Letter to KM on Big Society / MBC Cuts

Dear Editor,

Jenny Watts is right to question the 'Big Society' in last week's KM, especially in the week that Maidstone Borough Council became the latest council to announce cuts and Maidstone's C&H Fabrics shop closed.

Cameron seems to want more volunteering but voluntary organisations are estimating a loss of £4.6 billion over 4 years as a likely impact of national and local government cuts. This £4.6 billion loss compares with about £600-700 million devoted to the 'Big Society' by the Government including recent additions to compensate charities for imminent losses of income. Since volunteers need to be coordinated by trained, paid workers, the whole voluntary sector faces a rapid loss of resources which will undermine its capacity to support volunteers.

Maidstone Borough Council may have cut £2m from its budget, but we must remember that £2m of cuts will mean around 100 people will lose their jobs. We think this is unacceptable and will be another direct blow to Maidstone's economy, not to mention the devastating impact on these workers' families.

The Conservative / LibDem economic plans seem to be predicated on trying to grow the economy by making people redundant and getting them to work for free - possibly the most ridiculous economic plan in history.

Yours sincerely

Stuart Jeffery
Maidstone Green Party

Council cuts aimed at the North

The one thing that struck me about the local government spending cuts this week apart from them being uneccessary, disastrous for the economy, disastrous for public sector workers and disastrous for the less well off, was that they are targetted at the north of England.

The map from the Guardian shows the level of cuts to councils across the country and aside for the level of cuts in London, the cuts are aimed squarely at the north.

It would be interesting to do some statistical analysis based on voting patterns, political control of councils, indicies of deprvation and so on, but I doubt it is necessary. The pattern of cuts shown visually is as clear as it needs to be.

The cuts are going to protect the affluent Tory controlled south and take from poorer areas in the north. Pickles cuts are aimed at the poor - Tory policy in action.

p.s. Sadly (because I have little better to do) I have just done a quick T Test looking at Labour and Tory controlled councils. The probabilty that the spending cuts randomly fell into the unequal pattern is <0.0001 suggesting that there may be a reason for the cuts being made as they have been...

Keith Taylor in Maidstone

Spend a hectic afternoon with Keith Taylor MEP in and around Maidstone yesterday.

We visited the Oaken Wood campaigners and Keith was very impressed with what they have achieved. It looks like Kent Wildlife Trust has objected to Gallagher's plans now and there is to be a public meeting in December.

We moved on to Fant Farm where 380 houses would be built under the current strategy that the council has. Keith and I signed a letter to Cllr Chris Garland asking him to redo the Strategic Housing Land Area Assessment. Also noted is a four fold increase in the social housing waiting list, so we shouldn't be reducing plans for housing too much, but perhaps refocussing them.

We moved on to Harrietsham to hear from the chair of the parish council about how the noise from the M20 is affecting residents there. The M20 runs right past the village and its surface is concrete rather than tarmac. The road noise a quarter of a mile from the motorway in the school car park meant we had to shout to be heard.

Finally we met with Janetta Sams who has been leading a campaign in Lenham (collecting 1000 signatures on a petition and presenting to the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board) to get 20mph limits around schools. Kent Police are blocking the proposal saying they won't endorse 20mph limits without traffic calming. Keith is writing to the Cheif Constable to ask them to reconsider.

Maidstone teenager makes history on democracy in borough

Received this from my friend Anthony! My heart felt congratulations to him.

Anthony Hill, a 16 year old sixth form student at St Simon Stock Catholic School, who led the campaign to save the tree outside Town Hall. He Questioned Cllr Garland last Wednesday (22nd Sept) about the Councils petition rules which only allowed people on the electoral roll the right to submit petitions, which you have to be 18 for. Cllr Garland agreed that Under 18’s should be allowed to present petitions to Maidstone Borough Council and the constitution should be changed accordingly as long as the council agreed.


Late that night all councillors voted in Favour for changes to Maidstone Borough Council’s Petition scheme, which included removing the age limit for petitions and allowing e –petitions. It was said that without Anthony’s Campaign to Save the Tree this change would not have happened. Anthony was praised by all Councillors and Council Staff.

Anthony was delighted about the council’s decision and said “It is a shame that this was not in place when I wanted to submit my petition in June. But I have alerted the council that there are young people in our borough who want to make a change for the better to our Borough and wider Community, contrary to what you are often led to believe. This change will allow anyone in the future the right to submit a petition which is excellent news. I would also like to thank all of he Councillors who have praised me over me efforts.”

For More Information, Photo or Interview opportunities etc. please do not hesitate to contact me.

View Last Night’s Council Meeting: http://clients.westminster-digital.co.uk/maidstone/player.aspx?EventID=2188

Please help the V Team

News that funding for the V Team has dried up has upset many across Maidstone. The V Team, part of Voluntary Action Maidstone, have provided a valuable service across the town for the past 12 years.

They provide volunteering opportunities to people with mental health problems, people who are rehabilitating after a custodial sentance, recovering from a drug addiction, and people who have learning difficulties. These volunteers then help others, such as elderly people with practical work, such as gardening. The charity helps two sets of people in one go.

Clearly such a scheme deserves support and it is only short by £20,000. Surely Maidstone Borough Council and Kent County Council can find £10k each to keep the service going. The V Team will decide whether they can carry on their good work at the end of this month.

I have written to the councils urging them to find this extra money. The V Team helped 34 volunteers in 2008, without this valuable service not only will people needing rehabilitation suffer, but people needing practical help will too. Let us hope that the councils find the funds.

Please write to KCC, and MBC and the Kent Messenger! If you are able and want to donate to them, send a cheque to the V Team fund at Voluntary Action Maidstone, 39-48 Marsham St, Maidstone, Kent. ME14 1HH

Council cuts are wrong, wrong, wrong

Back to work! With a well earned rest after the by-election it is back to campaigning. Below is a letter to the Kent Messenger on the proposed council cuts in Maidstone.

Dear Editor,

Local Conservative plans to cut spending by £1m during the recession (KM, 9th Oct) may mirror the national race for cuts by the big three parties, however cuts during a recession are wrong and are based on a poor understanding of economics.

Maidstone's unemployement levels have doubled in the past 12 months and cutting jobs funded by the council will simply add more people to the dole queue while pushing the local econonmy further into recession. The council should draw upon reserves to see us through the recession, after all that is what reserves are for!

While an age of austerity may be good for tempering the endemic consumerism that has wreaked havoc on our environment, reducing consumption needs to be combined with protecting jobs and making society more equal. Inequalities are already rife and increasing unemployment will make them worse. If the council pay bill has to reduce, reductions should come from the higher paid staff not through job cuts.

Stuart Jeffery
Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Maidstone and the Weald

Sustainable Communities Act - Kent gets it so wrong

The press release from Maidstone Greens two days ago welcomed Maidstone Borough Council's announcement that it wants residents views before making a submission under the Act. Of course putting out the press release calling for suggestions just a few days before the closing date was a bit of a poor show but it is hoped that there will be a chance for a further submission later this year.

The reason that I think think that their timing is poor is because they have had plenty of time to get underway. I raised the lack of action on the SCA at February's Council meeting and was told by both political groups that they supported its use and wanted to see action on it asap. But action just didn't happen. The LibDems put a formal motion to Council a few months later and there was still not discernible action.

With the elections over I spoke directly to the director in charge of the process who informed me that letters had gone to parish councils but no suggestions had been received. So I pushed for more engagement with individuals and was told that they would publish a piece in their August edition of their magazine.

It was very clear from watching a recent OSC meeting that there are people in Maidstone that care and want to have a voice but unless the council engages with them directly, how will they know about this important piece of legislation?

Which brings me on to Kent County Council. Did you know that they launched a consultation on the 1st April inviting suggestions under the Act? No neither did I, and no it is no April Fools. The consultation was launched online among the other 50 or so. Unless you regularly visit KCC consultation website you will have missed it.

So guess how many external suggestions they received? None. One of the most important pieces of legislation asking for suggestions from £1.4 million people and not one person outside of the council made a suggestion. I wonder why... perhaps I'll have to change my home page from Google to KCC consultation website.

Slash public conveniences says Maidstone BC

Maidstone Borough Council are shortlisting designs for a £4m makeover of the lower High St, the Kent Messenger's front page reveals. Page 2 of the KM tells of how the council is preparing to slash (pun intended and many more to come) the number of public toilets it provides as it can afford to run them.

While the High St could do with a lick of paint, Maidstone does NOT need more shopping space. Last year the Tories were talking about turning the gaol into a shopping mall. The LibDems sold one of the most historic streets in Maidstone to build Fremlin Walk over the top of it - you can't so much as think about waving a placard before security guards bundle you off the site. The Stoneborough centre was opened in the 1970's and still serves well. We do NOT need more shops!!! How many more times?!?

We do need loos though. Closing them is a crap idea - shit even! I think the council may be taking the piss??? They are clearly flush with money to be able to reburbish the High St, so why not fund toilets? They must have more than a penny to spend? There is clearly something wrong with a cistern (system?) that puts shopping ahead of providing basics. They need to put loos as their number one or number two priority. Ok, enough!!!

Sustainable Communities Act

Have just returned from the Council meeting at the Town Hall where I put the following question to the Leader of the Council:

"In light of the recent short consultation on the council's draft core strategy, is the council prepared to adopt the powers within the Sustainable Communities Act in order to promote local democracy and to give local people the opportunity to influence central government to assist the council in promoting the sustainability of local communities in Maidstone."

The question was met with unanimous support. In response to the question the Tory run administration announced that they will pursue the SCA with a view to putting recommendations to central government by the July 2009 deadline. The Lib Dems also supported the SCA and stated that they had been preparing a motion for a future council meeting and were at pains to claim that this was not as a result of my question!

For my supplementary question I could not help but to ask why it had taken so long to move on the ACT given that it came in in 2007...

MBC Draft Core Strategy

Maidstone Borough Council are consulting on a draft Core Strategy (until 16th Feb). We have submitted a response. The draft strategy is is available on the MBC website. This is our press release that went out this morning:

Maidstone Greens have submitted their comments to Maidstone Borough Council on their Draft Core Strategy. Maidstone Borough Council is running a consultation "Have your say on the council's plans for the future" for just 18 days. Maidstone Greens have strongly criticised the council's lack of action on tackling the economic downturn, lack of action on climate change and lack of action on building strong communities.

Stuart Jeffery, Green Party prospective MP for Maidstone and the Weald: "The draft objectives that the Conservative run council have put together will be disastrous for the people of Maidstone. The council want to cut spending, but however they make these spending cuts, it will lead to job and service cuts both of which will have an appalling impact on both people and the economy in Maidstone, especially at this time.

"We have suggested that rather than reducing spending, the council raises money through issuing local government bonds and injects this money into schemes to create new green jobs. We want to see free home insulation provided across the borough, investment in public transport, walking and cycling, and investment in local renewable energy. All these schemes would stimulate the local economy, provide much needed jobs and start to tackle the environmental crisis.

"We want Maidstone to become more resilient to economic downturns. It can only do this by widening its range of businesses and by reducing its economic reliance on large scale retail.

"We have also called on the council to build communities and improve residents voice in local issues. One key way of doing this would be for the council to adopt the provisions in the Sustainable Communities Act.

"Maidstone Borough Council have allowed just 18 days for people to respond to the draft Core Strategy, for a strategy that defines the council's objectives for the next three years, we think this is far too short."

Maidstone Core Strategy consultation

Apologies for taking a whole week off blogging - have been writing a response to Maidstone Borough Council's Draft Core Strategy which is currently open for consultation at present.

In keeping with its Tory masters everywhere, our Tory filled council seems happy to comment on the economic crisis but has no solutions to it. They seem happy to propose to cut services (quite how removing more money from the economy and making more people unemployed will help is beyond me). They also suggest that it would be cheaper to jointly provide some services with neighbouring areas.

Of course, if it was cheaper to jointly provide services with neighbours then I have to ask why haven't they done this before, the savings could have been channeled in to enhancing other council services. I suspect the answer is simply that the jointly provided services will reduce both cost and provision, and it is clear that the Tories are only doing this to slash jobs.

The draft Core Strategy is unbelievably light in ideas, fortunately I think Maidstone Greens have a few! I will publish our submission here once we have agreed it, but it focuses on:

• localism
• pump priming green jobs aka Green New Deal
• improving democracy and communities
• reducing carbon dependency
• increasing alternatives to car use
  

MBC Carbon Reduction Targets

It looks like Maidstone Borough Council's Tory run cabinet are going to ditch the previous 'Primrose Promise' of carbon neutrality by 2010 agreed by the Lib Dems in favour of year on year carbon reduction targets of 3%.

Carbon neutrality, as any real green will tell you, is a farce. It is like paying someone in Africa not to smoke cigarettes so that you can continue to. I welcome MBC's change of direction (of course the LibDems are furious...), but it doesn't go any way near far enough.

The scale of the climate challange is such that we need to kick the carbon habit by around 9% per annum in this country. Furthermore simply reducting the council's footprint will achieve very little, the target should be borough wide and include all households and business as well as local government.

9% is achivable with polictical will and public support, but the latter will be lacking until the former is evident. The world is in a position where it now needs an effort akin to the changes made to manufacturing at the start of WW2. There are just 100 months left to tackle the problem if we want to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Carbon reduction not a high priority target for Maidstone

Maidstone Borough Council's Cabinet decided not to make carbon reduction a high priority target for the borough. They prefered economic growth. Both Lib Dems and the Tories backed the prioritisation of the targets, i.e. both parties were happy that reducing Maidstone's carbon footprint was not a high priority target, yet economic growth was (it was stated at the meeting that the New Business Registration Rate is an excellent proxy for economic growth).

Another nail in the coffin of the LibDem claims that they are green. In fairness to Mark Woodin (Con) he was the only one to suggest that this target should be upgraded (thanks Mark), but his suggestion fell on deaf ears and he also agreed for the priorities to be passed as set out below.

As an aside, James May from Top Gear, was dicussing renewable energy on TV last night and presented a sensible picture. He started by saying that he wants an energy source that will last forever and only renewables can do this. If a Top Gear presenter can get what Greens are saying, why can't Maidstone's councillors?

The adherence to the need for economic growth by the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour is one of the key differences that sets the Greens apart from them. Continuous economic growth on a finite planet is simply not possible or desirable and certainly not sustainable. A stable economy does not grow and we should not keep using up finite resources.

The other interesting comment at the cabinet was from the Tory leader, Chris Garland, who suggested that the Growth Point status was a good thing for Maidstone. The Growth Point status was voted in by the LibDem administration (plus a number of Tories) in March 2006 and increased the house building target over the next 20 years by 20%.

Extract from the cabinet agenda, 23rd Oct 2008:

1.2.1 That based on an examination of the available data, laid out in the draft LAP (Appendix A), the Cabinet agrees that the following National Indicators should be given the highest priority within the new LAP and that this be reported to the Maidstone LSP and Kent Partnership:

High priority
1. NI 15 -- Serious and Violent Crime
2. NI 21 -- Dealing with local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime by the local council and police
3. NI 39: Related Hospital Admissions per 100,000 for Alcohol Related Harm
4. NI 47: People killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents
5. NI 55: Number of affordable homes delivered (gross)
6. NI 75 - Achievement of 5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE or equivalent including English and Maths (Threshold)
7. NI 110 - Young people's participation in positive activities
8. NI 117: 16 -- 18 year olds who are not in education, employment or training (NEET)
9. NI 141 Percentage of vulnerable people achieving independent living
10.NI 154: Net additional homes provided
11.NI 163: Proportion of population aged 19 -- 64 for males and 19 -- 59 qualified to at least a level two or higher
12.NI 171: New Business Registration Rate
13.NI 191: Residual household waste per household
14.NI 187 - Tackling fuel poverty - % of people receiving income based benefits living in homes with a low energy efficiency rating

Medium priority
1. NI 8: Adult participation in sport and active recreation
2. NI 55: Obesity in primary school age children in reception
3. NI 111: First time entrants into the youth justice system aged 10 -17
4. NI 120: All age all cause mortality rate (All Persons)
5. NI 186: Per capita CO2 emissions in the LA area
6. NI -- 189 Flood and Costal Erosion Risk Management
7. NI 73 - Achievement at level 4 or above in both English and Maths at Key Stage 2
8. NI 83 achievement at level 5 or above in Science at Key Stage 3
9. NI 87 - Secondary school persistent absence rate
10.NI 3 - Civic participation in the local area
11.NI 11- Engagement in the Arts