Die Bezirksräte von Kent gewähren sich selbst eine Erhöhung der Zulagen um 3,8 %, da sie vor „schlechter Optik“ warnen.

>Members of Reform UK-led Kent County Council (KCC) voted 45 in favour and 22 against, with five abstentions.

>Council leader Cllr Linden Kemkaran said the uplift is “entirely reasonable” at this time rather than a “whopping” increase in future.

>Green Party member Cllr Stuart Heaver warned of the “inappropriate timing and bad optics” to “award ourselves a nice little pay rise”.

>A report from the Member Remuneration Panel (MRP) suggested an increase of 3.6% for basic allowances and special responsibility allowance in line with inflation in 2025.

>Any future increase would be pegged to inflation in October of subsequent years.

>The executive amended the figure up to 3.8%.

>In 2024-25, before Reform UK came in power at County Hall, the total cost for councillors in allowances and expenses came to £2.2 million.

>In 2025/26, all elected KCC members have been entitled to receive a basic allowance of £16,266.91 designed to cover meeting attendance, dealing with residents’ concerns and basic office costs but is not a salary.

>This would go up to £16,885.05 under the new arrangements.

>Conservative group leader, Cllr Harry Rayner, echoed his colleague Cllr Andrew Kennedy’s position that while he takes his allowance he uses it for good causes and charities.

>Some councillors claim an additional special responsibility allowance (SRA) for a role such as cabinet or deputy cabinet member, at an additional rate of £34,770.70 and £16,048.01 respectively. The elected leader, currently Cllr Linden Kemkaran, is entitled to claim the most at £53,493.38.

>Under the changes, the leader’s allowance would increase to £55,526.13 while the cabinet and deputy cabinet roles would rise to £36,091.99 and £16,657.83 respectively.

>The leader of the Liberal Democrat opposition group Cllr Antony Hook would see his allowance rise from £17,652.82 to £18,323.63.

>A survey showed that 63% (19 KCC members) said the basic payment was insufficient.

>The MRP report explained: “Basic allowance is intended to recognise the time commitment of all councillors, including such inevitable calls on their time as meetings with officers and constituents and attendance at political group meetings. It is also intended to cover incidental costs such as the use of their homes.”

>Many councillors say the role is “like a full-time job” which they have to fit in around existing work and family commitments. KCC meetings take place during the day.

>Last year, in Cllr Kemkaran’s maiden speech, she announced that members’ allowances would be cut by 5% with the estimated £200,000 diverted to councillors’ grants to be spent in their divisions.

>The survey conclusions noted: “Concerns were raised around the hours required to perform the role effectively, the perceived inequalities across differing wards, the issue with daytime meetings impacting ability to work alongside the role, and therefore the potential barriers to entry of the basic allowance.”

>KCC’s basic allowance is higher than many other authorities in the south east, comparatively. Neighbouring Essex offers £14,471 and Surrey offers £14, 410.

>Ten members (33% of respondents) felt that the current SRA currently available does not appropriately compensate for the additional responsibilities undertaken.

>The MRP observes: “The panel notes concerns made by members in response to the survey about the basic allowance being below minimum wage – if it were an employed role – however, the role is not employed and, as such, is not protected by such legislation.”

>Most of the members said the reimbursement of travel expenses (such as mileage or rail fares) was adequate.

>Travel by car – 45p per mile for the first 10,000 miles and 25p a mile thereafter – or rail is reimbursed.

>Taxi fares are only paid out with a valid receipt and where there are no other “practicable” alternatives.

Interesting – why do we have a stream of news from Kent in this sub? I understand why London might be interested, but why Kent? Is it because of a current medical emergency there?

Especially here – some local powers adjusted gross pay with inflation. Frozen tax bands fact means that in reality they will have even less money (adjusted for inflation).

What was the point journalists tried to make?

I’ve been completely unimpressed by Reform PLC so far, but an inflation-matching allowance (not wage, please note) rise would be offered by any employer worth their salt as a minimum and this isn’t really newsworthy.

In other words they got no real pay rise just inflation adjustment

Non story, move on

“Award themselves”

No one other than business owners should be in charge of determining their own salaries, especially when it’s taxpayer money paying them. 

It’s surprising that allowances aren’t standardised by central government, instead of allowing local councils to set them independently.

Weird how Reform suddenly likes public sector pay rises when its their own pay rises.

Kind of unrelated, but we desperately need to pay politicians, especially councilors more if we want to attract actually competent people to the role, because as it stands they can make like 2-3x as much in the private sector as a manager, and that also usually invites corruption like getting a quote to install some park benches from some guys you know who end up quoting the council 10k in labour costs for less than a weeks work.