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
‘Spend now’ culture leads to poverty trap
Sky-rocketing and unaffordable welfare costs are the natural consequence of the policies of successive governments over the past 60 years.
Ever since the end of rationing, governments have increasingly discouraged ‘saving for a rainy day’ or for retirement and have encouraged a culture of dependency on the government.
It does not make sense to save money when, in real terms (after inflation and income tax) your savings will be worth less at the end of each year. Then, when you die, the government will take a significant portion of your savings (and soon any money remaining in your pension pot) courtesy of ever-increasing amounts of inheritance tax.
Governments, with their short-term thinking, want you to spend now to boost the economy today, even if that means that you will become dependent and a financial drain on the government when you retire.
The worst off are those who have saved just enough to disqualify themselves from universal (or pension) credit by a few pounds because they will then lose eligibility for the Winter Fuel Payment and other benefits.
This is the poverty trap because at this point, a small increase in income can actually make you poorer.
This situation continues to get worse with taxes and financial policies making it less and less wise to save.
Quantitative Easing, with a decade of interest rates below inflation, was a massive attack on savings and pension plans. Now the current government’s policies are encouraging the liquidation of pension plans to avoid inheritance tax, meaning that the number of elderly poor is likely to increase.
Derek Wisdom
Identity cards could tackle illegal immigration
As a free-born Englishman and a Conservative to boot, I am naturally predisposed to object to compulsory identity cards; on the other hand, the world is changing and a lot of it seems to want to live in the UK.
Although some speak of England as a “nation of immigrants”, that is absolute tosh. There has been no major movement of incomers since the Danish invasion in the Anglo-Saxon times. There was an influx from the continent post 1066 but that was relatively small scale, displacing the Anglo-Saxon nobility and introducing serfdom, which was nothing more than a form of slavery.
What we have witnessed over the last 20 years or more is an influx of people from around the world seeking a better life and you can’t really blame them for that; but we were totally unprepared for the number of people whose backgrounds are totally different to ours, culturally, in religion, in ethnicity, in attitudes, in so many ways.
And the speed of arrivals has meant that our society has been unable to adjust to that rapid pace of change, leaving many uneasy and uncomfortable with a country that is changing in a way they do not like. It is this that Reform has tapped into.
What makes matters worse is that the host population know that many of these people should not be here; they entered the country illegally or overstayed visas.
Many are working when not allowed to and that has been a great pull factor of this country; you can find “off the radar” employment easily.
This is where identity cards would come in. If we had identity cards on a national database the immigration authorities could easily raid hot food takeaways, hand car washes, barbers and home delivery outfits, all of which we know have been accused of employing “illegal” workers and even sometimes implicated in money laundering.
Illegal workers could easily then be found; of course, we would then have to reform the Immigration Tribunals so that they occasionally allowed people to be deported.
Bob Britnell
Reform will struggle to stay popular
I thought that the modus operandi with all disruptor groups was to act fast, smash up the existing structure and build anew from the rubble.
It seems I was wrong with Reform at Kent County Council.
So far, all we have seen is a pointless row about flags, fake news about diversity training, low-traffic neighbourhoods and unsubstantiated claims emanating from a group of IT specialists.
If being on poor terms with your staff over their remuneration, contractors over their contracts and central government over everything is a recipe for success, then KCC will do well. However, when you are on your way up, it is wise to make friends, as you will need them on the inevitable way down.
Ms Kemkaran is seeking more time to implement the local government reorganisation, which all councils agreed to in principle. She states that KCC needs time to inform and consult the ‘people’.
What they want is potholes fixed, social care fixed, budgets balanced and council tax kept as low as possible. Unfortunately, not that simple in practice.
We have seen what the original Doge did in the USA, which was to achieve maximum disruption for little gain, while destroying the reputation of Musk, its originator.
To repeat this madness, driven by IT, will achieve the same outcome.
The KCC budget-making season looms large and for that you need a functioning council, with staff and councillors in some kind of accord.
KCC has to set a budget early next year. There will be a lot of hard work where difficult, not to say painful, decisions have to be made.
This is what the Conservatives found and so will Reform. If they can remain popular while making those difficult decisions it will be almost miraculous, but to do so, they must meet, discuss, debate and decide.
Richard Styles
Trade deal with US is a betrayal
Am I the only person who squirms with shame every time I hear that the UK is almost alone in having secured a ‘limited’ trade deal with the USA?
I cringe every time I see footage of our PM, Sir Keir Starmer, grinning inanely as he hands Donald Trump that invitation from King Charles to make a State Visit to the UK.
Being treated preferentially on trade by Trump is not a compliment, it is a betrayal of our friends and allies around the world.
Starmer is an appeaser, a fine example of that old adage about the man who feeds the crocodile in the hope that it will eat him last.
Bob Readman
‘De-escalation’ is the new appeasement
In the 1930s, those who did not want to confront the fascist powers constantly pursued appeasement, a policy which failed miserably and eventually plunged the world into the greatest war humanity has ever fought.
Today the watchword is de-escalation, which is merely an euphemism for another campaign of appeasement.
Unsurprisingly the obsessive Marxists of the Stop the War coalition are marching again, as it is their raison d’être to support our enemies whenever they can, while the authoritarian accomplices of Iran, such as Russia, China and North Korea pump out their normal anti-Western propaganda.
As ever, the BBC continues its one-sided reports and the metropolitan liberal elite can always be relied upon to support the wrong side.
If we want to survive in a dangerous world we must, as Shakespeare said in Henry V, stiffen the sinews and summon up the blood, not tamely allow international lawyers and lily-livered diplomats to undermine our position.
Colin Bullen
Humour goes a long way
If he wishes to be taken more seriously, I suggest Colin Bullen takes a leaf out of the greatest satire in the English language, Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels.
In this, by using ridicule and humour, Swift effectively attacked the Whig and Tory politicians of his day, the prime minister, Horace Walpole, the gentlemen scientists of the Royal Society and religious fanatics.
In this way, he got his audience, among the gentry, aristocrats and merchants of the time, to recognise the serious points he was making by laughing with him at his targets.
Swift knew that a little plate of laughter went much further than a cartload full of scaremongering.
John Cooper
Relax and enjoy the weather
Week after week, Colin Bullen finds yet another topic to gripe about.
Sure, there are plenty of things to grumble about but perhaps Colin, just once in a while, could look round at the glorious summer and the beautiful country we live in and accentuate the positives (there are plenty of them if one chooses to look).
Bill Ridley
Passengers being punished by peak fares
Transport for London (TfL) needs to abolish its weekday early-evening peak-fare period.
Various train operating companies have been forced, as a direct consequence of fares-and-ticketing integration with TfL, to impose a weekday early-evening peak-fare period (4pm to 7pm), when previously there was none at that time and it was off-peak at that time.
This has consequently caused many increases in travelling costs for rail users. Transport for London’s abolishing its weekday early-evening peak-fare period would allow the affected train operating companies to no longer be afflicted by this detrimental and inconvenient forced imposition.
For those who want to use the affected train operating companies, this is grossly inconvenient when one is making one’s plans/itinerary/schedule; it is grossly inconvenient when one is deciding when to leave and is highly detrimental to the wallets of passengers.
Not a temporary abolition by TfL. Not a one-day-per-week abolition by TfL. An unequivocal, outright permanent abolition.
In this particular instance, TfL’s own fares policy is causing passengers on certain non-TfL services to often be charged more, and to be inconvenienced.
Do the right thing, Sir Sadiq.
The cause being TfL’s own weekday early-evening peak-fare period.
Sadiq Khan, removing the cause of this detrimental introduction on National Rail services is in your gift because the Greater London Authority has purview in this matter, that being the continuance or otherwise of TfL’s own weekday early-evening peak-fare period.
Russell Underhill
Encourage cycling but not on the pavement
I note that there is funding for more urban cycling.
I am all for encouraging people to use their cars less and instead walk, use public transport or cycle, so long as cyclists stay on the road or cycle paths and do not cycle on pavements, endangering pedestrains.
Perhaps some of this funding could be set aside to enforce the no cycling on pavement law.
However, it is hoped that if there are improvements to urban cycling, pavement cyclists will realise that they have no excuse (not that they do anyway) to cycle on pavements and will adhere to the law.
J. Goldsmith
