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

Improve bus service to save our countryside

For much of the 21st century, motorists have complained that they are being picked on in terms of taxation, speeding fines and parking fees/fines, etc.

No news organisation or social media network can go far wrong by accentuating the negative in terms of car ownership, usually with a hapless council in its sights.

The Clarksonian fringe are never bashful in coming forward to vent their spleen about 'the war against the motorist'.

In the early years of motoring, Kenneth Grahame invented the character of Toad of Toad Hall, the self-regarding amphibian motorist, as a way of pointing to the changes coming to the countryside of old England and its highways and byways.

The most put-upon minority, however, are bus passengers, who at least in Kent have suffered high fares, cutbacks in service, poor reliability and decrepit rolling stock. The so-called bus service improvement plan in Kent, has been an abject failure, with reduced services and increasing growth of mainly rural, bus deserts, where those unable to access a motor vehicle are left isolated, as they once were, when Wind in the Willows was written.

Many of our town centres have pushed the bus into side streets, where passengers wander like lost souls to seek increasingly rare bus services. If bus services were treated like our birdlife, there would be an outcry but instead we hear the voices of the 21st century 'Toadocracy', which complains about urban sprawl, yet demands to be able to go everywhere by car and then park for free if possible.

A bus can replace up to 70 cars, within a space taken up by two or possibly three cars at most. If you want to cut congestion, rebuild the bus network and encourage modal transfer from car to bus/tram/train/cycle/walking.

If we want to save the countryside, cut congestion, cut pollution and reduce carbon emissions, public transport in some form is the way ahead. The bus is the cheapest and most flexible mode in that option.

Richard Styles

Will road charges pay for Labour’s plans?

Terry Hudson’s letter last week claimed that no party is speaking out in favour of car drivers, so in the wake of Labour’s announcements about its plans to expand ULEZs across the country and the extension of other potentially punitive measures to discourage car use, he must be absolutely horrified.

It will be no consolation to him or anyone else who relies on their car for getting around, particularly those in the many rural areas of Kent where public transport does not meet their needs.

How would a Labour government fund any of its proposed policies if it does not intend to raise income tax, National Insurance or VAT? Perhaps it is going to be by raising revenue by a method that is not deemed to be a ‘tax’.

For example, everyone knows that our roads are plagued with potholes and many miles in need of resurfacing, but to bring them back to where they should be will cost billions. So, what better way than to introduce road pricing? It will hit working families and businesses hard, but it is not a ‘tax’.

Charging for congestion is deemed to be a charge, not a tax. Likewise, charging for pollution.

The scope for expanding these to other areas outside London is already occurring but is currently operating in very few places. The new Labour government could go full tilt in legislating for these to be introduced nationwide before the end of its term in office.

Introducing charges for energy supply and planning consents are just two examples for which they could introduce enormous fees. Indeed, the list of areas for which they could introduce new fees is almost endless and none of them could be labelled a ‘tax’.

Now it seems these are the type of things that are going to drive much of the way a Labour government intends to go and unless there is a massive shift in voting intention, the great majority of the electorate are sleepwalking into a potential socialist money-grabbing nightmare.

C. Aichgy

A short cut

Instead of issuing a list of roads closed, would it be easier for Kent Highways to just tell us which ones are open?

Robert Dobson

Stuck with Brock because of Brexit

“We need an alternative to Op Brock" says Cllr Roger Gough. So what would he suggest?

Brock was a strategy born of the prospect of a no-deal Brexit and now we're stuck with it. Brexit exemplifies the proverb ‘be careful what you wish for’. Repent at leisure.

John Wellard

16-year-olds too immature to vote

If Keir Starmer forms our next government, one of his aims is to give 16-year-olds the vote.

It's incomprehensible that such an idea should be entertained let alone implemented and enshrined in law.

Sixteen-year-olds are still at an early stage of their development - the brain isn't fully mature until around the age of 25 - and they have, in truth, little comprehension or interest in politics. It is a topic that runs counter to their preoccupations which excludes reading newspapers or giving much thought to world affairs.

Their lack of maturity and perception should disqualify them from voting. Moreover, few would bother exercising that right unless they are coerced by a family member into voting for their chosen candidate. They are still perceived as children and would therefore have no real independence from their guardians.

Taking time out to make a trip to the polling station would be the last thing on their mind.

M. Smith

Benefit cap is cruel and immoral

The letter writer C.Aichgy was so desperate to reject my suggestion that a future Labour government scrap the two-child benefit limit that, for an analogous situation he drew an unconvincing parallel to the Callaghan-led Labour government which 50 years ago went to the IMF for a loan to prop up government finances after high public spending.

It is true that my suggestion would cost £2.5 billion per year but in one fell swoop it would lift half a million children out of poverty.

The truth is that C. Aichgy’s letter wasn’t really about public expenditure at all, but his attitude towards, what he would no doubt call the ‘undeserving poor’. This was revealed when he stated that if the present cap was lifted this would mean ‘irresponsible people can have more children than they can afford and become totally reliant on state handouts paid for by hard working taxpayers’. There we have it in a nutshell in that sweeping generalisation made without a shred of evidence.

C. Aichgy also sarcastically suggests, in relation to the cap, that I didn’t suggest where it should be reset and asks: ‘Should it be four? Or six? Or perhaps it should be no cap at all’.

In reply I would say no cap at all. It would bring us back into line with all of our European neighbours with the exception of Cyprus, Romania and Spain, which restrict benefits after three or four children. I say ‘back into line’ because before 2017 there was no cap before it was introduced by the Cameron-led Conservative government.

In 2019 the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee recommended that the two-child limit be abandoned, citing concern that it would increase child poverty and disproportionately affect minority groups and this is exactly what it has done.

Sir Keir Starmer was in favour of scrapping the cap before he became Labour leader but has opted for keeping the cap so, disappointingly, there is no sign of an abolition promise in Labour’s election manifesto.

Those like me who think that it is a cruel and immoral policy can only hope that if Labour’s policies to expand the economy, if it wins power, are successful, then perhaps the necessary £2.5 billion will be available to right this patent wrong.

John Cooper

Time to spend on our pub

C. Aichgy believes I'm envious of the rich in wanting to restore our NHS, public services and bring in a Universal Basic Income (UBI).

We've now had over 40 years of Thatcherite deregulation and privatisations which have led to our public services being run for profit and tax havening instead of the required investments, along with cuts upon cuts to services and rising prices. The sewage release debacles, bus and train prices and cuts, energy price hikes and much more are clear cases in point.

In the UK we've had 14 years of austerity which has hit working people the hardest with poor pay and conditions, rising food bank use and long NHS waiting lists.

So yes, we need to raise taxes on the highest earners and take a lead from former PM Gordon Brown's idea of a wartime-like effort to reverse our decline with ministries and the Treasury working in tandem to provide the investments required, albeit over time, to rebuild the public sector and create jobs.

As difficult as it may seem, the time is overdue to think outside the old economic boxes and create a better future for the many, not the tax-dodging rich.

Ray Duff

History is always being rewritten

In the 1650s, the great John Milton began his History of England describing the land of Albion as a desert occupied by giants who had laid waste to the land. While enjoying a feast, Brutus of Troy and his leaders were ambushed by these giants. They killed them all apart from Goemagog who was thrown off the cliffs of what is now Devon by Corenius.

Perhaps Colin Bullen thinks this version of history should still be taught in our schools? The fact is history, for obvious and often good reasons, is continuously rewritten. That’s not the only thing that changes in Devon. So do cream teas. They may originate in the 11th century but there would have been no tea leaves in Devon back then.

It is really low of Colin Bullen to have a swipe at a much-loved and hugely supported charity such as the National Trust, to make political points.

The charity was set up 130 years ago to look after nature, beauty and history for everyone including him. It costs the taxpayer nothing.

It has 12 times as many members as any political party in the UK and looks after nearly 250,000 hectares of land in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Large areas of this land are open to the public free of charge.

There is nobody who works for the National Trust who doesn’t love this nation, its history and its culture. To suggest otherwise is rather sad. It is a non-political organisation which is probably why it is just so genuinely popular.

Charles Bain Smith

We need MPs to speak up for children

The general election is in less than a month, so there’s a chance we’ll soon be seeing prospective Kent political candidates and their supporters on our high streets or knocking on our doors.

This gives us a chance to speak to individuals from all political parties about what they will do to support babies, children and young people in our communities.

We want to encourage political candidates to be a voice for children if they’re elected as our local MP.

Working at the NSPCC, I know the impact abuse and neglect can have on a child, but I also know how quality support can help to keep children safe and help those who have experienced abuse to recover.

Children need to be protected at home, in school, online and in our local community. That’s why I’m asking everyone to urge political parties to prioritise preventing abuse and neglect so that every child can grow up safe and healthy.

Please join with the NSPCC to ensure our new Kent Members of Parliament speak up for children. To find out more about the NSPCC’s calls for a new UK Government, go to the NSPCC website.

Hayley Garner, NSPCC campaigns manager for London and South East