“Like Nuclear Weapons”: Kent County Council Approves Political Assistants — Taxpayer Cost Up to £98,564 a Year (Plus On-Costs)

“If my enemy has one, then I ought to have one.”

That was the Christmas-season dilemma put to Kent County Council this week as members voted to approve taxpayer-funded political assistants — a role KCC has never previously used — after a debate dominated by cost, optics, and whether public money should fund explicitly political staffing while services face savings.

On 18 December 2025, Full Council carried the motion by 45 votes to 26, with one abstention, authorising the creation of political assistant posts for qualifying political groups.

What KCC actually approved

The report approved by councillors enables the council to appoint Political Assistants under section 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. It states posts must be fixed-term, running until the Council’s Annual Meeting following the next County Council elections. 

Crucially, the paper sets out the legal pay ceiling but not the final pay package. It says the maximum is NJC spinal column point 38, “currently £49,282 (FTE),” and stresses this figure excludes employer on-costs such as National Insurance and pension contributions. 

The legislation limits entitlement to the largest groups meeting the threshold. The report says that in Kent’s current case, Reform UK and the Liberal Democrat groups qualify.

That is why opponents repeatedly returned to the same headline number: two posts at the cap equals up to £98,564 a year in salary alone, before on-costs. 

Full Council also agreed the mechanism for implementation:

• the Monitoring Officer is authorised to make the necessary constitutional changes; 

• the Chief Executive is authorised to develop a local protocol (including job description and salary) and to appoint political assistants in consultation with group leaders; 

• the Corporate Director of Finance is authorised to identify funding options for 2025/26 and agree the funding source.

What a political assistant does — and why this role is different

A political assistant is not a neutral council officer supporting the institution. The report says the role is to undertake research and provide support to members of political groups in carrying out their functions as elected councillors. 

The job sits in a legally unusual position. Political assistants are classed as politically restricted posts, yet the report quotes government guidance saying they are permitted to speak to the public with the intention of affecting support for a political party, and to publish material intended to affect public support — subject to limits about not giving the impression they speak as an authorised party representative. 

Unlike ordinary council recruitment, the report notes the law allows regard to be had to political affiliations and political activity in appointments. 

In short: the posts exist precisely because mainstream officer support is expected to remain politically impartial.

The constitutional tension: neutrality for officers — exception for party staff

KCC’s Constitution is explicit that officers serve the council as a whole, not political groups. It states:

• “Officers serve the Council as a whole and not any Political Group…” 

• Officer support must not go beyond council business; officers “must not be involved in advising on matters of Political Group or political party business.”

The Constitution also restricts the use of council facilities and support for party political purposes, stating that council facilities “must not be used for electoral or other party political purposes not directly connected to the Council’s business.” 

Yet the same Constitution also anticipates this legal carve-out: it lists political assistants among politically restricted roles.

So the vote did not contradict the Constitution so much as activate a long-recognised exception: a separate, council-funded role designed to support party groups rather than the institution.

The debate: recruitment freeze, “propaganda”, and Reform’s campaign messaging

The political argument in the chamber was not subtle.

Cllr Alistar Brady (Lab) challenged Reform UK directly on the optics, saying Reform had campaigned in April about inflated staff salaries ahead of the May elections. He told councillors there was what he described as a “recruitment freeze” preventing frontline hiring, yet the council could now fund two political assistants at nearly £100,000 a year in salaries — money he argued could “soften the blow” of looming budget cuts.

Cllr Anthony Hook (Lib Dem) argued the posts would be used to “propagandise” for Reform UK and said KCC had never needed political assistants before, urging that the money be spent on residents instead. But Hook — whose Liberal Democrat group also qualifies under the rules set out in the report — said he would reflect over Christmas on whether to appoint one, before offering the line that set the tone: having a political assistant, he suggested, was like nuclear weapons — once one side has one, the pressure builds for the other side to match it.

Cllr Paul Thomas (Ind) attacked the principle rather than the politics, pointing to the fact that political assistants are permitted to speak publicly with the intention of affecting support for a political party — language that mirrors the report’s quoted guidance — and asked how that could be “the right thing to do,” even if permitted. 

Council Leader Cllr Linden Kemkaran (Reform UK), who co-signed the report, had nothing to add to the debate. The report itself is addressed from the Leader and Chief Executive to Full Council.

What happens now — and what still isn’t known

The vote gives permission, but key details remain to be settled.

The report states that operational governance must now be developed, including job description, recruitment involvement, attendance at meetings, management arrangements and the protocol for how political assistants would work with other officers.

It also repeats two guardrails: political assistants cannot be given delegated decision-making powers, and other officers cannot be required to work under their direction except for clerical/secretarial support. 

The biggest unanswered questions for taxpayers are the ones the report leaves open:

• Will the posts be full-time or part-time?

• What pay point will be set beneath (or at) the cap of £49,282 FTE? 

• What is the total annual cost including on-costs, and which budget line will be used in 2025/26? 

• Will the Liberal Democrats actually take up the option — or does the “nuclear weapons” logic become the story of how the second post is normalised?

Reform UK led KCC has made its choice. What residents will want next is equally straightforward: a published, all-in price tag — salary, National Insurance, pension and overheads — and a clear explanation of why new political staffing is being prioritised at a time when councillors say there is a recruitment freeze for frontline posts and further budget cuts are being trailed elsewhere.

If you have a story you think we should be looking at, then please do contact us at: TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me – Always Discreet, Always Confidential.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness