Just last night BBC South East heard from a couple from Ramsgate who said they had been forced to sleep in their car because they could not afford to travel to hospital appointments in London twice in a 48-hour period.

We also spoke to Michelle English, a driving instructor from Shoreham, who said she was spending £300 a month on fuel and feared the planned 3p fuel duty increase in January would hit her business.

Campaigners lobbied hard over a potential petrol tax hike in the run up to the Autumn Statement and Labour also called for Chancellor George Osborne to delay the planned fuel duty increase for three months.

Neither were disappointed.

As always the chancellor wants to pull a rabbit out of the hat and at the end of his Autumn Statement he announced that rather than postponing the fuel duty increase he was cancelling it altogether.

He said that meant there will have been no increases in petrol taxes for two and a half years.

But before that final flourish first there was the gloomy news that there would more spending cuts across most Whitehall departments and people would only be able to invest £40,000 - not £50,000 - into their pension pots.

Other South East specific measures in the statement included:

There was also good news for Brighton and Hove.

The chancellor announced that it would be one of 12 smaller cities to receive a share of £50m pot to pay for ultra-fast broadband, which many local leaders think is vital for the city to remain competitive in digital innovation.

Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion Caroline Lucas welcomed the announcement and described it as a "well deserved boost for digital and creative sector".

She said Brighton and Hove had a digital sector that was growing twice as fast as the national average, one of the biggest and fastest in the UK.

It currently supports an estimated 23,600 jobs in the city and it is hoped today's announcement will help it to continue to grow.

However, Ms Lucas was very critical of Mr Osborne's plan to lower the cost of gas.

To do that he said he was setting up an Office for Unconventional Gas to ensure a "simplified and streamlined regulatory process" for the exploitation of shale gas in the UK through "fracking".

It's a hugely controversial issue. Plans by the drilling company Caudrilla to explore for oil or gas off the B2036, a mile from the centre of Balcombe village in Mid Sussex, have prompted strong local feelings.

In January Mark Miller, chief executive of Cuadrilla, said the company had no current plans to drill in West Sussex and was concentrating its efforts in the north west of England.

Green campaigners have also described the "dash for gas" as a "costly gamble".

But today's announcement by Mr Osborne, that the government is consulting on tax breaks for the unconventional fossil fuel, suggests an expansion of the fracking process could be in the pipeline.

Caroline Lucas said: "The Chancellor's new Office for Unconventional Gas and his proposed tax breaks for shale gas reveals the extent of this government's irrational obsession with hard-to-reach shale and with keeping the UK addicted to fossil fuels."

So as ever with the Autumn Statement the devil is in the detail. We had some headlines today but it was not immediately clear who the winners and losers were.

What we do know is that this budget is fiscally neutral so although the Chancellor may have found the money to cancel the fuel duty rise and to pay for ultra-fast broadband he will have to pay for that by increasing taxes elsewhere.

Many will see their fares rise by close to the capped national average of 4.2%.

But, other season ticket holders will face inflation busting increases.

Commuters from Ramsgate, Dover Priory and Deal to London will see their season tickets go up 6.46% to £4,940 on 2 January.

Those travelling from Folkestone also face a steep increase of 5.98% to £4,888.

And, those travelling daily from Tonbridge to London will have to find an extra 5.2% bringing their season ticket to £ £3,796 from January.

Sussex commuters fare slightly better with increases marginally below the 4.2% cap.

Those buying a season ticket from Hove to London (Victoria) will see the cost rise by 4.1% to £3,860 .

Eastbourne to London (Victoria) will increase by the same amount bringing a season ticket to £4,228.

Some commuters will wonder how the train companies can get away with increasing fares above the 4.2% cap.

It is because train companies are able to increase some season tickets above the cap as long as the average increase on their trains is no more than 4.2%.

Passenger Focus has criticised the steep rises.

The chief executive, Anthony Smith, said: "After years of above-inflation fare rises, fresh increases are piling pressure on already high fares."

He has called for the government and the rail industry to work together to deliver on the promise to get fare rises in line with inflation.

Southeastern, which runs many of the services from Kent to London, said: "It is the government, not train companies, that decides how much season tickets should rise on average each year. Successive governments have instructed train companies every year to increase these regulated fares on average by more than inflation.

"In doing so, ministers have been seeking to cut the contribution from taxpayers towards the running costs of the railway and increase the share that comes from passengers."

But, the rail minister and Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes. Norman Baker has defended the increases.

He said the coalition government has taken pro-active steps to cut the planned fare rises from 3% to 1% above inflation until 2014.

He said that action will put an average of £45 per year back into the pockets of over a quarter of a million annual season ticket holders.

He also said some commuter could find that they are £100 better off after the changes.

His Coalition colleague, the Conservative MP for Tunbridge Wells Greg Clark, says he believes passengers will feel "huge relief" because increases could have been steeper.

I'm not sure relief is what many commuters from the South East will be feeling when, yet again, they face an expensive return to work in January.

He says England's children face a "postcode lottery" in gaining a decent education, with some having less than a 50% chance of attending a good school.

Here in the South East there are big discrepancies.

Kent and Medway are in the bottom 10 of the 152 local authorities in England for primary school performance.

In Kent, just 55% of junior schools are rated good or outstanding, which is Ofsted's marker for acceptable standards. In Medway the figure is slightly worse at 54%.

Both fare better at secondary level with 70% of students in Kent attending good or outstanding secondary schools and 78% in Medway.

In East Sussex, 70% of primary schools are rated good or outstanding, which puts them slightly above the national average. Also 78% of students attend good or outstanding secondary schools.

In a reversal of the situation in Kent, Brighton and Hove does well at primary school level, with 72% of pupils attending good or outstanding primary schools, but fare much worse at secondary level where that figure just reaches 60%.

Reading behind the statistics it's difficult to say exactly why some local authorities have done so badly. Ofsted says the local authority is not about naming and shaming but about trying to understand the discrepancies. It also says there is no link between access to a good primary school and how rich or poor an area is.

As for Kent, it's not the first time the authority has found itself languishing near the bottom of the league table. In fact in May the council revealed that a fifth of schools were performing below the minimum standard for English and Maths.

Kent County Council's education spokesman Mike Whiting said the report didn't come as a surprise but he admitted that the situation was not acceptable.

He said they were focussing on training and innovation to improve teaching standards and the aim was for "85% of primary and secondary schools and 100% of special schools to be judged good or outstanding by Ofsted by 2015".

To help drive up standards Ofsted has appointed a new director for the South East - Lorna Fitzjohn.

She will take up the post in January and her job will be to try to tackle underperformance.

It's a big task. Ultimately her job will be to ensure every child in the South East has access to a good or outstanding education.

Boris Johnson, who was addressing members at the annual CBI Conference, again demanded that a third runway should be ruled out at Heathrow Airport.

He said it was time to be bold and said a new hub airport would help economic growth and create hundreds of jobs in the South East.

Of course he was playing to a largely sympathetic audience - leading business figures, many of whom have lobbied for aviation expansion.

Prime Minister David Cameron addressed the same delegates earlier in the day and spoke about the need for economic growth and new infrastructure projects but interestingly he did not mention aviation.

The government recently set up the Davies Commission looking at this issue and it won't report back until after the next general election in 2015. But Mr Johnson did not steer clear and he said that a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary - dubbed Boris Island - was the only real solution.

His intervention came as MPs on the Transport Committee were taking evidence from key figures in the aviation industry including senior executives at Virgin and Easyjet as well as Michael O'Leary from Ryanair.

He accused the government of "kicking the can" down the road when it comes to making a decision on aviation. He also said building a Boris Island hub airport would be "stupid, hare-brained".

A lot of the arguments have been heard before but there is no doubt from the evidence they gave that business is deeply frustrated that the government still has not made a decision on aviation capacity.

I think there is a real sense of frustration among business figures that the decision has been as they see it kicked into the long grass. And that is felt even amongst Tory MPs.

The Richmond MP Zac Goldsmith has been tweeting today on the issue and asked: "Does anyone have any idea at all where the Govt stands on Airports?"

He also said: "So the same PM whose dithering on airports will cost 3-6 years, is now enraged by the delays affecting big infrastructure decisions?"

His comments won't endear him to the boss but perhaps reflect the frustration felt by the lack of clarity on this issue.

Perhaps because the main parties failed to mobilise support the big winner were the independents.

Ann Barnes, who led Kent police authority for six years, was one of them. She beat her Tory rival Craig Mackilay by 114,137 votes to 60,248. Her election will be a blow to the Conservatives. This was David Cameron's flagship policy.

The Tories have always been seen as the party of law and order and to be roundly beaten in the Conservative heartland of Kent shows there is no room for apathy. This was not a general election but is suggests they cannot take their traditional support for granted.

In Sussex, the result followed party political lines. The Conservative candidate Katy Bourne comfortably beat Labour's Godfrey Daniel.

But Labour will take great heart from the fact they came first in the more urban areas Hastings, Crawley and Brighton and Hove.

It was a really bad day for the Liberal Democrats - they didn't put up a candidate in Kent and came last in Sussex - behind UKIP and the independent.

They clearly predicted a bad result as no Lib Dem even turned up for the count in Sussex. They have to hope these elections were an anomaly and not a reflection of how they would fare come the next General Election.

The rebellion was led by Rochester and Strood MP Mark Reckless, who argued that increases in the UK's contribution to the EU could not be justified at a time of austerity measures at home.

Prior to the vote, Number 10 sources admitted they thought they would lose.

In the event the vote was actually closer than predicted with the rebels winning by 307 votes to the government's 294.

It was clear the government was worried about being defeated and the whips, who instil party discipline, worked furiously throughout the afternoon to get MPs to back the Prime Minister. One MP was called in from their sick bed and another recalled from Belfast.

It was certainly a test for the newly appointed Chief Whip Sir George Young but in the end he could not win it for the government.

Of the South East's MPs Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne & Sheppey) Adam Holloway (Gravesham) and Henry Smith (Crawley) all backed Mark Reckless' amendment.

It wasn't as big a defeat as the government suffered over Europe last October, when 80 MPs rebelled, but it is very damaging for the Prime Minister and the government.

During the debate several MPs made reference to how rebels undermined John Major over Europe and weakened him as PM and tonight the subject which proves so divisive to the Conservatives - Europe - has reared its head again and David Cameron's authority has been weakened a little.

Mark Reckless said the rebel success showed parliament was listening to the public. He said he always thought they would win - but it was a narrow victory.

And the issue dominated Prime Minister's Questions earlier.

Labour leader Ed Miliband stepped up the pressure on the PM surrounding the thorny issue of the EU budget by demanding a real-terms cut.

He also accused Mr Cameron of being at the mercy of his backbenchers.

The European Union wants member countries to increase its contributions by 5% over the next seven years. That would see the UK having to pay an extra £1.3bn in 2013 - on top of the £11bn it already pays each year.

David Cameron says he wants contributions to be frozen and increases limited to the rate of inflation, currently about 2%.

But the MP for Rochester and Strood Mark Reckless says that doesn't go far enough and wants contributions cut.

At a time when constituents are seeing big spending cuts at home increasing payments to Europe can't be justified, he says.

Mr Reckless claims to have the support of about 40 backbench Tory MPs including Chatham and Aylesford MP Tracey Crouch, Gordon Henderson, the MP for Sittingbourne, and MP for Hove, Mike Weatherley.

More worryingly for the prime minister, I understand that Labour will back the rebel amendment, tabled by Mr Reckless, later this evening.

Perhaps that's why he told MPs at Prime Minister's Questions that "at best we would like a cut, at worst a freeze" and he was "prepared to use the veto if we do not get a deal that is good for Britain".

Europe has long been a difficult issue for the Conservatives and has been the subject that has caused the biggest rebellion so far against the government.

Last October more than 80 Conservative MPs defied David Cameron's orders and backed a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union.

I think the Tory whips office will be working overtime today to try to avert another humiliating defeat for the PM over Europe.

It's a great city. I've always felt safe there - even when travelling alone.

It hasn't always been the case.

The Commissioner Ray Kelly, who works in partnership with the Mayor Michael Bloomberg, says: "New York 20 years ago had a lot of problems.

"We had 2,245 murders in 1990 and a population of 7.3 million people.

"Now we have a population of 8.4 million people and this year will be a record low year for murders so we have had a good track record of reducing crime."

In the 1980s the city was swept by a crack epidemic, the murder rate reached a record high and New York had the unenviable reputation as the crime capital of the US.

So how has New York gone from a city known for its high murder rate, where burglaries were common place and parts of the city were an open air drug market, to achieving the lowest crime rate among the 10 largest cities in the United States?

There's no doubt since the September 11 attacks on the city in 2001 that security is now omnipresent - police and anti-terrorism officers are highly visible on the streets.

It may be partly due to the increased presence of New York's finest that it's now one of the safest cities in the world.

But violent crime has actually been falling in New York City since the early nineties.

One of the main people credited with cutting crime is the former Police Commissioner of LA and New York, Bill Bratton.

He says the appointment of commissioners in England and Wales is a huge revolution in policing:

"In your country now you are attempting to develop a model based on the American experience where you want more local political control. I think that's a good thing because it's the experience I have grown up in.

"It's not a panacea but it does ensure that police focus on local issues."

The role of the Police Commissioner in New York is different from the new role being created in the 41 police forces across England and Wales in November:

There's no doubt the once mean streets of New York are now much safer.

The city's dramatic drop in crime has been attributed by criminologists to a revolution in policing tactics.

Heather MacDonald from the Manhattan Institute says: "Strong leadership starting with William Bratton going through today to Ray Kelly is absolutely the reason why we have had an 80% crime drop since the early 1990's.

"No other city in the country comes close to both the length and the depth of our crime drop and that's because we revolutionised policing."

The recently appointed Policing Minister and Ashford MP, Damian Green, says the role of Police Commissioner - being created in the 41 police forces across England and Wales - is different from the model in New York.

But he believes we can learn from the system in the States.

He says: "New York used to be one of the murder capitals of the world and successive successful commissioners appointed by an elected mayor - specifically for that purpose - have driven down crime.

"New York by the standards of big cities in America is now relatively safe and I do hope that will happen here."

The public in England and Wales will get the chance to elect their own police commissioner in 41 forces on 15 November.

It's hoped the individuals elected will help make policing more accountable to the public.

Lord Wasserman, who used to work under Bill Bratton and is a government adviser on policing, said: "What we have learned from America about policing is that the police can make a difference to the level of crime.

"It used to be believed that crime is a result of social factors - bad housing, unemployment, poverty, and the police couldn't do much about it."

He says Bill Bratton changed that - he was only in New York for two years but began the process of political accountability which dramatically reduced crime.

The summer riots of 2011 across the England highlighted the need for greater engagement between the police and local communities.

The Prime Minister David Cameron turned to Bill Bratton, who became famous for this zero tolerance policing policy, and appointed him as a government adviser on policing.

He believes crime fighting solutions that have worked in New York - particularly the role of a strong police commissioner setting policy and making the reduction of crime a key aim - can work just as well in the towns and cities of Kent or Sussex as in New York.

Read more about the forthcoming police elections on the BBC website's special section.

Understandably so.

Hundreds of thousands of people commute into London on a daily basis for work, so rail links and fares are hugely important.

Aviation is also a big issue. Gatwick is the second biggest airport in the UK.

But with business clamouring for more aviation capacity in the South East could Gatwick provide an answer with a second runway, which could be built after 2019?

Or could Manston airport in Kent help offer a solution to the lack of capacity?

According to Theresa Villiers, the former Transport Minister, it could.

But she's now left the department - as has the former Transport Secretary, Justine Greening.

Both have moved on but left a major headache behind.

It was revealed this week that rail franchises, including Thameslink, have now been put on hold, after ministers found "significant flaws" in the bidding process on the West Coast Main Line.

The government has admitted getting its figures wrong - the fiasco could cost the taxpayer £40 million - and three civil servants have already been suspended.

Labour has accused Ms Greening and Ms Villiers of being asleep on the job.

But this is also hugely embarrassing for the government.

It's the last thing David Cameron needs as he prepares to face delegates in Birmingham for the Conservative Party's annual conference.

When I spoke to him he didn't hide his anger.

He reassured customers that the railways would continue to run as normal.

But he said: "Clearly this is very disappointing. I'm extremely angry about how this was allowed to happen. Clearly there has been a fault in the department.

"We need to get to the bottom of that and that's why a review will be carried out."

He warned that if mistakes have been made people would pay the price for that.

His problems didn't end there though.

He and Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, may be former school mates and went to Oxford together, but his old friend is not scared of making trouble for the Prime Minister.

In the run up to conference he launched his strongest attack yet on aviation policy in the South East.

He said: "The government programme to address the looming aviation capacity crunch in the UK is far too slow and I am hugely concerned that their intended timetable sets a course for economic catastrophe."

The criticism is damaging for the Prime Minister as critics accuse him of dithering over the big decisions.

The aviation review will not report back until 2015 - after the next general election.

He also appears to be presiding over a Department for Transport which is in disarray - unable to decide future aviation strategy but now unable to award rail franchises.

This has led to Holyrood's Transport Minister branding the department as "shambolic".

The new Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin has a lot to get to grips with.

He's already ordered two independent reviews into railway franchising.

He'll also have to give evidence to the Commons Transport Committee within weeks when he's likely to face some very tough questions.

At the conference, surrounded by supporters, he'll hope to draw a line under that.

Not that it hasn't been raised - by broadcasters (Andrew Marr made him sit through the remixed version of his apology which entered the iTunes chart) and by some delegates.

But his speech was all about appealing to delegates - and voters - to hold their nerve and not give up on the coalition.

His message was that the Liberal Democrats are making a big difference.

He took a swipe at Labour and the Conservatives saying: "The truth is, only the Liberal Democrats can be trusted on the economy and relied upon to deliver a fairer society too."

As part of that fairer society the Lib Dems say that all future cuts in personal taxation must pass a clear test - do they help people on low and middle incomes?

He also warned the Conservatives that they should be in no doubt that the Lib Dems will hold them to their promises to be the greenest government ever.

The Liberal Democrats hold their green credentials dear.

This week the party voted against any new hub airport or in fact any increase in runways at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted.

They've also voted for a relaxation in planning legislation which they say is crucial to tackling the lack of house building and chronic housing shortages in certain parts of the country, such as the South East.

So is this a sign of hostility within the coalition?

No, it's part of the political game.

In this party conference season the parties are freed from the constraints of coalition and can play up their Liberal Democrat policies and appeal to their core voters.

Once the conferences are over and the leaders and MPs return to Westminster, normal service will resume.

Today's vote puts the party at odds with the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg who said, other than a third runway at Heathrow, he would look at all the other options.

Mr Clegg said in a BBC interview he "was not persuaded by the argument for an airport in the Thames Estuary" but said there could be other options for a hub airport such as in the Midlands.

He said he was not an aviation expert but he would wait for the findings of the Davis Commission set up by David Cameron and would consider all the options.

Nick Clegg is trying to draw a line under his apology over student tuition fees. Speaking to me ahead of conference I asked about one of the biggest issues affecting the South East - aviation capacity.

Currently the coalition agreement between the Tories and Liberal Democrats has ruled out the consideration of new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted until after the election.

Mr Clegg told me that the Liberal Democrats were absolutely against a third runway at Heathrow but, interestingly, he did not rule out other options.

While he said he "was not persuaded by a Thames Estuary airport" he said he would wait for the findings of the independent commission set up to look at aviation strategy which is not due to publish its findings until 2015 - after the next general election.

So, is that a sign that the deputy prime minister is softening in his personal position on aviation?

Earlier this month he told the Today programme: "Just because we are sticking to the coalition agreement and manifesto doesn't mean we are sticking our heads in the sand. There is this big debate about how you ensure we have the so-called hub capacity".

And he reiterated that to me.

If that's the case his fellow MPs and delegates sent him a clear message from conference following a debate on aviation in Brighton. They voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion rejecting new runways at Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick.

After the vote I spoke to the Transport Minister and Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes Norman Baker.

He said the party had spoken in terms of their policy ahead of the next election. He denied the vote put the party at odds with its leader on this issue.

Mr Baker said the Liberal Democrats were clear in their position - they were against any new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted.

He also said he thought the idea of a Boris Island airport in the Thames Estuary was "a bit mad".

Apart from the enormous cost he said there were major environmental issue to consider as well as the positioning of the SS Montgomery which would blow any airport out of the water.

He also expressed disappointment that Justine Greening and Theresa Villiers, who had both been opposed to a third runway at Heathrow, were moved from the Department of Transport in the reshuffle.

So the message from the Transport Minister is clear - there is no change in Liberal Democrat policy and the party remains against aviation expansion.

But the message from Nick Clegg was not quite so clear cut - he said he would wait for the commission's findings and look at all the options.

Let's hope he's not forced into making another apology for a promise he can't keep.

But as the dust settles what will the reshuffle mean for the south east?

Ashford MP Damian Green moved from his post as immigration minister to replace Nick Herbert as policing minister - a big job given the first ever elections for independent police commissioners are only around nine weeks away.

Conservative Party and Sevenoaks MP Michael Fallon who was Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party had been tipped to take over as chairman.

But that job went to Grant Shapps. Instead, Mr Fallon was appointed Minister of State for Business. He has a good track record on the Treasury Select Committee and is very pro-growth.

Given David Cameron couldn't move Business Secretary Vince Cable, Downing Street said Mr Fallon will "be the voice of business" - his appointment will be seen as an attempt to rein Mr Cable in.

And Helen Grant, MP for Maidstone and the Weald, got her foot on the first rung of the ministerial ladder. She's only been an MP since 2010 but has been seen as a rising star and was appointed joint parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Ministry of Justice and for women's and equality issues.

But the biggest impact does not involve south east MPs, but the decision to move Transport Secretary Justine Greening from her role after only 11 months. She had been vociferous on her opposition to a third runway at Heathrow.

She had even said she would be unable to serve in a cabinet if the government were to do a U-turn on the issue. She has now moved to be international development secretary and been replaced by Patrick McLoughlin.

She was not the only person to leave transport though. Teresa Villiers, who had also opposed any expansion at Heathrow was promoted to be Northern Ireland secretary. She was replaced by Stephen Hammond.

The changes in key personnel at the Department for Transport has re-ignited the fierce debate over whether there should be a third runway at Heathrow or a new hub airport built in the Thames Estuary, the option favoured by London Mayor Boris Johnson.

The reshuffle wasn't even complete when Boris Johnson spoke out accusing ministers of being bent on a 'simply mad' plan to expand Heathrow after moving the person at the top at transport.

He admitted today Downing Street is very cross with him because they think he is being critical of David Cameron. He said he's not criticising, but he thinks they need to end the ambiguity.

And he's not the only Tory calling for certainty. Richmond MP Zac Goldsmith has called for David Cameron to "get off the fence" over a third runway at Heathrow and signal whether or not the Conservatives will go into the next election in favour of expanding the airport. He's also said he would not stand for re-election if the Conservatives decide to back a third runway.

Downing Street has rebuffed Johnson's calls for the government to rule out a third runway at Heathrow 'forever'. New Chairman of the Tory Party, Grant Shapps, said "all options" would be examined in the forthcoming consultation.

He ruled out a third runway during this parliament, but didn't go any further.

Patrick McLoughlin certainly has a tough job ahead of him. The issue over how to increase aviation capacity in the south east is a divisive one - and non-negotiable for Liberal Democrats and many Tories.

Mr McLoughlin so far has said very little on the matter. But newly appointed Transport Minister Stephen Hammond, who had previously campaigned against a third runway, has been more outspoken.

Writing in the Evening Standard in July he called for the case for a third runway to be re-examined as part of wider plans to increase airport capacity in the south east and said it would add extra capacity in the short term.

The reaction to David Cameron's first major reshuffle should leave him in no doubt there will be fierce opposition to any attempt by the Conservatives to resurrect plans for a third runway.

She was again forced to delay the publication of her long awaited aviation strategy due to Coalition tensions, particularly over the possibility of building a third runway at Heathrow.

She and the government are hoping for better headlines with the announcement of what is being billed as "the biggest investment in the railways since the Victorian era".

A source at the DfT said this major programme of investment in rail, estimated to be £10bn, will help by "creating growth and cutting carbon emissions".

But at a time of fiscal tightening it could be the fare payers who end up picking up the cost with inflation busting fare increases.

Then it was delayed for around five months until the summer.

I was told, by the Transport Secretary Justine Greening herself, she was ready to go and it would be published before the parliamentary summer recess.

Then, I was told by reliable sources it would be published this week - probably Thursday.

Well, the Department for Transport has published its Aviation Policy Framework today which includes some measures to increase capacity in the short term.

It includes the possibility of new rules to limit the use of smaller planes - in favour of larger ones - at the busiest airports.

A statement from the Department for Transport also commits "up to £500 million" towards a western rail link to Heathrow which, it is claimed, will shave 30 minutes off train journey times to Heathrow from the west of England and south Wales.

But, despite increasing calls from business leaders, including Willie Walsh and Richard Branson, in recent weeks for the government to commit to plans to increase airport capacity and maintain the UK's hub status, we are no nearer knowing how that will be achieved.

Justine Greening says "A separate call for evidence on how to maintain the UK's international connectivity and hub status will follow later this year once the industry has had time to consider the measures in today's consultation."

I think industry leaders and residents in areas which would be affected by plans to build a new Thames Estuary airport, for example, or the building of new runways at existing sites, feel the time for consultation has passed and really just want a decision.

So, why is the government stalling on this?

Backbench MPs tell me that after the "omnishambles" over Lords reform in which the government suffered its biggest defeat to date the coalition is simply not up for another fight - this time over airports.

There are signs that senior Tories, including the Chancellor, are considering a U-turn over Heathrow and would be prepared to consider a third runway.

That is an absolute no-no for their Liberal Democrat colleagues.

The Prime Minister's spokesman today said: "We will get on with this. These are important long term decisions and we need to get them right.

"What today's announcement does is set out the context for the call for evidence."

He added: "It is important that we take decisions in the light of the evidence."

Of course, it's important to get these decisions right but making no decision at all can also be damaging to confidence in the UK's economy - and the government's reputation.

It made it very clear back in August that without subsidies from the government it would not be building the site which would have seen nearly 2,000 jobs created in Sheppey.

Even the Conservative MP for South Thanet, Laura Sandys, a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, has criticised the government.

Danish company Vestas has scrapped its plan to manufacture wind turbines at a huge new plant on the Isle of Sheppey, saying it hadn't secured enough orders to go ahead.

The news has been met with dismay on the island, where unemployment is more than twice the national average.

There's no doubt it's a blow. Despite the fact this government describes itself as the greenest government ever, the mood music has changed in recent months.

It emerged earlier this month that Chancellor George Osborne would like to cut subsidies for onshore wind farms by 25%.

Industry leaders warned that level of reduction would "kill dead" the development of wind power sites.

Only yesterday Energy Secretary Ed Davey, who is a Liberal Democrat, defended the amount of subsidy put into renewables.

One thing companies making large investments hate is uncertainty. Flip-flopping on policy is the best way to lose investment and undermine investor confidence.

Given that, I think the Vestas' announcement today is unsurprising.

It made it very clear back in August that without subsidies from the government it would not be building the site which would have seen nearly 2,000 jobs created in Sheppey.

Even the Conservative MP for South Thanet, Laura Sandys, a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, has criticised the government.

She said: "Vestas' decision will have been a commercial one; but it also suggests a lack of confidence within the industry over the government's commitment to the green economy and crucially, offshore wind."

She added: "The market needs certainty from government if it is to deliver the thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of investment that could secure our economic recovery."

If the government doesn't firm up its policy on subsidies, soon maybe the last renewable energy company in Britain won't have to put the lights out.

It'll already be dark.

Under the new agreement, discards of mackerel and herring would be banned by 2014.

A phased ban on discarding cod, haddock, plaice and sole would be in operation by 2018.

The EU says it's committed to ending over-fishing in three years.

So, how significant is this agreement?

Well, reaching any agreement between 27 member states with competing interests which pit the huge Spanish fleets against the small inshore ones, as seen in places like Hastings, is quite an achievement.

There has been huge pressure to end the issue of discards.

The agreement follows a high-profile campaign, led by the celebrity chef Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall, to end the practise of discards.

This is where fish are thrown back into the sea because boats don't have enough quota to allow them to land them.

The UK Fisheries Minister Richard Benyon who was at the talks into the early hours of this morning welcomed the decision.

He said: "After years of pressing to eliminate discards it was always my aim to get the council to agree to end this wasteful practice as soon as possible."

Amber Rudd, the MP for Hastings and Rye, which has the largest beach-launched fishing fleet in the UK, also welcomed the move.

She says the most significant thing to come out of the agreement is greater regional control which will be better for the smaller fleets.

Until now she says: "We've had a situation where mesh size for Hastings' fishermen has been decided in Brussels - that's absolutely absurd.

"We've been campaigning for a much more regional decision to how the quotas are allocated and it looks today like we're going to get that."

But, it's not a magic bullet.

No firm date was set for the ban, although the council has published a provisional date to ban the discarding of fish such as mackerel and herring by 1 January, 2014.

Critics say any agreement is "worthless without ambitious binding targets".

Greenpeace and Green politicians have accused politicians of being reckless with fish stocks and say what is needed is action for a sustainable fishery.

His motto has been "work will always pay".

And when it comes to youth unemployment Mr Duncan Smith pulls no punches.

He recently claimed that employers are having to hire foreign workers because young Britons think being a reality television star is the only career worth having.

He's defended his department's policy of giving unemployed youngsters work experience placements in exchange for benefits and says it's better to be a shelf stacker than a 'job snob'.

Mr Duncan Smith took that message to Kent today where he, along with the council's leader, Paul Carter, were in Maidstone to meet five apprentices who have gained work placements since a new scheme was launched in April.

The council's scheme is focused on Kent's young people.

• South East region - 5.2% youth unemployment

• Kent - 7.4% youth unemployment

• Thanet - 13.6% youth unemployment

• Hastings - 11.3% youth unemployment

• Medway towns - 9.4% youth unemployment

• Tunbridge Wells - 4% youth unemployment

• Tandridge - 4.6% youth unemployment

Kent County Council has invested £2 million from its Big Society Fund.

That figure pooled with various employment subsidies means it could cost employers as little as £52 per week to get involved - depending on the young person's age and the length of time they have been unemployed.

Kent County Council has launched the initiative because it says tackling youth unemployment is one of its top priorities.

It needs to be.

The recession has hit young people the hardest, with the numbers seeking employment doubling over a four year period.

The most recent jobless figures from April 2012 showed the number of 18-24 year olds out of work and claiming Job Seekers Allowance had reached 8,990 - that's 7.4%.

Although the South East, and Kent in particular, is seen as an affluent part of the country - youth unemployment in the county is higher than the regional average which is 5.2%.

It is also only marginally below the national average at 7.8%.

Kent is not an anomaly.

Thanet is the area most affected by youth unemployment where it has reached 13.6% - more than two and a half times higher than the regional average.

In Hastings it's 11.3% - again, considerably higher than the regional and UK average.

And in the Medway towns youth unemployment is 9.4%.

Of course there are parts of the South East where it's much lower.

In Tunbridge Wells it's well below the national average at 4% and in Tandridge in Surrey it's 4.6%

But what these figures show is that youth unemployment is worryingly high.

And both the government and local councils need to work together to tackle it if they're to prevent a generation of people who are economically inactive.