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

State of our roads leaves its mark

Over the past few weeks our lane has become daubed with literally hundreds of white painted markings.

Viewed from the car, they resemble strange, almost otherworldly, abstract patterns.

In reality, I believe these hieroglyphics demarcate potholes, flaws in the road surface and disintegration of the verge.

Some of these doodles indicate what appear to be repairs of recent repairs.

That there are so many makes me think that there is a deliberate raising of unrealistic expectations for the desperately needed maintenance of the surface of our thoroughfare.

To what end? That these markings appeared shortly before local elections made me arrive at an almost cynical conclusion that the Conservatives had employed a strategy to favourably influence the voters. Or, more likely, aware of the electoral “bloodbath” that was to follow, perhaps they were simply committing the Reform councillors to a task that was already doomed.

Either way, the lane is a multitude of eye-catching motifs which, in time, will erode away unless the council actually does something to address the sorry state of our roads.

Robert Hayward

People have been betrayed on immigration

No one in the right mind can believe the contention by the Prime Minister that his apparent Damascene conversion on the issue of immigration was in no way connected to the success of Reform in the local elections.

The main parties have consistently ignored the oft-repeated demands by the electorate that immigration be reduced to sensible proportions, and have instead accelerated the rate at which it has taken place in the last few decades.

This breach of their responsibility to accept the wishes of voters has led this country into a situation which contains many perils, yet still many of their spokespeople continue to resist even the moderate changes proposed.

In this, the Conservative party is probably the most to blame, as not only did they form the government for much of the recent past, but they were the most vociferous in making promises which they did not keep.

However, none of the action now proposed by the Labour government is addressing the constant flow of immigrants across the Channel, something which must be stopped.

The extent of this betrayal of the British people is such that only by turning to a party such as Reform is there any hope that the situation can be rectified.

Colin Bullen

Will Reform end the ‘uniparty’ dominance?

Ignoring the continuing ding-dong regarding the merits or demerits of net zero, it seems to me from the letters in KM over the last fortnight there are two issues that are becoming the most apparent.

Firstly, how to stem the tide of support for Nigel Farage and Reform UK, and secondly, the growing desire for a change away from our FPTP (first past the post) voting system.

The ‘uniparty’ of Labour and Conservative, after the former almost killed off the Liberal/Whigs over a century ago, have had it all their own way, swapping power every decade or so ever since.

Consequently, they have shown scant interest in changing to a PR (proportional representation) system. Whilst in opposition they have occasionally flirted with the idea (as Tony Blair did before his win in 1997) but as soon as they get elected with a thumping majority, remarkably, they go cold on the idea!

It may come as a surprise to those such as Dr Hayden McDonald who are using any means to stunt the growth of Reform UK that Nigel Farage has stated publicly he favours a PR system for elections.

Therefore, it could be said that if anyone wants a change to our voting system a vote for Reform might deliver it, because the way the political winds seem to be blowing, and despite the leftist elite’s agenda to prevent it, change is coming.

Unlike the uniparty, if Nigel Farage does achieve a working majority, I believe he will do his best to keep his word regarding proportional representation. It could also be made easier because he would almost certainly be able to rely on the support of the Liberal Democrats who have long campaigned for it and that party might supplant both the Tories and Labour to become the official opposition after the next election.

Two things that need to be said about PR is firstly the critics claim that it results in the smaller parties wielding much more influence than is warranted by the percentage of people who voted for them, and secondly, it will result in people being elected for parties with whom members of other parties could never agree, so making it more difficult to form a government if no single party has a working majority.

C. Aichgy

No such thing as a flawless voting system

Denise Geeves makes some interesting points concerning our election system but fails to propose a convincing alternative.

As a member of Reform UK - the new party that polled 4.1 million votes nationally in the 2024 general election but only returned five MPs (!) you might think I would agree but this is the fundamental nature of our winner-takes-all system.

No prizes whatsoever for coming second or third. And I should know, being the unsuccessful Reform candidate for the Folkestone & Hythe constituency. But we did secure 24.7% of the votes cast, narrowly behind the Conservatives on 26.1% - with Labour winning with 34.7%. So the winner scored nowhere near a majority of all the votes cast (although the Conservatives did achieve this rare feat with a massive 60.1% in 2019).

And if you take into account all the potential voters (not just those who voted), then Labour's share falls to a meagre 21.4%. And so you might grouse that nearly 80% of local voters did not vote for the winner.

Ms Geeves states that 'I have lived in Kent for all of my 72 years - and my vote has NEVER counted!' But what she really means is that her preferred party has never triumphed.

Smaller parties often lean towards some kind of PR system but devising a system without significant flaws is fiendishly difficult.

The first-past-the-post system is perhaps the least worst - because it is very simple to understand and it binds the winner relatively strongly to their constituency.

In a PR system you might well end up with an unknown MP whose party did not command a majority. Far from ideal.

Bill Wright, Reform UK

Don’t mistake vengeance for justice

Bob Readman's recent letter arguing that murderers "forfeit their human rights" and calling for the return of the death penalty reflects a dangerous misunderstanding of justice in a democratic society.

It is not only morally troubling, it is dangerously short-sighted.

Justice must be grounded in fairness, not fury. The case of Peter Sullivan, whose murder conviction has just been overturned after nearly 40 years in prison, stands as a sobering reminder of why this matters.

Sullivan’s wrongful conviction, now described as possibly the longest-running miscarriage of justice in British history, shows that our system is not infallible. Had we embraced the death penalty in the 1980s, Sullivan, labelled at the time as the 'Beast of Birkenhead', may well have been executed. What then of justice? What then of apology?

Human rights are not conditional. They are not rewards for good behaviour; they are protections that ensure the rule of law applies to everyone, regardless of how abhorrent their actions, from the innocent wrongfully convicted to the guilty who must be held accountable within the boundaries of law and dignity.

Dragging prisoners into court “gagged and in straitjackets,” or denying them basic protections, does not honour victims or safeguard the public. It undermines the rule of law. To strip someone of their rights is not justice, it is vengeance. And when the state allows itself to decide who is and isn't fully human, it risks becoming indistinguishable from the brutality it condemns.

Calls to restore the death penalty ignore its proven failures: wrongful convictions, discriminatory application and no evidence of deterrence.

And the idea that prisoners live in "comfort" compared to hard-working citizens is an emotive distortion. Reports from HM Inspectorate of Prisons have repeatedly found living conditions to be poor, describing them in recent years as squalid, overcrowded, insanitary and unacceptable.

Prisons are institutions of punishment but they must also reflect our values as a society committed to human rights and rehabilitation.

The strength of a civilised society is not just seen in how it treats the best of us, but in how it treats the worst.

Dr Hayden McDonald

War victory a multinational effort

With all the recent VE Day celebrations we might be tempted to believe that the victory over Germany in the Second World War in 1945 was due to the efforts of Britain alone and it was King Charles, in his VE Day commemoration speech, who reminded us that it was an allied, combined effort.

He said that victory “was the result of unity between nations, races, religions and ideologies fighting against an existential threat to humanity”.

In this he was acknowledging the role of the 2.5 million personnel from India, the million from Africa and tens of thousands from the Caribbean who provided the plethora of races and religion, who fought for the Allied Forces of which Britain was a key, but not the sole member.

As to ‘ideology’, he was clearly making a reference to the role of communist controlled Soviet Russia, which made a major contribution.

This was demonstrated by the fact that it lost 8.5 - 10 million fighting personnel in the conflict, which dwarfed Britain’s loss of 383,000.

In all this, King Charles effectively acknowledged the fact that the war was not just a multinational effort, but also a multiracial and multicultural one too.

Against this backdrop it is hard to believe that the King didn’t have the NATO alliance and the present war between Ukraine and Putin-led Russia in mind when he said of the wartime allies: “Their collective endeavour remains a powerful reminder of what can be achieved when countries stand in the face of tyranny”.

John Cooper

New technology has muted a generation

It would appear that the younger generation have spurned the art of conversation as they religiously confine their attention to their phones, feverishly scrolling or texting.

The wonders of contemporary technology have muted the generation that will supersede we of a different era who, thankfully, like me, grew up without the trappings of modern devices such as PCs, smartphones and tablets.

The pitfalls and perils of social media have been well documented, in particular the negative effect it has on children and young adults’ mental health.

And with artificial intelligence moving at a pace, it's impossible to envisage where we'll be in years to come or what changes, positive or negative, it will have on our lives.

Michael Smith