Kent Reform Councillors Face Backlash Over £100K Taxpayer-Funded Political Assistants
Kent County Council (KCC) Reform UK councillors have approved taxpayer-funded political assistant posts potentially costing up to £98,564 annually in salaries plus on-costs despite a projected £50 million overspend and no budgeted allocation for 2025/26. The decision, passed 45-26 with one abstention on December 18, 2025, targets qualifying groups like Reform UK (48 councillors) and Liberal Democrats (12), drawing sharp condemnation for contradicting the party’s anti-waste pledges. Critics highlight a recruitment freeze on frontline roles while funding partisan staff, fueling debates on fiscal responsibility.
Key Facts and Spending Figures
KCC’s 81-member council qualifies Reform UK and Lib Dems for assistants under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, capping pay at SCP 36-38 (up to £49,282 full-time equivalent per post). Two posts could total £98,564 salaries yearly, excluding pensions and NI contributions, pushing full costs toward £150,000 as opponents claim. No specific budget line exists; the Corporate Director of Finance must identify 2025/26 funding post-approval.
Posts are fixed-term until the next annual meeting after elections, with duties including speech drafting, policy research, briefings, and stakeholder management—no decision-making powers. Kent historically operated without such roles, joining a minority of English councils; central guidance urges value-for-money and part-time options. Amid a recruitment freeze blocking frontline hires, the move coincides with 15.5% Core Spending Power rise but service pressures.
Cost Breakdown
Official Statements and Council Actions
Council Leader Linden Kemkaran and Chief Executive Amanda Beer signed the report authorizing Chief Executive to set protocols, job descriptions, and salaries in consultation with group leaders. Full Council motion: Authorize Monitoring Officer for constitutional changes; finance director for funding.
Reform UK supported unanimously despite opposition; no direct quotes from party leaders in reports, but pitched nationally as waste-cutters.
Reactions from Opposition and Public
Labour Cllr Alistar Brady accused Reform of hypocrisy, noting pre-election campaigns against high staff salaries while proposing nearly £100K for assistants amid cuts: “Money could soften budget blows.” Lib Dem Cllr Anthony Hook called posts “propaganda” tools, questioning need in a council that “never had them before”—likening to “nuclear weapons” where rivals force parity; he mulled non-use post-Christmas.
Cllr Tim Prater (non-Reform): “Every non-Reform voted against… unbudgeted amid £50M overspend.” Shepway Vox: “Reform UK pitched as cutting waste… now funds partisan staffing.” Guardian/Reddit: “Leaders under fire for £100K pot… spend £150K on advisers.” Facebook groups: “Reform voted to spend taxpayers’ money on political assistant.”
Broader backlash: “Cost-of-living era… councils say no money for services.” Operational details pending: recruitment, management, officer interactions.
Context and Broader Implications
Approval enables up to three posts legally, but Kent limits to two qualifiers (over 10% threshold: Reform 48/81, Lib Dems 12/81). Debate centered optics, with Reform’s May 2025 gains clashing anti-establishment rhetoric. Funding vagueness drew ire: “Approve principle without all-in price?”
As KCC navigates budgets, this fuels transparency calls in local governance. For analysts in regulatory compliance and political affairs, it spotlights tensions between political resourcing and public fiscal scrutiny.[user-information]
Timeline of Events
