Kent County Council will now begin full council meetings with the Lord’s Prayer and end them with the national anthem. It will not, sadly, repair a single pothole, reduce the SEND backlog, bring adult social care costs down, or spend unspent Section 106 money any faster. But it will give County Hall a new ceremonial soundtrack.
The key question is not whether councillors may pray privately, sing loyally, wave flags, wear rosettes, hum Jerusalem, or quietly commune with the Almighty before debating potholes. Of course they may. The issue is whether a statutory council responsible for social care, SEND, highways, public health, transport, school places, libraries and millions of pounds of public money should put religious and patriotic ritual into the formal machinery of a webcast public meeting while also reducing the time given to opposition scrutiny.
The Monitoring Officer’s earlier reporthad already warned that the council’s power to amend its constitution “is not unlimited”, and that proposals exposing KCC to significant legal risk could not be presented as legitimate constitutional options. On prayers, the report said the law allows councils to include “prayers or other religious observance”, but does not require them to do so. It also warned that religious or philosophical belief is sensitive personal information, that members and officers must not be compelled to participate, and that practical webcasting safeguards would be needed so no one’s participation or non-participation was exposed.
On the national anthem, the same report said “similar legal risks” applied, because different views on the monarchy and singing the anthem may be lawfully held. The Monitoring Officer’s suggested lawful approach was that any anthem should be after the meeting had formally closed, off camera, with enough time for those who did not wish to participate to leave the chamber. In plain English: pray and sing if you want, but don’t turn non-participation into a public identity parade.
That was not the route chosen. The annual meeting heard the Reform case that the Lord’s Prayer and anthem were about heritage, standards and patriotism. Cllr Garry Sturley, a Reform UK councillor, said he was an atheist but “welcomed the Lord’s Prayer”. Former chairman Cllr Richard Palmer had earlier argued: “We are a Christian country. Our laws are based on Christian values.” The problem with that argument is that KCC is not a church, a cathedral chapter, a citizenship ceremony or the Last Night of the Proms. It is a public authority with statutory duties and a budget crisis large enough to make even the most devout accountant reach for stronger tea.
Cllr Mike Sole (Lib Dem – pictured)proposed replacing the Lord’s Prayer with 30 seconds of quiet reflection. His point was simple and stronger than the administration seemed willing to admit: Christians could pray privately, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others could reflect in their own way, and those of no faith could think about the responsibilities of public office. “Quiet reflection does not remove religion,” he said. “It creates space for all religions and for none equally.” That amendment failed, with 16 votes for, nine abstentions and 44 against.
Cllr Antony Hook, Liberal Democrat opposition leader, asked where the public consultation was. He said KCC had previously changed its constitution after cross-party work and consensus, not unilateral political force. He accused the administration of trying to “mess with the Constitution” in a “Trumpian-like fashion” and asked why it wanted to cut opposition speaking time if it was not afraid of scrutiny. It was not the prettiest moment in the chamber, but it was the democratic point: constitutions are not supposed to be party toys.
Cllr Bill Barrett, a Conservative, put the secular objection in plain language. “I wasn’t elected to say prayers in this chamber,” he said. “I wasn’t elected to sing a song of any type in this chamber. I was elected to debate policy, decide on policy, and to critique policy.” That is the sort of sentence that may yet outlive the anthem vote, because it gets to the heart of the matter. Residents did not elect councillors to audition for Civic Songs of Praise. They elected them to make Kent work.
Cllr Maxine Fothergill, of Restore Britain, said she supported prayers in principle, having seen them used at Bexley and Sevenoaks, but warned that the overall constitutional package sent the wrong message. Full council, she said, is one of the few opportunities residents have to see elected members debating issues affecting daily life, including local government reorganisation, highways, SEND, adult social care and council finances. Reducing opposition time while expanding ceremony, she argued, did not reflect the priorities residents would expect.
Cllr Oliver Bradshaw, also Restore Britain and described in the debate as a practising Anglican, warned councillors to be careful that religion was not being used for political effect. That ought to have been the warning bell. When even a practising Anglican is effectively saying “steady on, don’t turn prayer into branding”, the administration might have paused. Instead, County Hall carried on towards its new choreography: prayer, politics, anthem, home.
Cllr Paul Stepto (Green – pictured) supplied the sharpest line of the debate. He called the package “performative virtue” and said residents would wonder how the proposals could fix potholes, sort out adult social care or support SEND children. “It doesn’t,” he said. He also reached for Matthew 6:1 — “Be careful not to practise your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them” — which was an awkward scriptural intervention for a chamber trying to make public prayer part of the civic running order.
The national anthem produced its own absurdity. Cllr Sole asked whether councillors would be keeping score if somebody did not sing, or whether there would be an “anthem KPI”. “Patriotism is not a karaoke requirement,” he said, before adding that residents waiting for pothole repairs were not lying awake wishing councillors would sing more. It was funny because it was true. No suspension has ever been saved by a baritone rendition of the national anthem.
Cllr Dean Burns, a patriotic Christian, said he would support the proposal because “how could I not?”, but still criticised the way it had been packaged. He said Reform had “tied my hands” and described the wider move as “gameplay”, linking it to the reduction in opposition time. That was perhaps the most revealing contribution of all: even support came with discomfort.
The vote numbers tell the story. The attempt to replace the Lord’s Prayer with 30 seconds of quiet reflection failed. The attempt to hold the prayer and anthem outside the formal meeting also failed. A Green amendment seeking parity by reducing the Leader’s speaking time as well as opposition response time failed too, by 24 votes for, two abstentions and 43 against. The final package then carried the Lord’s Prayer and national anthem into KCC’s formal meeting ritual, with the opposition time cut left in place.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with prayer. There is nothing wrong with patriotism. There is nothing wrong with councillors believing deeply in God, King, country, Kent, or all four before breakfast. But there is something grimly comic about an administration presenting this as serious reform while the county faces pressure on adult social care, SEND, highways, public transport and local government reorganisation. Saying the Lord’s Prayer won’t reduce care costs. Singing the anthem won’t get a child an EHCP review on time. And neither will help residents wondering why developer-funded bus services, road schemes or community infrastructure promises vanish into the long grass.
The Shepway Vox Team warned earlier this month that no pothole would be filled by filming councillors saying the Lord’s Prayer, and no care package would be arranged by singing the national anthem into a webcast. The annual meeting has now proved the point. Reform UK has given Kent a new civic ritual. What residents still need is competent delivery.
