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

Is Starmer holding his nose over Elphicke?

I was as surprised as everyone else to learn that Natalie Elphicke defected to the Labour Party.

More shocking, however, was that Labour seems to have welcomed her with open arms!

Natalie Elphicke is a hard-right Tory; her values are not aligned with Labour’s and so their acceptance of her is gobsmacking. Is Starmer simply holding his nose to demonstrate to right-wing voters that they can switch to Labour – and the end justifies the means?

One has to wonder what is in it for Natalie. She could have continued her term as an independent MP and stood down at the next election.

What does Labour even stand for? They are very light on policy, relying instead of missions and buzzwords like ‘strong and stable economy’ and ‘taking back our streets’. There isn’t much being done apart from photo opportunities in front of the union flag and repetitive chants of ‘service and patriotism’. That’s all well and good, but we are in a mess and need radical, transformative policies to fix it, not just ‘more of the same’ with a different coloured rosette.

As the Green Party, we know what we are for and what we are against. We understand that the threats to economic, social and environmental wellbeing are part of the same problem, and recognise that solving one of these crises can’t be achieved without solving the others.

People are realising that Labour and Conservatives are two sides of the same coin. There is very little to distinguish one from the other – and this has never been more evident than now, with Keir Starmer welcoming Natalie Elphicke to his fold.

Christine Oliver, Green Party

Damage to Tories is self-inflicted

There is no mystery about the causes of the disastrous performance by the Conservative Party in the local elections.

In 2019 the British people showed their enthusiasm for Brexit, and for Boris Johnson personally, but the bulk of the parliamentary party, who never really supported the former, appeased its vociferous opponents and allowed nonsense about cake to cause Boris to be removed. The leadership has made continual promises but never actually implemented them, and even now many of the MPs insist on advocating being a centre, or even centre, left, party, when clearly their opponents already occupy that ground.

These people are not conservatives, but social democrats, who have more in common with their supposed opponents than they do with the ordinary conservative voters. They now face nemesis, as the electorate are tired of unfulfilled promises, and cowardly retreats.

Policies concerning such vital matters as the still incomplete proper implementation of Brexit, the ending of mass immigration, a massive increase in defence spending, and the reindustrialisation of the UK should be the proper concern of conservatives, yet we know they will all be ignored by the careerists at Westminster. These will not be enacted by the current leadership, whose only policy seems to be that of Dickens’ Mr Micawber that ‘something will turn up’.

I suggest that, if the party wishes to recover, then it should be Suella Braverman as PM, Priti Patel Home Secretary, Kemi Badenoch Chancellor, and, if he’s willing, and following a quick appointment to the Lords, Nigel Farage as Foreign Secretary, with Boris returning, either via a by-election or as a peer, to take charge of a genuine levelling up. Tom Tugendhat would be a good choice for Defence Secretary, as he is an ex-Army man who recognises the need to rearm to face up to our enemies.

We know that Labour, or any of the other left wing offerings, will be worse, which is why voters should turn to Reform, a true right of centre party. The current Conservative party is hopeless.

Colin Bullen

Voters are sick of ‘culture wars’

The time for those of us on the progressive left to focus on the failings of the government has passed. The voters get it and want change. What they want now is an indication of how things might be better.

As Bill Clinton constantly reminded himself, "it's the economy stupid".

We need to revive all of our public services, including the government itself. Some reforms might help but the funding can only be there if we improve the economic performance of the country and in so doing raise the living standards of all, not just a minority.

Both public and private sectors need more investment to achieve growth. This needs to be forward looking, technically innovative and environmentally sustainable. The investment by the government has to be in infrastructure and skills, enabling the public sector to invest in higher productivity.

When growth appears it needs to go into our public services and into real levelling up, not just isolated projects however nice to have, but in raising the prospects of all communities. Everyone deserves more for working hard.

All of which is entirely relevant here, where for too long investment has been limited to lower-skilled employment.

And what the voters really are not interested in is so-called culture wars, dividing communities and fostering hostility. It's simple, we want to be better off and benefit as a whole from decent public services.

Roger Truelove, Labour Party

Smaller developments are the answer

Rosemary Sealey's call to build on brownfield land first (letters last week) has been conventional thinking for years but eventually you run out of brownfield land.

Rosemary cites the availability of the car parks for development but that means either decking over them with flats which would be enormously expensive or doing away with the parking that serves the shops and businesses.

Dave Wilson misrepresents my position, he thinks I start from a "flawed assumption" that we need to increase home ownership rather than just providing more houses. I think he and I put our Xs in different positions on the ballot paper but I also think we both agree that we need more social housing as well as more housebuilding generally.

It doesn't all have to be big new soulless estates, small can be beautiful and, as I've written before, small developments scattered around the countryside on unused bits of land could be part of the answer. That would also provide work for small builders and developers. Of course the "green lobby" will object because the occupiers will be car-dependent but the reality of life is that most families own a car and don't make decisions on where to live by the availability of easy-access public services.

Bob Britnell

Education system creates school transport problems

If your correspondent really believed that ‘children deserve the best we can give them’ (letters last week) she would think more deeply about what children need.

Our education system is not designed to develop the intellect, social awareness and personal qualities of young people. Why else would we have a competitive structure controlled by trusts which are unaccountable to the communities they serve?

Many pupils have to travel distances to school not because they live in remote areas but because of the competitive, selective system that has been created.

Two fundamental requirements are needed to provide the education system that our children deserve:

A structure of schools based in communities to which all children living in those communities attend. All schools would be of equal worth and meet the needs of all of their pupils.

The second requirement is a curriculum and method of teaching that is geared towards developing all aspects of a child’s nature in order that each child grows into a self-confident, fully developed personality able to contribute to the general well-being of the community.

If within that system children need to be provided with transport to reach their neighbourhood school then, of course, it would be provided.

Ralph A. Tebbutt

University teaches us to challenge the ‘truth’

Colin Bullen accuses people who do not share his worldview of being ignorant bigots.

He appears to have written this without the least sense of irony, so convinced is he that he is correct and those that might take a different view must therefore be 'ignorant' and 'bigoted'. Yet, the rest of his latest letter shows very clearly that he richly deserves that accusation to be laid at his own door.

It is not clear from his latest contribution whether he actually did attend university or was just 'of an age to'. If he had attended university, one of the main things that any worthwhile course should have taught him, as it did me back in the 1960s, was that so-called 'objective truth' actually rarely exists.

Almost all 'truths' can be challenged and debated - that is what higher education is all about and how progress is made in human knowledge and understanding.

This is the case whether it be in the sciences, commerce, arts or the humanities. Human history is noted for the number of great minds that challenged 'objective truth' - Galileo, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for starters.

The educated approach is one which is evidence-based, founded on quiet rational debate, in-depth study and a willingness to accept that you might actually be wrong.

There is a world of difference between that and the extreme right-wing political slogans, sweeping generalisations, inaccuracies and cliches which Colin Bullen chooses to use. His nonsensical comments about 'brain washing', 'warped ideology', 'basically useless degrees'' and the rest of the contents of his latest diatribe need to be seen in that light.

K. Chapman

Bigotry works both ways

In one sweep of an utterly un-nuanced diatribe, your correspondent Colin Bullen calls for a "complete root and branch reform" of higher education.

His wild opinions conflate holders of "useless" degrees with arts graduates who are, variously, left-wing warped ideologues, pro-terrorist, antisemitic, brain-washed, irrational bigots.

All because, it seems, that some of them dare question the proportionality of Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank. However, there was only one obvious bigot in his letter, and that was the man who signed himself Colin Bullen.

Brian Moore

Most marchers just want peace

It is unfortunate that Colin Bullen is unable to take a balanced view on marchers supporting the Palestinian cause.

His description of these as supporting terrorists only applies to a limited number, a clear majority opposing the mass killings in Gaza and the vengeful behaviour of Israeli settlers and soldiers in the illegally occupied West Bank.

Bill Ridley

Soft sentences are encouraging crime

Have our criminals ever had it so good?

There appears to be a more tolerant approach by judges to forsake jail sentences and substitute them with suspended sentences and community services.

Our courts are making a mockery of the law by failing to impose detentions on those who flout it.

The worst part of leniency is that it perpetuates a climate for offenders to become less restrained in adopting their nefarious activities.

They draw strength in the knowledge that if they are caught and brought to trial, their punishment would be trifling.

Even those doing time are currently having their jail terms reduced in order to ease the load on overcrowded prisons.

The government must be held to account for not building more prisons. Plans for 20,000 additional prison places in England and Wales won't be complete until 2030.

M. Smith

Infamous P&O Ferries in need of a re-brand

Peter Hebblethwaite the CEO of P&O Ferries has again made headlines by admitting to a committee of MPs that he could not live on the £4.87/hr income many of the crew receive on board the P&O ferries sailing out of Dover.

Mr Hebblethwaite has protested that without the measures he directed to reduce staff costs, the company would have not been viable and that he was also protecting the jobs of the remaining shore-based staff.

The response to that claim is to point out that if P&O Ferries can only operate viably by sacking all the long-serving seafarers and replacing them with agency crew on inferior terms and conditions, it might have been better had the name of P&O Ferries died instead, because now it only lives on in infamy.

The remaining staff must also be fearful of what happened to the seagoing staff, as something similar can also be visited upon them.

It would be better all round if the name was replaced with an identity that more accurately reflects the ownership. If we can tolerate Irish Ferries working out of Dover, then either Cyprus or Dubai ferries would not be difficult to accept.

Richard Styles