Use the form on the right to contact us.
You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right.
Herne Bay, England, CT6
United Kingdom
Community website for all things Herne Bay (Kent, UK). Covers: The Downs, Herne Bay Museum, Herne Bay Historical Records Society, Herne Bay Pier Trust, Herne Bay in Bloom, East Cliff Neighbourhood Panel, No Night Flights, Manston Airport, Save Hillborough, Kitewood, WEA, Local Plan and much, much more...
Filtering by Category: Democracy
Have a look at http://uk.votematch.eu/
As it says:
"Vote Match is a short quiz which aims to help you find the party that best reflects your political views in the 2014 European elections".
Quick, easy and useful - what more could you ask for?
Whatever party it tells you is the best match for you, PLEASE vote in the election. It's your right, and it makes a difference.
The latest contender to challenge for North Thanet and Herne Bay MP Sir Roger Gale’s seat at the next election has been revealed.
Former Herne Bay Times reporter Ed Targett is the Green Party’s first candidate in the seat since 1992 after helping establish a new Thanet group in 2012.
Father-of-two Mr Targett, 31, grew up in Herne Bay and now works as a energy writer and wants to raise awareness on a number of issues including changes to at Margate’s Queen Elizabeth Queen Mother Hospital and Queen Victoria Hospital in Herne Bay.
The Canterbury-born campaigner has welcomed party leader Natalie Bennett to East Kent on a fact-finding visit and wants to raise awareness of issues including the NHS, public transport and town centre regeneration.
He lives in Margate with his fiancée and is a member of the O’Neil’s Boxing Club. Mr Targett stood as a Green candidate at the 2013 county council elections in Margate and Cliftonville.
The Greens plan to stand several candidates in the council elections and Ian Driver is confirmed as the party’s candidate for South Thanet. The other confirmed candidate for the seat so far is retired nurse Frances Rehal for Labour as the main parties seek to shrink a 13,528 Conservative majority.
Canterbury Times 10th Mar 2014
Will Scott's logo for Herne Bay
Does Herne Bay need its own council, or would a Herne Bay Society be better? Is it time to reclaim our Bay? That’s the question campaigners are asking this week after another Canterbury City Council council decision was met with fury in the town.
This time, it was the decision to block two-hour parking bays in the town, even though it was supported at a meeting of Bay town councillors and by business leaders. Members of the joint transportation board voted to go back to the drawing board, raising fears traders would suffer.
Nigel Hancock, from the Bay Independent Retail Group (BIRG), said:
“The fact is that we, as a town, are being stymied time and time again by Canterbury City Council. With every move made by us, and other community groups, to improve Herne Bay for its traders, residents and visitors, the current council seem to dish out another blow which knocks us back.
The policy-makers in Military Road seem to think that one size fits all and policies made for the city of Canterbury will somehow work in Herne Bay. They are deluded.”
Mr Hancock questioned whether it was time to reconsider the idea of setting up a Herne Bay Town Council, to give the town more effective representation and control.
But long-time campaigner Phil Rose, who is part of the Campaign for Democracy in Canterbury District seeking to change the way the city council is run, believes said there may be better options. He said:
“When people talk of a Herne Bay Town Council they are often thinking of the old Herne Bay Urban District Council but it would not be anything like that. It would be a layer underneath Canterbury City Council, that would decide how to set it up and what powers it has. The solution for local people who are unhappy with things as they are is to get involved but at the moment there is no vehicle for them to easily do that.”
He suggested a town-wide community group could be set up, with representatives from existing clubs and organisations. It would be non-political and could reach hundreds of people under the same umbrella organisation. Mr Rose, who runs the Herne Bay Matters website, said:
“A Herne Bay Society would be a good move, representing all the existing groups, as the people of the town, without a political axe to grind. We have the BayPromoTeam who do fantastic work but they are more about arranging events and promoting the town. I think there is a need for a group to represent people’s views and provide a platform for serious, formal debate with the council.”
The group would be similar to the Whitstable Society and Canterbury Society and council spokesman Rob Davies said those groups worked well. He said:
“They work effectively to represent their towns and we would be interested if Herne Bay were to create a similar society. We would work with them in exactly the same way we work with the two existing societies.”
Herne Bay Times 6th Mar 2014
Canterbury has what is called a ‘Strong Leader and Executive’ system. This was adopted in 2002 after the government of the day made all councils choose between this and having an elected Mayor. The Councillors elect the Leader, who then chooses the Executive members, and can throw them off the Executive if they don’t say the right things or vote the right way. Key decisions are made by this small group, and often in practice by just the one person.
Having decisions made by a small group, or even by one person, is supposed to make for speed and decisiveness. In practice it produces the opposite. Decisions made without sufficient thought, without proper consultation and without proper debate, arouse resentment from local people. Instead of swift action we then get a long drawn-out battle which could have been avoided. We’ve seen this on issues such as the Westgate Towers traffic scheme and Kingsmead Field in Canterbury.
The present government, in the Localism Act 2011, gave councils the option of changing back to the earlier Committee System. With this system, the Council forms a number of committees each dealing with a particular area of issues. All councillors serve on one or more committees, and the committees make recommendations to the full Council for it to approve.
No system is perfect. In any system, the largest party is able to have the final say. But a return to the committee system would have these advantages:
If we got enough signatures on a petition, the Council would be required by law to hold a referendum in which local people could vote to change to the Committee system. The number of signatures needed would be 5% of the electorate – at present that’s 5,611. If that target were reached by the end of 2014, it would automatically trigger a referendum in May 2015.
The King's Hall was packed - a fantastic sight. It gladdens my heart to see people getting involved in local issues, and the turnout this evening was clear evidence of the importance of QVMH to our town.
Congratulations to Gillian Fowler, and the League of Friends of QVMH, and a swarm of others around town for alerting us to the proposals, spreading the message, and mobilising support so effectively.
The King's Hall - full to capacity with people wanting to save Outpatient Services at QVMH.
Some of those who couldn't squeeze in
About 15 minutes before the meeting was due to start, the Hall was at capacity. There were some helpful women (from the Trust, I think) acting as bouncerettes, and patiently explaining that for Health & Safety reasons the later arrivals would have to stand in the lobby and listen as best we could to the presentations.
Apparently they were expecting "about a hundred people to turn up", but they got about 500. Not their first miscalculation, I fear.
There were several councillors milling about, both in and outside the Hall. I'm sure they all registered the strength of popular opinion (i.e. number of voters) and will make a principled stand to support our hospital, or at least jump on the bandwaggon.
The good news is that the Trust have sensibly decided to hold another meeting to cater for those who couldn't get in today, or couldn't face the rubbish weather. No date has been set yet - I'll let you know as soon as I find out.
Two months after saying that they would not submit any proposals in the boundary change consultation, our beloved leaders have, er, done just that.
A quick reminder: the Local Government Boundaries Commission for England (LGBCE) has been invited by our Council to review our local government arrangements. The LGBCE is looking at the number of wards, the boundaries and names of the wards, the number of councillors per ward, and therefore the overall number of councillors we have to represent us.
Back in October, Cllr Gilbey said:
"It is essential the setting of new boundaries doesn't lead to accusations of gerrymandering or voter manipulation by the council. After discussions with colleagues, I have taken the view the council itself should step back and let the Boundary Commission decide the new wards based on its own studies and after giving detailed consideration to the opinions of any individual, group and parish council."
Lo and behold, tonight (10th December) the Council will be presenting their proposals for boundary changes. They said one thing, and did another. Surprised?
Of course, some of the more cynically minded residents (and councillors) suggested at the time that the decision not to put forward a proposal was simply a ruse to avoid having to debate that proposal in public, in Council.
The more deviously minded suggested that the Council's (i.e. the Conservative group's) preferred option would be submitted to the LGBCE by a proxy, such as a local Conservative Association, presumably to be accompanied by some nodding and winking.
My guess is that the Blue Team have been a little rattled by the sensible-looking proposals from the local Red Team (38 councillors, one councillor per ward) and have decided that public debate is a price worth paying in order to have an Official Preference published.
Now we can all play Predict-a-Cut™ - it's as easy as 1-2-3!
Please note: statutory services must be carried out somehow, even if on a shoestring. Discretionary services can be cut altogether.
To get you started, here's a list of the Discretionary services and functions, sorted by budget... so sharpen your axe and get chopping!
Here's the list in handy spreadsheet format, and here's the much less helpful PDF format file provided by our Council.
Well, here it is at last - the list that was compiled in secret and kept under wraps for as long as possible. It's curiously instructive to see just how misguided and skewed CCC's priorities seem to be:
So, how did we end up with this nonsense? It would appear to be the result of a chain of errors and failings.
The first and most fundamental problem is the Council's lack of clear purpose. As business jargon and management-speak has infected many aspects of everyday life, it has become fashionable to have a "vision" or "mission statement". Put simply, this is having a clear and agreed answer to the question - what are we here for? Our Council doesn't appear to have a clear understanding of its purpose.
The next problem arises when the Council tries to identify how to achieve its (unstated) purpose. The 10 Pledges that appeared in the 2011-2016 Corporate Plan are a mixture of "nice to have" and political expediency. They are not guided or unified by a clear purpose, nor do they take account of the Council's statutory obligations... which creates the next layer of problems.
A handful of officers and councillors used the 10 Pledges to assess the value of 70 varied Council functions, and then prioritise them. Given our Council's instinct for secrecy, we will probably never know who was involved, or how they arrived at each score. We will never get an explanation as to why the Beaney scores 5/10 for Health and Wellbeing, but Food and Occupational Health only scores 1/10 for Health and Wellbeing. The lack of logic, and transparency, fatally undermines this system of scoring.
This fatal flaw in scoring is literally multiplied by the weighting factors applied to the 10 Pledges. Again, we don't know, and will never know, how or why these weightings were arrived at.
Finally, we have the folly of mixing statutory and discretionary functions in the priority list. If a function if statutory (i.e. the Council is legally obliged to do it), it is completely irrelevant how it fares in the Council's quirky scoring system - there's simply no point in including it.
If you download the spreadsheet of Priorities, you can filter out the statutory functions and see what's left. These are the (only) things that our Council can cut, and inevitably the big ticket items will be the most tempting.
The city council has finally published its league table of services as it lays the ground for further budget cuts and savings.
It has put the controversial Local Plan, in which more than 15,000 new homes are planned for the district, atop the pile, with the cost of running democracy second and development management third.
Culture in Canterbury also features highly with the Marlowe Theatre at five out of 70, the Beaney at seven and the Roman Museum at 21. Meanwhile, rubbish collections are ranked 28 and public toilets are 53.
The lowest scored services were elections, archives and the council's obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.
Executive members and senior officers drew up the table as the council prepares to lose 45% of its income by 2017.
It means certain services and staff will face the axe. Mr Carmichael will go into greater details with officers at the staff conference on November 14. In his letter to council workers, chief executive Colin Carmichael said:
"All this information is being used in our star chambers to think about whether we need to continue to deliver these services and, if we do, whether to do so at the current cost level."
The table was created by rating each service out of 10 against each of the council's 10 pledges on its corporate plan. These have titles such as economy, safety, homes, culture, health and well-being, and young people.
Questions may be asked about those ratings after the Marlowe Theatre received 4/10 for health and well-being and the mayor's office received 3/10 in every single category, including housing, safety and protecting the environment.
The Conservative controlled authority came under fire earlier in the year after it created the list but refused to let anyone see it.
Cllr Alex Perkins, the leader of the opposition Lib Dem group, believes the people of the district should have been allowed to rate the services they use. He said:
"If the council are going to determine funding according to a league table of priorities then they should be local residents' priorities. not council leader John Gilbey's. Why don't the council ask people to give their own scores and actually prioritise what local residents want for a change."
The league table is published in the agenda for the executive meeting at the Guildhall tonight (7th November).
HB Gazette 7th November 2013
Definition of secret: not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others. Definition of confidential: intended to be kept secret. [Oxford Dictionaries online]
Who does Cllr Gilbey think he's kidding?
Canterbury City Council is one of the most democratic local authorities in the country, claims leader John Gilbey. He hit out after the Kentish Gazette reported that the council had drawn up a league table of its 71 service areas and ranked them in order of importance but refused to reveal it.
Cllr Gilbey denies the council is guilty of secrecy. He told last Thursday's meeting of the ruling Conservative executive:
"Some of these documents are kept confidential for many reasons and are looked at very carefully. I think this is one of the most democratic councils we have, I honestly believe that. That is why I don't take kindly to people inventing stories."
Last week it emerged that the league table is a key document as the council prepares for the 2014/15 budget. It is facing a cut of 50% in income by 2017 and scored each service according to importance and against the pledges in its corporate plan.
The Marlowe Theatre was fifth in the table and refuse collection came 29th, but none of the other positions are known and some are almost certainly facing the axe.
The council claims it will make the league table public next month when the proposed budget for next year is published. But Cllr Alex Perkins, leader of the council's opposition Lib Dem group, is demanding it is released now. He said:
"The Gazette is absolutely right and deserves praise for bringing the council's appalling secrecy to everyone's attention. There is absolutely no reasonable justification for the current leader of the council to keep the council budget formation process confidential. And the Gazette has certainly not invented any of this as John Gilbey has claimed.
The current leader and a tiny handful of Conservative councillors keep jealous control of all the budget information declaring it 'confidential' and refusing to share it even with their own backbenchers, let alone opposition councillors or the public. It's completely unacceptable - it's your money after all."
Kingsmead Field campaigner Sian Pettman said:
"There's a worrying disconnect between Cllr Gilbey's perception of democracy and that of many of the district's residents. His authoritarian style of leadership is ill-suited to the 21st century."
University of Kent Emeritus Professor of moral philosophy Richard Norman added:
"If Cllr Gilbey thinks that this is one of the most democratic councils, he needs to be aware that there are a great many people in Canterbury who don't see it that way."
The council will begin its consultation on the budget in November and will look to approve it in February.
HB Gazette 17th October 2013
Oh dear... the Council that represents us and works for us is refusing to tell us what they're doing. It's a kind of nanny-dictator state.
Canterbury City Council has produced a league table of its 71 service areas in order of importance, but is refusing to reveal how it has ranked them. The Gazette has learned that the Marlowe Theatre is fifth in the league table while bin collections - a service delivered to every home in the district is 29th.
Senior officers and councillors spent hours in meetings scoring the service areas according to the council's priorities and rated each one against its 10-pledge corporate plan.
Colin Carmichael, the chief executive of the Conservative-controlled council, says he is determined to keep the league table a secret until the next budget is published later in the year.
"This is the first time that we have actually taken a step back and asked questions about everything that we do. But I can't let people see it because we are only half through."
The league table was compiled as the council assesses the way it will run its services in future. lt is steeling itself for a 50% drop in income by 2017.
Members of the ruling executive injected their political priorities into the rankings which could be used to cut some council services completely as the drive to save money intensifies in the coming years.
Asked why the Marlowe scored so much higher than bin collections, Mr Carmichael said the theatre "ticked several boxes" on the corporate plan pledges. He said:
"Refuse collection, for example, scores mid-range at 29th on the priority list as it scores highly against only two of the 10 pledges, but it is a top political priority and it is a statutory service. The Marlowe can be seen to fulfil more pledges. It is important economically for us as we didn't want that end of the city to lose out with the building of the Whitefriars shopping area."
Lib Dem group leader Alex Perkins is furious at the decision to keep the league table secret.
"Presumably, they'll only show people when they've made all their decisions. Here we are yet again with the council taking decisions with public money on the basis of its own political agenda and refusing the public the right to know how it is ranking services. If that's not a sign of how the council is going to hell in a handcart, then I don't know what is.
HB Gazette 10th October 2013
Conservative members of Canterbury City Council have stepped back from making a formal proposal to the Boundary Commission about planned new ward boundaries across the district.
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is asking for people's views on the subject. Following a six-week public consultation, the commission announced it may recommend the council has 38 councillors in the future, 12 fewer than the current arrangements.
The organisation now needs information from people and groups across the district to help it to produce a new pattern of wards to accommodate the 38 councillors. In drawing up new boundaries, the commission aims for each councillor to represent roughly the same number of voters.
Canterbury council leader John Gilbey said:
"It is essential the setting of new boundaries doesn't lead to accusations of gerrymandering or voter manipulation by the council. After discussions with colleagues, I have taken the view the council itself should step back and let the Boundary Commission decide the new wards based on its own studies and after giving detailed consideration to the opinions of any individual, group and parish council."
On the decision the cut 12 council members, Cllr Gilbey said:
"I am thankful to the Boundary Commission for their considered approach in considering whether the number of councillors should be reduced to 38. This was not a request we made without giving a lot of thought. but we felt it was unfair on local taxpayers to make them pay their hard-earned cash on sustaining 50 councillors at the possible expense of crucial services many cherish."
People have until December 10th to submit their views. Further information on the review and interactive maps of the existing wards can be found at consultation.lgbce.org.uk and www.lgbce.org.uk Residents will have a further chance to have their say after the commission publishes its draft recommendations in March next year.
HB Times 10th October 2013
With the Electoral Review now underway for Canterbury I would urge local people to ask themselves if they're happy with the way Canterbury City Council currently conducts matters on their behalf.
The Council have asked the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to cut the number of councillors down to 38 from 50.
They say that the 'Strong Leader and Executive' system of governance serves this city well and base their submission to the LGBCE mainly on this.
Given the absence of debate in decision making with the current Council this move will make it much harder for councillors to represent their constituents as they will not have enough time to liaise with the many groups, parishes and associations.
Our councillors already have a far higher quota of electors than other districts and will be even higher with the intended housing development in the Local Plan… an extra 780 houses per year.
The LGBCE want to hear the opinions of local people in regard to this matter and can be contacted thus by 6th August 2013:
Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk
Write to: The Review Officer (Canterbury), LGBCE, Layden House, 76-78 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG
Yours sincerely
Lynette Coleman, Canterbury
Canterbury City Council is proposing to cut the number of local councillors in the district from 50 to 38. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) has just initiated a public consultation on whether to approve this proposal. As residents, we need to consider the implications of such a drastic cut as they could be significant for the shape and health of our local democracy.
what impact will a 25% decrease in Council size have on the way in which decisions are made?
The Council's submission to the Boundary Commission claims that the current 'Strong Leader and Executive system' is well embedded in our local democracy and that the number of councillors should be reduced accordingly. However, many residents would disagree with both this assertion and this conclusion. Far from being embedded in our local democracy, the Executive System is becoming the source of increasing political disquiet.
The Executive system was introduced in 2002 as a result of a change in national legislation. It was supposed to speed up decision-making and improve accountability, but its unintended consequences have included the creation of a small political elite; a lack of in-depth debate before decisions are made; and the effective exclusion of many councillors from the decision-making process.
Under the Localism Act 2011, we are no longer obliged to keep the Executive system, but a sharp reduction in in the number of local councillors could make it more difficult for us to introduce an alternative model as these generally require a greater number of councillors. We, therefore, need to ask the Boundary Commission to assess the requirements of other decision-making models, such as the Cabinet Committee system operated by Kent County Council, as this may be something which we would want to introduce in the future.
what impact will a 25% decrease in Council size have on the ability of local councillors to represent the residents in their wards?
At present, each councillor represents on average 3,023 residents. This is considerably higher than many other district councils. If the number of councillors was reduced from the current 50 to 38, the average ward size would be 4,200. If a further 780 new houses are built each year, in line with the objectives of the draft Local Plan, the ratio of residents to councillors will be considerably higher.
Reducing the number of councillors to 38 is likely to reduce the ability of each councillor get to know their communities, listen to their concerns and represent their needs and interests. Admittedly, some councillors currently do this much better than others, but it is the hallmark of any vibrant, healthy democracy. A sharp reduction in the number of councillors is likely to decrease the capacity of existing councillors to fulfil this vital representational role.
The Electoral Review process provides us with the opportunity to have an active public debate on the shape and health of our local democracy. We are unlikely to get a similar opportunity for at least another decade. Let's not waste it!
For more information, see: consultation.lgbce.org.uk The deadline for the receipt of comments is: 6 August.
Comments should be sent to:
Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk
Post: The Review Officer (Canterbury), LGBCE, Layden House, 76-78 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG
Sian Pettman, Canterbury
Here's an attack on local democracy that will damage not just Herne Bay, but the whole district.
Reducing the number of councillors from 50 to 38 is not something that the public have been clamouring for - it was initiated by, and is being driven by, CCC's Conservative administration. More accurately, the Executive. Which means Cllr John Gilbey.
The publicly stated reason for this is to save money. Cllr Peter Lee has said that the current 50 councillors cost about £450k a year, so this would potentially save about £112k.
Fewer representatives and less representation to save £112k. And this from the people who frittered £60k on the disastrous Westgate Towers traffic scheme, and peed away over £50k fighting the village green application for the Downs, and regularly give £20k to the Sandwich Open golf beano, and so on, and so on.
We already have one of the highest ratios of residents to councillors, and this reduction in the number of councillors would push it even higher. And that's without taking into account the extra 40,000 or so new residents that would move in to the district to fill all the new homes proposed in the draft Local Plan, which would push the ratio higher still.
When this was discussed in Council, one of the councillors argued that the reduction in numbers would result in an improvement in quality of councillors. I can't believe these people are so naive! This will not be a careful culling exercise where the sub-prime and lacklustre are shown the door, leaving only the shining stars. Come election time, the public will still choose a mixed bag of useful and useless, daft and deft, lions and donkeys. But there will fewer of them.
Each councillor - and this is a part-time job, remember - would have significantly more people to represent. This will inevitably damage our local democracy.
I'm sorry to say this is another example of Cllr Gilbey's anti-democratic - and in my view morally repugnant - instincts. He operates what is amusingly referred to in his job description as the "strong leader" management style, and is much happier with the Executive/cabinet model rather than the more democratic Committee structure we used to have.
Reducing the number of councillors would suit him down to the ground, as it would concentrate power in even fewer hands.
The consultation runs from 25th June to 6th August. Please take the time to contact the Boundary Commission and let them know what you think - it would be years, possibly decades, before we would have a chance to undo this.
I don't want fewer councillors, I want better councillors.
The independent Local Government Boundary Commission for England is asking local people how many councillors they think should represent Canterbury City Council in the future after proposing chopping 12 from the current structure.
The six-week public consultation is the first part of an electoral review which will also consider changes to the number, names and boundaries of the council’s wards. It follows hot on the heels of a proposed shake-up at Shepway District Council which is suggesting a reduction of 16 councillors.
The commission has considered evidence submitted to it by the council and is now consulting residents on a proposal that would see the authority represented by 38 councillors in future, 12 fewer than the current arrangements.
Max Caller, chair of the commission, said:
“This is your chance to shape your council for the future. We are asking people across Canterbury whether they agree that 38 councillors is the right number to represent their area in the future. We want to know if you think 38 is the right number of councillors to be able to take decisions effectively and whether it’s the right number to represent the interests of all Canterbury’s communities.
If you don’t agree that Canterbury should be represented by 38 councillors, we want you to tell us your alternative and why you think there should be more, or fewer, members of the council in the future. Once we have taken a view on the number of councillors, we will re-draw ward boundaries to accommodate those elected members and we will ask local people to have their say during that process as well.”
Residents can have their say directly at consultation.lgbce.org.uk
kentnews.co.uk 25th Jun 2013
Click the map for more details on the KCC website.
Victorious UKIP members in the Bay are celebrating their success in the Kent County Council elections.
The party wrestled both Herne Bay seats from sitting Tories Jean Law and David Hirst, with Nicholas Bond and Brian MacDowall now representing the town at County Hall. The result was the last declared and the only UKIP win in the district, but took the party's total seats on the council to 17, including seven out of eight in Thanet.
IN: Nicholas Bond (centre, of picture)
OUT: David Hirst and Jean Law (right)
UKIP chairman Jim Gascoyne said:
"We came second in Whitstable so that is next for us, then right on to Westminster. The route to Parliament is along the Kent coast and then up the Thanet Way."
The party polled 34% of the vote, on a 28% turn out. Mr Bond polled 2,048 votes and Mr MacDowall 2,054. Mrs Law and Mr Hirst polled 1,817 and 1,724 respectively.
Mrs Law, whose seat on Canterbury City Council was not affected by this election, was tearful as the result was announced. She said:
"Herne Bay wanted a change and now they have got a change. I am terribly disappointed."
Mr Hirst said he felt shaken by the result, adding:
"That's politics for you."
Mr MacDowall was not at the count as he was on a business trip to Germany. Mr Bond said:
"I feel really good about being elected. It's absolutely great for the party.There's lots of work to do, but I look forward to working with the people of Herne Bay.We've worked very hard nationally, and I'm really delighted we got so many gains."
Labour's Lynn Faux-Bowyer and Tom Mellish gained 1,003 and 948 votes respectively, while Lib Dem candidates Margaret Flaherty and June Raybaud managed 434 and 308 votes.
New England Party candidates Nathan King and Mike Tibby polled 119 and 193 votes, and Green Party candidates Elaine Godden and Michael Coppin gained 204 and 202.
Independents John Moore and Stan Truelove won 484 and 362 votes, while Independent Steve Coombes, who stood to publicise the Duchamps festival in Herne Bay this summer, and handed out awards for absurdity around the town in the run-up to the election, scored 509.
Other seats in the Canterbury district did not change hands and the county council is still under overall Tory control. They lost 27 seats but held 44. Ukip have 17 seats – up from just one – and Labour gained 11 seats and lost one, taking their total to 13. The Liberal Democrats lost one and gained one, giving them seven seats, while the Green Party gained a seat in Hythe. A west Kent residents association candidate also held onto their seat.
thisiskent 10th May 2013Jean Law fights back tears after election defeat
Conservative incumbants Jean Law and David Hirst were ousted after a recount at the Kings Hall this afternoon.
The pair - who had enjoyed a healthy majority at the last county council elections in 2009 - trailed more than 200 votes behind Brian Macdowall and Nicholas Bond.
Lib Dem candidates Margaret Flaherty and June Raybaud also fell from their position as closest challengers to finish 9th and 11th respectively.
The Herne Bay seats were the only ones to change hands across the Canterbury district, despite UKIP winning an impressive 17 of the 84 up for grabs in Kent.
Speaking after the defeat, Mrs Law said:
"I'm disappointed but then I would be because I've worked in Herne Bay. It's where I brought the kids up. I couldn't of worked any harder for the people of Herne Bay and I'm just sorry for all the volunteers along the way. It has been a disastrous day for the Conservatives and they may have to re-think what they are doing."
kentonline 3rd May 2013
Independent candidate John Moore rejoins Ukip after his election defeat in Herne Bay
A campaigner who stood as an independent candidate for the county council has rejoined Ukip in the wake of its election success. John Moore collected 484 votes at the polls for Kent County Council's two seats in Herne Bay, while his running mate Stan Truelove picked up 362.
They lost out to UKIP's candidates Nicholas Bond and Brian MacDowall, who are now the town's KCC representatives. The party also picked up seven out of eight seats in Thanet as well as winning in other parts of Kent.
Mr Moore, who is also a parish councillor for Herne and Broomfield, had previously stood for UKIP but put party politics aside for his most recent campaign. He said:
"I enjoyed the campaign and we were trying to get people to vote for the town rather than a party. But they clearly wanted to vote for a party, even if it wasn't one of the ones that have previously been popular. I have always supported Ukip, and I have been a member since 1997 - it is my spiritual home."
The town trader, who runs Sweet Magic in Mortimer Street, had not renewed his membership before the election but said he now planned to. He added:
"It is too early to say what will happen. The next elections are two years away. If UKIP want me to do something, I would be happy to, but it's not for me to say."
thisiskent 10th May 2013
The city remains a sea of blue with a smattering of yellow, as all Canterbury councillors retained their seats in the county elections.
Despite big changes elsewhere, the Tories held onto four divisions, with Liberal Democrat Martin Vye clinching the fifth.
But there were nervous scenes at the count in the King's Hall in Herne Bay on Friday as UKIP won an unprecedented number of seats.
Tory Michael Northey held onto the Canterbury South East seat with a 1,385 vote majority. He said:
"I'm very happy and pleased. It's the result of a great deal of hard work. I've done my best to serve over the past and I'm very grateful for the vote of confidence."
Close behind Mr Northey was Liberal Democrat candidate Mike Sole, who secured 1,181 votes. He said he was "disappointed" but added:
"On a city council level, the Lib Dems are very strong. We're getting closer and closer at county level each time."
Meanwhile, victorious Tory Graham Gibbens said his stance on two local issues helped him win. He polled 1,207 votes for Canterbury North East, beating Labour's Michael Bland, with 768 votes, into second. Mr Gibbens said:
"Elections are always nerve-racking and I do feel relieved now. It was a pleasing result and I think people appreciated my views on Westgate Towers and Kingsmead field."
In Canterbury West, Tory John Simmonds received 1,067 votes to retain his seat, beating David De Boick from UKIP's 633 votes. He said:
"I'm ecstatic and delighted that people have supported me. It'll be an interesting administration. I look forward to holding newly elected councillors to account and making sure they deliver on their promises."
Mr De Boick said despite missing out on the seat, he was "very pleased" with the result.
Elsewhere, in Herne and Sturry, Alan Marsh became the only Conservative left standing in Herne Bay after UKIP took the rest of the seats. He polled 41% of the votes with 1,452, beating UKIP's Sarah Larkins into second place with 1,086.
The UKIP vote amounted to almost a third of the total votes cast, with 17% for Labour, six% for the Green Party and five% for the Liberal Democrats.
There was a sigh of relief from Martin Vye, who remains the district's only Liberal Democrat county councillor after securing 1,555 votes to take the Canterbury South West division. Mr Vye said:
"I'm very pleased indeed that the electors of the division have placed their trust in me. I will endeavour to make sure their trust isn't misplaced. UKIP came as a great surprise to me. Voters weren't talking about UKIP on the doorstep but clearly, there is a feeling that ordinary people aren't being listened to. We have to address that."
Voter turn out was just 28.5% across the district.
Overall, the Tories retained their majority on the council, the composition of which is now: Conservative 45 (-29), UKIP 17 (+17), Labour 13 (+11), Lib Dem 7 (no change), Green 1 (+1), Residents Association 1 (+1), Independent 0 (-1).
thisiskent 10th May 2013
Maxine Marsh congratulates husband Alan as he is re-elected for the Tories to Herne and Sturry
Herne remains the only part of Herne Bay with a Conservative councillor after Alan Marsh held on to his seat. He polled 1,452 votes – 41 per cent – beating Ukip's Sarah Larkins, with 1,086 votes, into second place .
Labour's Alan Stanley gained 590 votes while Green Party candidate Elisa De Vert beat the Lib Dems into fifth place with her total of 217, ahead of Nigel Whitburn's 169.
Mr Marsh said:
"I'm very pleased that I have the opportunity to serve the people I represent for another four years. It's a critical time and I want to make sure that we do everything possible not only to smooth the path for health, education and highways, but also to ensure that the people of Kent get the best lifestyle that we can provide by working closely together as one community."
The Ukip vote amounted to almost a third of the total votes cast, with 17% for Labour, 6% for the Green Party and 5% for the Liberal Democrats.
The turnout was 27%, with 3,514 votes cast from a total electorate of almost 14,000.
thisiskent 10th May 2013
