Opposition leaders have described the first budget passed by the Reform UK-led Kent County Council as “potentially reckless”, warning of “extreme risk” to the authority’s long-term financial stability.
The budget, which includes a 3.99% increase in council tax, was approved following eight hours of intense debate at County Hall in Maidstone on Thursday. It represents the first major financial plan from the party since it took control of the council in May 2025.
While the administration claims the plan “strikes a careful balance” without placing unnecessary burdens on residents, critics argue it relies on “casino economics” and endangers essential services.
A historic change of direction
Deputy leader Brian Collins, who formally proposed the budget, hailed the moment as a “change of direction” for Kent. He argued that the administration had to navigate a “dire legacy” of debt and rising costs in social care.
The 3.99% tax hike is notably 1% below the maximum threshold allowed by the government without a referendum. For an average Band D household, this equates to an annual increase of approximately £67.47.
Council leader Linden Kemkaran defended the decision, stating: “This is a responsible budget. It protects key services. It begins to repair the council’s finances. It starts to reduce debt.”
Warnings of ‘financial danger’
Opposition parties were united in their criticism, pointing to a risk register that shows more than £410 million of financial exposure. They accused the Reform leadership of “burning the safety net” by keeping tax increases lower than what is legally permitted.
Antony Hook, leader of the Liberal Democrat opposition, described the plan as a “casino budget”. He claimed the administration had already “lost control” of the current year’s spending, which is forecast to be overspent by £36.5 million.
“They are putting our risk levels on steroids,” Mr Hook told the chamber. “It gambles the solvency of this authority on the hope that risks rated as likely won’t materialise.”
The funding gap
The decision to set the tax increase at 3.99% instead of the 4.99% maximum has created a £10 million shortfall for the coming year. Conservative group leader Harry Rayner warned that this move could backfire.
He suggested that central government might reduce future grants to the council by a similar amount, potentially doubling the actual loss to £20 million. “It’s a real gambler’s budget,” he added.
Concerns over reserves
The council’s head of finance, David Shipton, issued a statutory “Section 25” assurance statement as part of the proceedings. He noted that the lower tax increase poses a “long-term financial risk”.
The budget is currently balanced using £25 million in “one-off measures”. This includes:
- £9 million from the sale of council assets.
- £16 million from reserves that were previously earmarked for other purposes.
Labour’s chief, Alister Brady, argued that Kent was “heading for financial danger” and that these one-off solutions were not sustainable for the years ahead.
A “shop window” for Reform UK
The political stakes in Kent are high, as the council is often viewed as a “shop window” for Reform UK’s national ambitions. The party campaigned on a platform of cutting waste and lowering taxes, a pledge that opposition members say has been compromised by the current hike.
However, Reform councillors argued that they have blocked service reductions proposed by previous administrations. They insist their focus remains on “smarter working” and identifying efficiencies.
Future outlook
The budget papers suggest a “nil” increase for council tax in the subsequent two years, a projection that critics have dismissed as “fantasy economics”.
With adult social care and special educational needs (SEND) demand continuing to rise, the council faces a narrowing margin for error. The 3.99% increase was ultimately carried with 48 votes in favour and 26 against.
As the new financial year approaches, the eyes of both local residents and national observers will remain on Kent to see if this financial strategy can withstand the mounting pressures on local government.
