Our readers from across the county give their weekly take on the biggest issues impacting Kent and beyond.

Some letters refer to past correspondence which can be found by clicking here. Join the debate by emailing letters@thekmgroup.co.uk

Sunak shared Churchill’s fate

Rishi Sunak’s statement following the government’s drubbing at the general election was an outstanding example of how to be gracious in defeat but I disagree with his acceptance of responsibility for handing victory to Labour.

The person almost wholly to blame for the Tory defeat is Boris Johnson - whose dishonesty mired the government in sleaze.

Not to mention the disastrous decision made by the appallingly incompetent Liz Truss during her 45 days as PM.

And what really sticks in my craw is the fact Ms Truss will receive, as ex-PM, a pension of £125,000 for life!

Not a bad reward for failure.

Mr Sunak did a great job as Chancellor and, but for being undermined by Johnson’s legacy and the appalling in-fighting and backstabbing, among, not to say treachery of, many of his own MPs, was a good PM who was making great strides in putting the country on the road to recovery.

It was he, as Chancellor, who had to deal with trying to rebuild an economy that was still recovering from the disastrous economic policies of the last Labour government - only to be hit by the perfect storm of Brexit, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

It was he who made sure those who were unable to work during the pandemic still received salaries under his furlough scheme.

I can’t help drawing a comparison between what happened to Mr Sunak last Thursday and what happened to Churchill in 1945.

Both men served the country well during exceptionally difficult times and were kicked in the teeth by an ungrateful nation once the danger was over.

But Sir Keir Starmer is now PM and I can’t wait to see how he responds when his union paymasters start demanding payment for their help in handing him the key to the kingdom.

Bob Readman

The numbers tell quite a story

We have the results of the general election, a clear and decisive win for Labour, just as predicted.

I believe these results will be debated and quoted for very many years to come.

Why, you may ask when the results are so clear cut?

The answer as always lies in the detail.

Looking at the turnout, that is the percentage of registered voters that actually voted, it was about 60%, over 7% down against 2019.

This despite all the advertising and the importance of this election.

Was it indifference, people thinking it was a foregone conclusion, need for identification or something else?

The answer could affect the way future elections are fought.

The Conservatives have most to consider as their percentage vote fell by 20%, but where did these votes go?

They did not all go to Labour as their share only increased by 1.6%. The winners are mainly the Liberal Democrats and the Reform Party whose share between them increased nearly 27%.

These figures would suggest the next election could be more dramatic than that just held depending on both the actions of the government and attitude of those in opposition.

It is interesting to consider what the position would have been if proportional representation of some kind had been in place.

If this had been the case the results would have been: Labour 219; Conservatives 154; Liberal Democrats 79 and Reform 93.

With the problems surrounding forming coalitions, perhaps it is better we have a first-past-the-post system.

Brian Barnard

Be careful with voting reform

After every general election held in this country, there are calls from those who did not get the result they wanted for some form of proportional representation.

Under any PR system, an enforced compromise means almost nobody in the country gets what they voted for.

Under the first-past-the-post system we use, it is usually the party which gets most votes which gets most MPs.

PR serves only to allow niche parties to gain influence greater than they deserve.

And that can have adverse consequences; we are seeing this in Israel at the moment where a religiously extremist party is calling the shots and exercising a strong influence on the government which cannot ignore it without being brought down.

Imagine a Britain where the Socialist Workers’ Party or a pro-Gaza Muslim Party could bring down a Labour government, or Reform could do the same to a Conservative one if the government didn’t bow down to their demands.

Is that what we want? Traditionally in our country, both Labour and Conservative parties have been a coalition of politically left or right views, within which more extreme views can be heard but can wield no real influence.

Hopefully, now Labour has shown it can win big on first past the post, the subject of PR can be dropped for the next five years.

Bob Britnell

‘None’ idea is a non-starter

Lesley Sharp (letters, July 4) asks for a “none of the above” option when selecting an MP.

Normally this would be a reasonable request.

Indeed, some voters write this very sentence on the paper.

However, there were eight candidates on the ballot paper in Sittingbourne and Sheppey - more choice than ever before.

In 1970, as part of the old Faversham constituency, there were only two for Sittingbourne voters to choose from.

I don’t know if Lesley knows all eight personally, but I have to ask how many candidates people want before being able to make a choice - 15, 25 or more?

And if Lesley is dissatisfied with the political and electoral system, then why not vote for a candidate who agrees?

Keith Nevols

‘Silly’ PR makes no sense at all

So once again, the silly idea of having “none of the above” on ballot papers has surfaced (letters, July 4) as it does at every election, with those who make this suggestion never saying who or what they would be prepared to vote for.

Canterbury recently had six candidates vying to be its MP, ranging in outlook from Green to Reform, with other shades of political opinion in between.

How much choice do some people want before they condescend to vote?

More importantly, what if in future, enough people chose an available “none” option to make an election invalid?

Who would run the country then? The armed forces? The royal family? Civil servants? Bankers and lawyers? Anyone else who fancied having a go at it?

Whether or not they did a good job, they wouldn't have been voted into office, so might think they need never be voted out.

Be careful what you wish for - it might just happen.

Karen Lane

Electoral reform is in dire need

The Liberal Democrats get 12% of the vote and 72 seats. Reform gets 14% of the vote and five seats. The House of Commons is in the same dire need of change (small case "reform") as in 1832.

Which party will be first to support proportional representation?

Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves promise to rip up the planning regulations and build everywhere.

Even on our precious farmland? Where is our food to come from? From imports, which may be expensive, and may be produced to standards which we would not choose for ourselves?

Reeves is keen on "growth", but surely sustainable growth means improved productivity?

Maybe her core belief is "malnutrition productivity", in which case those of us who disagree should form a protest group.

Just as all of us are entitled to our own opinions but not to our own facts (as if the two were easy to disentangle), Starmer and Reeves are entitled to their own economics, but not to their own biology.

Rosemary Sealey

‘Thankfully that is over for now’

Thankfully, the electioneering has now been put to bed and all the TV debates between the various party leaders deriding each others’ policies and trumpeting their own has run its course.

A new Prime Minister has taken up residence in No10 and one can only wonder if he is going to make a positive difference to the lives of the British people or fail to live up to expectations like so many other leaders have done in the past.

If Starmer delivers on the raft of promises he’d made during the campaign, then it will be regarded as the first occasion such a thing has happened.

With such a large majority, he has the mandate to implement his manifesto, but that being said, the problems he’s inherited from the last government will be a monumental task to overcome.

Michael Smith

How would your household work?

A household has an income and spending.

If it overspends it can borrow.

The riskier the borrower, the higher the interest rate.

The government is exactly the same.

It has income (called taxes) and spending (called spending).

If it overspends it can borrow.

In 2023/4 the government income was £1,100 billion (round sum).

Its spending was £1,200 billion, the highest rate of taxes since 1945.

In 2023/4 it borrowed £100 billion.

Of the spending £200 billion was on health, £125 billion on pensions, £90 billion on interest on EXISTING debt, and so on.

And there is a clamour for more spending, more taxes and more debt. Dream on. How would your household react?

David Northcroft

QE has damaged our economy

Despite all the election debates this past six weeks, no one wanted to talk about the role of Quantitative Easing (QE) in the UK’s current financial mess.

Yet, more money was spent on QE than on Covid, Brexit or Ukraine.

Under the QE programme, the Bank of England (BoE) spent £900 billion of money it did not have to buy back bonds it had issued because it did not have any money!

It was akin to a ‘pump and dump’ share-fraud scheme except that it neglected to cash out while it was winning.

Initially it made money as decreasing interest rates meant its borrowing costs were below the bond interest rates and, in addition the value of the bonds had increased.

However, the BoE neglected to liquidate its holdings before the inevitable collapse of bond prices when interest rates began to rise to combat the inflation that QE had caused.

Consequently, the BoE now owns a shed-load of bonds which have incurred losses of up to 65% of their value and which pay an interest rate significantly lower than the bank’s borrowing costs.

If it sells the bonds it will crystallise these massive losses. If it holds them to maturity it will incur significant borrowing costs for decades to come.

Currently, it is selling off some of the bonds in Quantitative Tightening (QT) and allowing others to mature.

Now there are reports that the BoE will pause QT to avoid crystallizing these losses, thereby creating some £11 billion fictitious headroom to help the incoming Labour government finance its programmes.

Consequently, neither the Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democratic parties have any interest in explaining the role of QE and how much it is costing taxpayers.

Derek Wisdom