safeguard the environment and those that argue aviation is a vital to our national economic interests. 

And as always, thrown into the mix is the pressure ministers will come under from MPs with marginal seats who will want to side with their constituents. (A taste of this has come the way of ministers trying to sell the idea of High Speed Two, which would also carve through some of the country's rural hinterland. There is open revolt in some Cnservative constituencies).

So, will the government opt for what Foster calls "the short term patching up our ageing infrastructure" or be more bold when it does eventually flesh out its policies?

Somehow, I suspect that even when it does, the arguments will continue to rage.

Ed Miliband urged voters ahead of the polls to use their vote to register their dissatisfaction with the government - a tactical ploy commonly used by parties in opposition. So what did they do in Kent? So far, the messages are rather mixed. Ed, who is heading to Gravesham this morning to congratulate his party's candidates on their success in north Kent, has not in truth really made a huge breakthrough in the county.

Kent's election results - read all our up-to-date coverage here>>

Yes, it has won Gravesham but not because it wiped out a huge majority - it grabbed a handful of seats that were enough to tip the balance of power their way. Labour also made enough gains in Thanet to claim a sort of victory even if the council is hung.

But Mr Miliband will need to ask himself why it was that voters in Gravesham appeared to hear his plea while those in neighbouring Dartford were deaf to it, as they were in Medway. If voters were prepared to back the ruling Conservative administrations at some town halls in Kent, why not in others?

In fact, the results in Medway strike me as particularly concerning for Labour. I'd expected them to make some significant gains at the expense of the Tories but they failed to do so - the Conservative vote held up strongly and Labour's inroads were largely at the expense of the Lib Dems, who look to be imploding in Kent and will have hardly any councillors here by the end of  the day.

Medway has become totemic for both the Labour party and the Conservatives. In the endless battle to win over the squeezed middle, both know that at a general election that unless they win seats there, they are unlikely to form the next government. Of coures, we are only one year into the coalition government and the impact of the spending cuts are still filtering through, so voters may have been disinclined to give the Conservatives a bloody nose.

But even so, not to claim any scalps from the Conservatives will be a major disappointment.

It is not a good day to be a Lib Dem in Kent. They are clearly paying a price for the unpopularity of the national party and its role in the coalition and their desperate efforts to distance themselves from national policies have proved a failure. It will take some time for them to regroup - look at the wipeout of their councillors in Shepway. I expect something similar could be on the cards in Canterbury where traditionally, the city has been something of a stronghold for the party.

Conservative activists will be pretty happy with how things are going so far. I doubt they'll be troubled too much elsewhere in Kent, with the possible exception of Dover. They will hold sway in the bulk of town halls for the next four years - which, if things are going to get as bad as everyone expects in the public sector, may prove to be something of a mixed blessing.

The map of Kent may no longer completely blue but there needs to be rather more shades of red if Labour is to claim that it is back as a political force in the county.

The most telling phrase in the report published today about the Mayor of London's case for increasing aviation capacity was the one that talked about the need for "a brand new airport."

Not extending an existing airport but a brand new one. Which suggests to me that when Boris comes to issuing a report later on this year identifying particular locations as part two of his assessment, the Thames Estuary will be the number one favourite.

We were told several times - rather unconvincingly - that the Mayor and Transport for London were open to all suggestions although when pressed about whether that included extending Heathrow - which Boris and the coalition have ruled out - there was a bit of subtle manouevering to indicate that this, ahem, wouldn't be among the options.

Indeed, the only specific place mentioned in the Mayor's 70-page report is the Thames Estuary - and in a classic piece of under-statement, the report notes that it "will require sustained political determination to deliver such an airport."

You can say that again. But no-one should under-estimate the seriousness with which Boris is taking this. He made a compelling case on economic grounds, pointing out that together London airports can muster just five daily flights to China - half the number from Paris and Frankfurt.

He also pointed out that David Cameron's plans for greater use of existing regional airports would only absorb about 10 per cent of the extra capacity expected to be generated at Heathrow as the number of passengers increases from 240m to 460m over the next 20 years.

Boris reignites row over airport plan for Kent>>>

So, he ploughs on in the face of implacable opposition from council chiefs and most MPs. But one thing that did strike me at today's seminar was that many businesses actually seem quite keen on the idea and believe that there has been a pretty one-sided debate so far.

As to Manston, Daniel Moylan, vice chairman of Transport for London, was fairly dismissive - revealing that it would only work if it became a four runway hub of the sort Boris wants. Intriguingly, this proposal was put to KCC leader Paul Carter but he demurred at the suggestion.

So, Boris may not be terribly popular down here but seems remarkably unperturbed. You could even say he's rather relishing the challenge.

Mind you, it was a shame he didn't stick around to answer any journalists' questions.

Eric Pickles has got his way. The communities secretary has given the nod to a Kent-Essex-East Sussex Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) that will succeed the South East England Development Agency, one of the regional quangos that has become a totemic symbol for the coalition of all that was nasty and wrong about the Labour government's obsession with regional government.

It is not what Kent MPs wanted and it is certainly not what Medway council wanted and whisper it quietly, it is not really what KCC wanted but at the eleventh-hour went for it after Mr Pickles made it plain to County Hall that was what he'd like to see.

There are a few points worth making. In interfering with the discussions around what shape the new LEP should take and by advocating an Essex-Kent LEP, Mr Pickles has apparently forgotten that his watchword since becoming the local government minister has been localism and a determination to allow local councils to decide what was best for their area when it came to jobs and investment.

Can it really be only a month ago that Mr Pickles addressed the Conservative party conference and declared: "For the first time, in a long time, local government has the chance to make real decisions. Goodbye to Labour's regional government?" Yes, it can.

He's not the first minister to make such promises about devolving power and decision-making but he must be the first to ride roughshod over his credo quite so early in their career. His decision to approve a LEP that was his idea in the first place has already raised a few eyebrows - and the deputy Conservative leader of Medway council has described the whole process as a joke.

And what is so different about the LEP than its predecessor, Seeda. True it is a touch smaller but it still brings together three fairly disparate and diverse counties with arguably as many differences in terms of jobs and investment as similarities. It may not have a moniker as a regional body but you can't help thinking that it looks like one, feels like one and probably is one.

Still, we'll have to see how it works out. I've no idea whether it will prove successful or not. It may be that the LEP delivers on all the rather grand promises and expectations that it has articulated. But the process has been messy and unnecessarily acrimonious and generated considerable mistrust. Medway, which has scarcely  suppressed its irritation at County Hall, is certainly miffed about the whole thing and KCC have some patching up to do to repair a relationship that has been badly strained..

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

I've lost track of the number of times this week that I've spoken to various politicians about austerity cuts to be told they are "disappointed but not surprised." I'm waiting keenly for one to tell me they are surprised but not disappointed. But I fear I will be,er, disappointed.