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.

Keep tips open and save on consultants

I am writing regarding the announcement that Kent County Council is planning to close four council tips in Kent to save money.

During questioning about this in an interview on local TV, a councillor asked in desperation at being challenged, can anyone tell me what else we can do?

Well I can! Stop paying millions to consultants and use some of that money to keep tips open! This will also stop even more fly-tipping, which is what will happen if these plans go ahead.

Some years ago, when a previous KCC chief executive was being challenged on the huge salaries paid to top people in KCC, he said to attract and retain top brains to the council they had to pay well.

So, if Kent County Council employs the best people, why do they need consultants? To put it in context, the Prime Minister was paid £159,584 last year and the chief executive of Kent County Council, David Cockburn, more than £200,000. Who do you think deserves the higher salary?

So I reiterate, surely there is no need to spend millions on consultants when Kent County Council has the best brains working for it! I rest my case.

Marjorie Johnston

Labour leader is a let down

Keir Starmer is such a disappointment. The raft of recent policy announcements and reversals is just so…Conservative.

As a former lefty, activist lawyer myself, I had high hopes for Starmer – after all he provided legal support in McLibel case back in the late 90’s. As a law student I looked up to him then, but now I just see someone who is trying to out-Tory the Tories to get into power.

Starmer announced that building on greenbelt land will be given the go-ahead ‘backing the builders, not the blockers’. Here in Kent, too many villages and towns have already seen large-scale developments take place without the community infrastructure needed, like GP surgeries, nurseries and schools, not to mention bus services and cycling and walking networks.

We need councils and national government to work together to deliver homes people can afford to rent and buy, where we need them - not allow developers to chase ever-larger profits and ignore local needs. We need to protect valuable green space, reduce climate emissions, tackle fuel poverty and provide genuinely affordable, well-insulated houses in the right places.

Starmer’s U-turn on his commitment to scrap university tuition fees is betraying young people who already have low wages, high rents, rising cost of living and the climate and biodiversity chaos to contend with. Higher education is a public good and should be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, whilst university education is free in many countries, like Scotland, Germany and Sweden to name few. We shouldn’t be saddling our next generation of leaders with decades of debt.

By refusing to support proportional representation (PR), Starmer is opposing his own party membership and trade unions including Unison, Unite, and USDAW, all of whom back a move to PR. A PR system aims to ensure that every vote counts by matching parliamentarian numbers to percentage support for parties. England and Belarus are the only two countries in Europe that maintain the First Past The Post system. Starmer would like to keep us in that tired old paradigm.

The time has come for progressive parties to work cooperatively, to build a better society, to shift the focus from endless economic growth to living sustainably, within planetary boundaries, in a society where everyone’s views are represented. That can’t be done by trying to out-Tory the Tories.

Christine Oliver, Green Party

Tories deserve what they get

It was inevitable that the Conservatives would lose thousands of seats at the local council elections. It is probably a rehearsal for next year's general election.

The rot set in way back when they ousted Boris Johnson with the final 'stab in the back' from his trusted Chancellor. That is when the Tories committed political suicide. Those MPs, many of whom were 'remainers', took their revenge because Boris had achieved what the public had voted for.

I just wish Nigel Farage had started a new party for the council elections - he would have had a landslide.

Betty Renz

Polarised opinions don’t help society move forward

I read with interest the measured response from Mr Tebbutt in regards to my letter about the Culture War and the concept of a ‘middle ground’ between left wing and right wing.

Firstly, I agree with him on how most of what we, the public, perceive of this Culture War comes from the information gathered and distributed mostly by the tabloid press.

This is a potentially flawed approach because the individuals reporting these stories will have the capacity, inevitably, to bring their own perceptions and opinions.

All too often I see journalists, politicians and ‘podcasters’ reading through stories, pointing to one and essentially saying “You see this? THIS makes me angry, therefore it must make you angry too!”. To which my reply now is simply, why?

Why do I need to get angry with THAT particular story? Why is it so essential to you that I do? Is it for my benefit or yours? If I do get angry with a story (which happens occasionally) it’s because I choose to get angry, not because I’m told to get angry by someone else.

I both understand and realise the rationale of his Nye Bevan reference but it was suggesting there were only two valid options available to everyone – left and right, or liberalism and conservatism.

Mr Tebbutt, judging by his letter, has himself chosen liberalism and although I understand the nature of that statement I was merely trying to suggest a third possible option (ie: the middle).

The problem I feel is that everything just feels so polarised now. It’s either good or bad, right or wrong, with no real grey area between the two. I feel this is something that perhaps we, as a community, might want to start thinking about more seriously. I know I intend to.

James Solly

Bureaucrats have taken over from politicians

This country is rapidly ceasing to be a democracy, as arrogant bureaucrats stand in the way of elected representatives of the people attempting to implement policies of which the former disapprove.

When my mother was in the Service in the 1920s, the civil servant's raison d'etre was to give advice to elected representatives, while providing an efficient administration. It was never part of their duties, for political reasons, to oppose actively, and even to obstruct policy. The elevation of bureaucrats above elected politicians is of course the basic system operated by the EU, and is why so many of our own officials so love the latter.

Today we see the spectacle of senior staff actively undermining ministers whose policies with which they disagree, most egregiously in the fields of relations with the EU, and immigration. In order to achieve their ends they attack individual ministers personally, alleging that the maintenance of a normal chain of command is bullying, and have succeeded in causing Prime Ministers to back down, thus forcing resignations from those they particularly despise.

This happened with Priti Patel, with Dominic Raab, and now they are turning their guns on Suella Braverman, strangely all exceedingly competent Brexiteers. The renewed charge against Boris Johnson, is also being driven by officials taking it upon themselves to report a senior politician to the police, without even contacting him beforehand. The fate of Dominic Raab also makes clear that we now have a PM who is prepared to throw anyone under the bus, rather than take a decisive stand against the left liberal establishment, of which the senior Civil Service is so prominent a member.

We now see that this behaviour by unelected, imperious and prejudiced functionaries extends to organisations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, whose chairman, Baroness Falkner, is being subjected to similar attacks by her own officials, alleging bullying and harassment, but clearly motivated by the latter’s opposition to her valid views on transgender issues.

Unless they are confronted, the so called mandarins will ensure that whatever the electorate may wish, policies unpalatable to them will be sidelined. As far as the transgender lobby is concerned it is past time for ordinary people to stand up to them, and say that they will no longer tolerate their absurdities, which do not reflect the views of the vast majority of the people.

Colin Bullen

Woke agenda extending to the animal kingdom

The extent to which the loony left goes to maintain an absurd position never ceases to amaze me, and this was exemplified by Ray Duff’s recent comments re: animals and transgenderism. Mr Duff has evidently fallen into the usual anthropomorphic pit hole of attributing human characteristics to animals. Something one should never do.

In the animal kingdom the main function of sex is reproduction, not recreation, and the sexual differences that exist are largely the product of evolution over many millennia. The contrary cases he cites - while not unknown - are often the result of animals reared in artificial environments or through isolation or inadequate socialisation.

The close same-sex bonding that is found in some animals (especially social ones) does not constitute evidence that they are necessarily ‘gay’; it’s more often a defence stratagem to strengthen the pack against outsiders.

This is not just basic biology but common sense. Up to a few years ago no one would have questioned this. But all this is up in the air now thanks to the wacky woke agenda. Everything has to be rewritten to keep them happy.

The fact remains (human) sex is binary as only male sperm can fertilise the female egg (as is the case with the most closely related animals). No amount of sloganizing from Mr Duff and his ilk can change this.

John Helm

Inaction over climate is criminal

Mr Bob Britnell suggests that another correspondent ignores the consequences of violent protests that "is to often turn the public against the protestors and their beliefs." He then uses the Just Stop Oil Dartford Bridge and Animal Rising activists’ actions as examples.

Perhaps he is not aware that both groups use non-violent direct action as part of a tool-kit of civil disobedience to protest and, although not violent, some of the actions can be disruptive, gaining more media and public attention about the facts of climate emergency and government inaction.

The UK government signed up to and approved all reports by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its own Climate Change Committee (CCC). The reports present critical facts about the climate emergency affecting everyone and the deadly consequences of continued inaction by governments to the future of life on Earth.

The reports unequivocally state that urgent action is needed now. Inaction by the government means it will become ever more difficult to take action that will improve the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the land we live on and the survival of life on earth for us and future generations.

The government knows the facts. Its inaction is criminal. Media outlets that do not present the facts nor challenge government inaction are culpable.

I suggest that the actions taken by protesters, including myself, are not based on 'inner convictions or beliefs', but are the result of serious concerns about facts presented by the IPCC and the CCC scientists and government inaction on those facts.

If the climate emergency is as Mr Britnell suggests, fundamentally irrelevant to most people's lives, I suggest that the reason Mr Britnell argues as he does is that either he has not read or has not understood the IPCC and CCC reports.

More disturbingly, not only is the UK government not telling the public the truth about the climate emergency, it is not meeting its statutory obligations with regard to its commitments to the the 2015 Paris agreement and the IPCC and CCC climate emergency reports. Unsurprisingly, the public is not taking the crisis seriously either.

Immediate, meaningful action needs to be taken by government at all levels.

Julie Mecoli

Climate protests are worth the risk

Your correspondent Colin Bullen is wrong when he says that the Suffragettes are not an appropriate example for modern day protestors.

As an active supporter of Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, The Law of Public Nuisance, as an example, provides that you must not disrupt the public in the course of their lawful activity, and this is the crucial bit, without lawful excuse. I would contend that I did have lawful excuse and that I deserve my day in court, which is why I don't run away but accept the full consequences of my actions. You can like it or not, but that is what the law says. This is actually what the Suffragettes did, and is what climate protestors are doing today.

My case is supported by the fact that in a substantial number of Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil cases, after listening to the evidence the jury acquits or fails to reach a majority verdict, as in the case held last week at the Inner London Crown Court.

He goes on to assert that we climate protestors would probably not support Brexiteers if they undertook the same action. He is correct, I would not support their cause. If, however, he took direct action and willingly accepted the consequences, with all the judicial jeopardy that that entails (arrest, being locked up for a day in a police cell, magistrates, crown and other courts, fines and prison) then that is his right as a citizen and I wish him good luck.

Somehow, I don't think failing to repeal a few EU Laws, albeit important ones will get him to take that kind of risk in the way that the climate catastrophe killing hundreds of millions, and creating billions of refugees makes people like myself take that kind of risk.

Phil Laurie