Yesterday, I had the pleasure of being a guest on BBC Radio Kent to discuss immigration and its effects on the South East. When discussing our association to Europe and the freedom of movement of people, it seemed many in the county were quite sceptical to the EU.

I was informed, whilst on air, that countless e-mails were flooding in regarding EU membership and it does seem the majority in the county would vote to leave the EU, if given a chance. Due to the debate being about immigration, I was unable to expand further. Why would you, if you're in favour, vote to leave the European Union? Is it just due to immigration or the undemocratic nature of the organisation?

Note: I truly apologies for the lack of blogging lately – I've been rather busy with other projects and medical problems, too. I'm trying to manage everything more coherently, seeing I do have another blog and other freelance work, too.

It's encouraging to see the government continue with its efforts to persuade councils to do more to open up their meetings to the public. The latest development in the seemingly never-ending transparency crusade is an edict from the Department for Communities and Local Government that councils should "open up their meetings to local news bloggers and routinely allow online filming of public discussions as part of increasing their transparency."

Bloggers should, according to ministers, get the same routine access to council meetings as the 'traditional media'. Welcome though this is, I'm not convinced that it will trigger a march on town halls of bloggers availing themselves of these new entitlements. It's worth pointing out that council meetings are already open to the public and there's nothing to stop anyone from attending in any case. (It'll be interesting to see how councils respond when citizen journalists turn up with video cameras, mind you.)

For me, the wider issue is not who can go to meetings but the continuing concern that the system of cabinet government is one that gives councils enormous power to manage the decision-making process in a way that inhibits rather than enhances scrutiny.

And for all the government's warm words on transparency, it is worth noting that there are some worrying developments in the pipeline under the guise of its Localism Bill.

This sets out proposals that should worry all those who feel more needs to be done to hold authorities to account.

One proposal set out in the Bill would see the removal of any sanctions against authorities who failed to comply with the public's right to inspect documents relating to their accounts - including contracts - as well as the removal of a requirement that public bodies publish adverts in local newspapers giving notice of when the 20-day inspection period of accounts will take place.

It was these rights, incidentally, which enabled us to scrutinise the credit card bills of senior managers at County Hall last year. These changes would appear to run counter to the desire of Mr Pickles to see an army of armchair auditors poring over council accounts and spending.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am not at all surprised that an audit of Southeastern trains' punctuality has concluded that its figures added up and it did indeed - albeit narrowly - pass the threshold that meant no discounts for season ticket holders.

It won't please long-suffering passengers, of course. The problem, however, is that the company simply complied with what was required of it under the Passenger's Charter. And that was something that was set by the previous government when it agreed franchise contracts with the operator and that the only way it could be changed is if the government instructed it to.

But even if this latest news is a let down for some, it will add to the pressure that a future contract should set out compensation agreements based on individual line performance rather than performance across the whole network. 

After the devastating news about Pfizer closing its plant in Kent, there has inevitably been speculation about whether ministers were privy to the announcement before it was made. Business minister David Willetts said today that the government was told 'a few days before' in a briefing with the company and immediately set about asking if there was something the government might do to change its mind.

That does rather suggest that it was as much as a shock to the government as it has been to everyone else. That incidentally, includes Kent County Council.

The question then becomes whether the government's radar was adrift on what was happening in the wider pharmaceutical industry and should - could - have been more pro-active.

Labour is suggesting - rather inevitably - that ministers ought to have been in the loop and should have been making efforts to encourage Pfizer to stay put. That may be rather over-estimating the influence and leverage governments have when it comes to persuading global corporations faced with a contracting market in a recession to bend to their will.

One other consequence of Pfizer's decision is that it raises a serious question about the government's central contention that job losses in the public sector will be absorbed by growth in the private sector - especially in the context of expected job losses of 1,500 at KCC and many others in the county's public sector.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am getting the distinct impression that for all its faults and the opproprium heaped on it by disgruntled passengers, the odds on Southeastern being offered a two-year extension to its contract are growing.

Despite the admirable efforts by Kent MPs to pile pressure on the government to do otherwise, it seems ministers are in a legal bind that would make it extremely difficult to go against the conclusions of its 'continuation review' and it appears likely that Southeastern may be on course to meet the required thresholds - notwithstanding the many complaints from its passengers.

The government will be extremely wary of exposing itself to any kind of legal action from Southeastern were it to go against the review and the possibility of handing out compensation to the company.

Of course, ministers will be able to blame the previous government for laying down the franchise rules that place them in an awkward position but I very much doubt that will appease Southeastern's long-suffering users or the county's equally frustrated MPs.

We may still not be sure what the Big Society means to us in our everyday lives - but some of our local businesses didn't sit wondering about this and together they made a real difference to homeless people in Folkestone throughout what has been an usually severe winter.

Way back in early December - at the start of the bad weather - it didn't take Di and Louie Burns long to start planning a series of events to raise the focus of the plight of the homeless so that people could donate items of warm clothing (gloves, coats, etc) and raise funds which would go directly to some of the homeless shelters in Folkestone.

If you don't know Di and Louie - you may know the local phenomenon known as Bluesky Pie [ http://www.blueskypie.co.uk ] whose tagline 'Regeneration and empowerment in communities through music' says it all.

On 10^th December Bluesky Pie staged two gigs, one at Googies Art Cafe and the other at Homeground – featuring comedy, musicians, rappers...all coming to play and give their time for free!! Raffles were run at both venues with goods donated from as far afield as Liverpool. With Googies and Homeground donating 10% of their bar takings and TESS donating his fee for playing at Homeground – together they raised a grand total of £575 for the Winter Shelter run by the 7 churches of Folkestone.

Louie Burns also created a film to raise awareness for the Folkestone homeless cause and to make people more sympathetic to those that find themselves on the streets, often through no fault of their own.

Colin the manager of the shelter had said that funding would run out mid February so to keep the shelter open Di and Louie decided to do more fundraising events. One in Stones featuring rock bands and local hip hop artists followed by 4 DJ’s who all played and performed for free. There was also an acoustic chilled out night in Googies featuring some wonderful performers and musicians who again performed for free. Googies has continued to fundraise between the last gig and now with Keith Holland handing over more monies that customers of Googies have donated since December 10^th.  Alongside this there was an appeal for toothpaste, flannels, food items, scarves  etc.  – all for the Rainbow Centre for the homeless and those in need. All of these events, activities and fundraising brilliantly co-ordinated by Bluesky Pie.

Di Burns said:

“To borrow a phrase from Tesco, 'Every little helps' and we feel privileged to know such lovely talented people who will play for free for such a worthwhile cause, in fact we were inundated with performers all willing to give of their time and felt that the homeless were a very worthy cause to raise funds for which shows the tremendous community spirit here in Folkestone, we feel we're just facilitators.”

I have said before that there is something magic about this part of Folkestone .. because there is definitely something very good going on down there - and with Bluesky Pies help the magic may just spread much further. 

Di Burns tells us a little more about Bluesky Pie:

The ethos behind Bluesky Pie is that little acts of random kindness can change the world. We reached a mid life crisis nearly two years ago where we realized we were giving nothing back into the community. We resolved to change this and started to do things for others, first staging a gig for Amnesty International and Greenpeace, we found a plethora of highly skilled musicians and bands who had nowhere to play. We started to put gigs on, maintaining a spirit of love. We started What's on Folkestone as we were sick of missing high quality gigs and events that no one knew were on, and were brilliant. Our idea behind that was to actively promote and share everyones events so that no one felt excluded.

We have tried to show people how incredible and amazing they are by offering them mentoring gigs, putting them on at small intimate venues and building confidence then by making the venues larger. We also have volunteers working in film, stage management, photography who work for free to get valuable experience in the industry. Many of the people that we have helped have then gone on to make a career,  got more confidence and started to put their own gigs on.

It has had an incredible impact on the local community with people joining together and making alliances when they didn't know each other before. Networking is a big key to this, this results in a more cohesive community that actively support each others events.

As a non for profit company we don't make any money from what we do, but we get enormous satisfaction from knowing that a random act of kindness we may have shown has then spread like a ripple effect on a pond to reach so many others.

It also acts in the law of attraction, through what we have done has brought like minded people to us like the charity 'Last night a DJ saved my life' who are of the same ethos as us but work in the global community, things just seem to be getting bigger and better bit like a snowball effect through a little effort of our own. It is a really happy place to be. =)

Bluesky Pie  | Googies Art Cafe | Homeground | Whats On Folkestone (FB)

The row among the LibDems in Gillingham North is rather reminscent of the Mount Helen explosion a few years ago - slowly growing and then suddenly blowing its lid.

The politicians haven't got to the big bang - yet - but it could be about to happen.

Briefly, three Lib Dems were elected to serve in 2007. It surprised many, and hurt the Labour group who were convinced they would win.

Among their successes was Andy Stamp, a young, enthusiastic and optimistic politician they quickly groomed for higher office. He soon became deputy leader of the party's council group. After being blooded against the deputy leader of the Conservatives he quickly learned to stand on his own feet.

Then things started to go wrong within the group.

One of his colleagues, Cllr Cathy Sutton, had formed a relationship with a member of another party - a situation always open to suspicion.

Stamp was selected as the Lib Dems candidate for the Gillingham and Rainham constituency.

The constituency party covers two seats. The other is Rochester and Strood where the Group Leader, Cllr Geoff Juby, was the candidate (again).

The way this particular constituency party works is in keeping with the party name - democratically. Members could chose who they supported. Some helped Juby, some aided Stamp, and some worked for both. Others nodded sagely and stayed at home. The constituency chairman, a tough bird, hardened on Gillingham politics, is Alan Jefferies. His personal time was given to Cllr Juby's campaign.

Cllr Stamp considered he had a better chance of winning.

Neither did win, but there had been rows over where the election funds to support the campaigns should go. It led to regional investigations into any unfairness. They were pretty informal from what I understand happened, and they eventually rejected Cllr Stamp's allegations.

Meanwhile Cllr Sutton's friendship had broken up. She felt she urgently needed to find a new home.

The third member of the ward triumvirate, Cllr Maureen Ruparel, became involved. The two women went to see the council's housing chief, and were advised of a number of private landlords. Cllr Sutton moved out a few days later.

Cllr Stamp was unhappy at the process, and complained to the Standards Committee of Medway. It grinds through the processes exceedingly slowly. It has still not decided whether the two councillors should have taken a different course of action.

Unfortunately for the councillor, he had also lost the deputy leader's job, after putting all his effort into the race for the Leader's position. He resigned the group whip shortly afterwards, and then decided to resign from the party. In turn, it considers he is suspended - and therefore subject to disciplinary action.

May will soon be here: an election is looming.

The Lib Dems have not yet announced their team.

It would not include Cllr Stamp: he has formed an independent grouping seeking election. All three are ex-LibDems (a second is believed still to be a Lib Dem member).

You'd think that would be enough. Think again. Silently watching this scenario are the Labour candidates. Their grins are wider than the Cheshire Cat.

As a once humble student I claimed EMA, whilst studying at Canterbury college. My working class background enabled me to be entitled for financial assistance to make education more accessible to me. But, majority of the money was not required for my education – truthfully, I did not really need it after all. I'm not afraid to confess (and I am not the only one) whose EMA went towards social activities. Only educational related item was transportation – only because my then girlfriend lived in Thanet. And this is not made clear at the start because you felt almost encouraged to apply for EMA when enrolling.

After a year, I decided a part time job was much more adequate for my requirements because the government grant was not beneficial to my circumstances. I was better off working. And this is the problem with EMA: the money is never truly needed in most cases. And I find it very hard to feel sympathy towards “#savema” tweets on twitter – being sent from Blackberry's and iPhones. If you can afford a luxury item of expenditure – you are not poor.

It would be much more productive to provide a voucher system – for stationary and travelling, instead of indiscriminately allocating assistance to anyone. Especially to individuals who did not really need it. If we isolate the waste and unnecessary cases then the poorer students can be financed more generously. Instead of £30 a week.

The current system is grossly expensive and ineffective. There is nothing wrong with those aged between 16-18 being encouraged to take part-time jobs because, after all, this country has high youth unemployment. We, as a society, should not be fuelling dependency.

Thumbing through the Kent County Council budget proposed for 2011/12 is quite eye watering in segments. Administrating numerous local services has always proved rather difficult across local government, but Mr Pickle enjoys the prospect of Mr Carter achieving all targets without £58 million worth of grants.

To countervail this, inexorable dismantling and reorganisation to the our county's budget has occurred in recent months. Or, better known as, cuts.

Cutting staff few staff delivering supports services has managed to save the local purse in the region of £20 million. An ambiguous reference to “better procurement – savings £11 million) left me perplexed and pondering what on Earth it meant. This mystical and cryptic initiative translates into basic English; that the Council will achieve its operations and requirements on the cheap.

Cuts to programs Policy changes will save a further £36 million years. Sadly we are spending £770 million on the “Building Schools for the Future Program”, which is the worse public program conceived by the last administration. Grotesquely bureaucratic, poor time management and far too timid and inept – this program should have died a slow painful death.

With the budget raising countless references to pressure on social services and care, I do not know why the coalition doesn't privatise the operation. Yes, rather unpopular and might unleash fears of privatisation of the NHS – which does have its benefits, btw – but private social care would allow liberation for local budgets. But alas, private social care shall be laid to rest, for now, until another blog post.

KCC Leader, Paul Carter, seemed a bit too optimistic. There will be significant pain, but the KCC is administrating the medicine as humanly as possible. Mr Pickle, on the other hand, might need a revaluation on grants to local government, unless he wants a serious of mini-California's to deal with.

Well, it is a new year and numerous political possibilities for 2011; due to the deficit reduction plan starting within months we know this year is going to be tough. Both economic and political. The coalition will face difficult local elections across the United Kingdom, especially in Kent where the Tories and Liberals dominate the political scene.

As a typical pastime for a new year, some predictions;

1. Due to the student population in Canterbury, Liberal Democrats to have a difficult time in Canterbury.

2. Dover to return to no over all control – Labour to do extremely well.

3. Overall, the picture will be mixed in Kent. No dramatic massacre across the board for the coalition.

4. Alternative Vote will become the new voting system after a successful victory in the referendum.

5. The Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election will be won by the Liberal Democrats

6. No major strikes.

7. First Green councillor will be elected in Canterbury.

8. Kent's pilot of community budgets will be seen as a success by the Council, but prove to be extremely unpopular with residents.

9. Government's “localism drive” met with scepticism and local protests over the future of services. NHS to suffer. Postal service will face an uncertain future after privatisation of the Royal Mail.

10. After successful constitutional reforms and reducing authoritarian anti-terrorism laws, Nick Clegg's unpopularity will reach a bottom. Improvement in the polls within the second half of the year. Struggling to gain the narrative and media attention, Ed Miliband will have a difficult year and will be unable to capitalise the fallout from spending cuts due to rhetoric from union leaders and Labour left. Cameron popularity will remain moderate due to a weak Labour opposition, but will take a knock after the local elections and possible new EU treaty.

9% swing to Labour is pretty impressive. Extremely positive assessment for the new leadership and the party locally. Dover is, politically, quite capricious and volatile – the Parliament seat tends to routinely switch between Labour and the Conservatives.

After the electoral holocaust for Labour in Kent, majority of the political mandarins will be delighted as a reverse in the decline. We can forgive them for being rather optimistic about future elections in Kent.

However, nationally, the picture is much different. Six comparable local election results, from this week, project (on a national scale) the Conservatives having at least a near 5% lead over Labour. This feeds into my narrative of Labour's current opinion poll position being mostly protest against the coalition. Not a definitive level of support. After all, Ed Miliband personal leadership rating is worse than Nick Clegg and no where near close to David Cameron.

Labour are probably between 28 – 35% in genuine support. Tories seem to be reasonably near the 40% level. Liberal Democrats between 12 - 15%

Our photographer braved the violence to get this stunning picture of the students protest, by RUTH CUERDEN.