Home   Kent   News   Article

Opinion: Kent’s ‘devolution revolution’, removal of fact-checkers on Facebook and climate change among topics tackled in letters to KentOnline editor

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

‘Devolution is not democracy and is, in fact, more akin to a dictatorship’
‘Devolution is not democracy and is, in fact, more akin to a dictatorship’

Don’t leave voters behind in rush to reform

Following Kent County Council’s rapid decision to seek to become a mayoral strategic authority and create an unknown number of unitary councils - probably three or four - to replace the 12 district councils and Medway, the entire future of local government across Kent is up for debate.

The speed at which events are moving is, to say the least, incredible for the public sector.

But in the haste for long overdue and beneficial changes the government and existing councils should not lose sight of the principle that all this is intended to improve public engagement with local councils. The current vacuum where public debate and discussion should be is both unacceptable and avoidable.

KCC’s leadership very clearly does not represent the views of people across all parts of Kent. East Kent in particular is now evidently of a different political hue to the west.

So it is important that the people in this area, as well as in mid-Kent and along the north coast, have the chance to express their views on which geography they feel most aligned with before any final decisions are made.

Some voters think that all this is a stitch-up to preserve the jobs of local councillors. I don’t share that view, not least because the government says it aims to have fewer councillors, and in effect both KCC and Medway will be abolished by these changes.

But to counter that suspicion, political leaders across the board must engage with the public very quickly. There may not be time for in-depth consultation, which probably wouldn’t change much in any case given the limited options available. But there is time to explain, persuade and, above all, to listen to what the people of our area want.

That process should have begun already but it is beyond question that it needs to start now.

Dave Wilson

Geography of new authorities must make sense

Last time the reorganisation of local government was mooted, I worked in the planning department at Canterbury, many of us thought there was great deal of logic in creating an East Kent Unitary Authority as the coastal towns all shared similar issues.

This would have brought together Canterbury, Thanet and possibly Dover, with a good case to add Faversham from Swale, with Sittingbourne and Sheppey going into an enlarged Medway group.

It was not to be. Each political party looked and considered that they could not guarantee control of such a new body and ditched the idea.

Geographically there are some anomalies in Kent. For example why is Sandwich in Dover District and why is Malling in with Tonbridge when its closest links are with Maidstone. These are accidents of history.

Logical Unitary Authorities would obviously link Dartford and Gravesham, that's the easy one; after that it's more complex; Swale with Medway - or Swale in with Canterbury and Thanet as a North Kent Coastal Authority, there would be sense to that.

Dover and Folkestone are an obvious pairing but with a lot of rural hinterland they have things in common with Ashford, although you could make the same case for putting Ashford in with Maidstone.

Personally I look at the proximity of the urban areas of Medway and Maidstone and think that works and that could absorb Malling from Tonbridge, to which it has no obvious links. West Kent is easier, with Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells in a neat row on the west side of the county.

So I can get it down from 13 authorities to five, North Kent (Dartford/Gravesham), Mid Kent (Medway/Maidstone), North Kent Coast (Thanet,/Canterbury/Swale), South Kent (Ashford/Folkestone and Hythe/Dover), West Kent (Sevenoaks/Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells).

A bit of tinkering around the edges and it works geographically. Of course, new authorities would probably want less prosaic names, less geographic but something that doesn't imply that some areas are subjugated to others, that's always dogged any local government re-organisation.

What do others think?

Bob Britnell

Councils don’t need government stooges

A unitary authority or local governments? A difficult choice and, presumably, too important to be left to voters so the decision will be dictated by the party in power at Westminster.

Currently, our local governments are dominated by stooges of the political parties at Westminster who are used to implement the policies of the central government and to deflect any opposition.

If they do not cooperate then the power is taken out of their hands. We are seeing this in regard to the central government’s intent to concrete over the countryside.

Rather than local democracy, we just have local bureaucracy which is there to make us think that we can influence such decisions.

If local governments were not stacked with representatives of the Westminster parties, and their powers could not be so easily overridden, then there might be a reason for keeping them.

On the other hand, without these unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, we ought to save money and not be wasting our energies on complaining to those whose primary allegiance is to a national political party rather than to local residents.

Derek Wisdom

Devolution won’t mean ‘power to the people’

I must say I was horrified to read about the sweeping changes to Kent’s local councils.

This is not a way of simplifying the way local councils are run, but simply forming dictatorships run by individuals such as Andy Burnham in Manchester and Sadiq Khan in London.

The public can see with their own eyes what a mess Khan has made in London and if that’s what you want for Kent, god help us.

Devolution is not democracy and is, in fact, more akin to a dictatorship.

John Cooper stated in his letter that devolution would bring more power to Kent. Yes it would, but in the hands of just one person - the Mayor.

To involve children and to lower the voting age as Labour are attempting to do is a blatant way of trying to put the Labour Party permanently in office which to my way of thinking is against the principal of democracy and what it stands for.

This is not a case of giving ‘power to the people‘ as John Cooper stated, but the complete opposite.

You, the electorate have seen what Starmer, Rayner and Reeves has done to our country in six months. I think the public have already regretted giving power to Starmer and the mayhem he is causing, particularly to old age pensioners who created the wealth we all enjoy.

But pensioners have a secret weapon - the vote - so use it wisely.

Sid Anning

Reeves gets a dreaded vote of confidence

In announcing that he has “full confidence” in his unfit-for-the-post Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, Keir Starmer has signalled exactly the opposite if our experience of governments over the last few decades is anything to go by.

Almost every time a leader, of whatever party, has announced his full support for an embattled or floundering minister or colleague, the time between that statement and the minister in question being kicked out or jumping to avoid being kicked out, is usually a matter of a few days.

Bob Readman

‘The emphasis we place on truth seems to be diminishing by the day’
‘The emphasis we place on truth seems to be diminishing by the day’

Free speech should come with responsibility

As a medical student, I’ve grown up in a world where the values of accountability and integrity have always been paramount. Yet the emphasis we place on truth in society seems to be diminishing by the day.

Most recently, Meta’s decision to scrap its fact-checking programme under the guise of “restoring free speech” reflects a troubling disregard for honesty and integrity.

Replacing them with “community notes” shifts the burden onto users, paving the way for unchecked echo chambers and the amplification of misinformation. Such recklessness undermines critical guidelines like the UK’s forthcoming Online Safety Act, which is designed to uphold the integrity of public discourse.

Furthermore, Mark Zuckerberg’s motives appear to go beyond the rhetoric of free speech. Aligning with Donald Trump, whose administration is expected to ease regulatory scrutiny on Big Tech, reveals an opportunistic strategy to secure political favour. Thus this isn’t about empowering users - it’s about profit at the expense of public trust.

If Zuckerberg truly believes in free speech, he must balance it with accountability and transparency. Free speech without responsibility is not a principle to celebrate it’s a recipe for chaos.

Malik Takreem Ahmad

Climate threat to farming is ignored

Some say that as the UK generates “only” 1% of greenhouse gas emissions, we should give up on climate policies and burn more fossil fuels instead.

They oppose every attempt to build alternatives to coal, oil and gas. But have they considered the position of farming in this country? What about farmers struggling to grow crops? And when it comes to cauliflowers, where are the climate deniers?

I like to wake up to Farming Today on the radio, where I hear endless accounts of farmers being hit by changing climate. Now it turns out that British caulis are flowering months early because of the wet mild autumn. This creates a problem for supplying greens in the spring.

Further, continental suppliers, when they can get past all the red tape introduced by recent governments, are stymied by their own flooding problems in the fields.

Thankfully farmers are imaginative people. They are keen to store more carbon in soil, using regenerative techniques, helping to reduce the effect of carbon emissions from fossil fuels, making the land better at coping with floods, and more fertile.

They don’t seem to care whether the UK produces 1% or 90% of global emissions, they just want to know that we are doing something about it.

At the Oxford Farming Conferences they talked to farmers from other countries; they know that they are all up against the same problem, and we all need the same concerted policies to decarbonise our energy systems fast, or face disaster. They think we can do it.

Donald Trump says the climate crisis is a hoax. He met with the big oil and gas companies and asked them what policies they wanted in exchange for cash. We know the answer.

Now the same companies are funding “think tanks” to push the same message in Britain.

Any British politicians that fall for this are either fools or knaves. Whatever Ed Miliband’s failings, he is not on the same page as Trump, unlike our homegrown climate change deniers.

Dr Andrew Blewett

Money markets show where real power lies

Once again we see the money market seeking to disrupt the plans of the government.

They did it with Liz Truss and are now trying to do it with Rachel Reeves, thereby showing where power lies in society.

On a more mundane level, one of the major political talking points is ‘potholes’. The road, where I live was, not so very long back, resurfaced. It is already cracking up. Anyone stood waiting for a bus will be amazed at the exceedingly high level of traffic passing.

These three issues are connected.

What is needed is a complete transformation of our transport system. It is a scientific, technical and engineering fact that metal on metal (eg: trains) is far more efficient and energy-saving than tyres on tarmac (eg: cars).

Tyres on tarmac also add considerably to the pollution that damages our health. We should therefore be investing in modes of transport which both meet environmental needs and provides everyone with the freedom of movement which is now enjoyed by those able to afford private transport.

However the investment, as with investment in AI and other technologies, will only fully bear fruit in the long term.

But our capitalist system is geared to quick profits. The only way the necessary investment will come is through public investment. This will require the government to increase taxation on those who can afford this increase.

The money market rebels against any form of public investment; they refuse to invest themselves and seek to prevent governments from making the investment needed.

Herein lies the complete failure of our economic system.

Ralph A. Tebbutt

Socialist ideas being rejected - but not here

I doubt that Ray Duff even noticed that on the day his letter was published last week accusing all and sundry of dragging their feet over net zero, one of the biggest so-called ‘green’ energy investment companies on the US stock market had to announce that it was struggling, and it transpired, it is not the only one.

While those companies with a vested interest in promoting heat pumps and solar panels continue to hype them up beyond belief, in truth, green energy companies are finding it almost impossible to offer investors a profitable return on their investment.

Consequently, many investors are now beginning to wise up and realize that it is not going to be the profitable pipe dream they were promised.

Ray Duff’s obsession with that and other socialist nonsense bears all the hallmarks of the politics of the Labour government back in the 1970s that proved so damaging, and which are now being rejected right across Europe and the United States but this current Labour government seems determined to continue with here.

Renationalisation? No! Safe routes to encourage even more immigration? No! If this country is going to emerge more prosperous from our current woes, those are the last sort of policies we need.

As for his claim that we need more immigration. That has now been proven to be wrong. We now have so many immigrants here who are not working, that they are actually a drain on our economy, not a benefit, and they are costing taxpayers millions.

The failure that is socialism cannot be any better summed up than a quote from Winston Churchill: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

That admirably sums up the environment this current government has created in just seven months.

C. Aichgy

Close This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.Learn More