I am finding some of the commentary on the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell puzzling. For years commentators and editorials have been crying out for a change in politics from the usual shouting matches. “They are all the same!” was the cry from the public. We are now presented with a refreshing outlook from the Corbyn and McDonnell Labour party which is measured and thoughtful, with no shouting at parliamentary question time. But the media appears to hate this and is reduced to picking at irrelevant details. The rump “moderates” in the party just don’t get it and are very angry about it.
I am led to believe after reading Jonathan Freedland (With each misstep, Corbyn is handing Britain to the Tories, 28 November), that the truth may well be the opposite. The Tories know they are safe with the Labour moderates in a sulk. They know that if they succeed in ousting Corbyn and in bringing back austerity-lite Labour, enough of the public will decide in the end to vote for the real thing, as they did in May. Freedland seems to be saying bring back the question time bear pit and the old politics.
Janet Davies
Hook, Hampshire
• As a historian of the Labour party, I have been forced by recent events to conclude that under its present ruling clique Labour is becoming a genuine danger to parliamentary government, representative democracy and the rights of MPs. The situation may look like a joke, but it is deadly serious. In a country run by Corbyn, McDonnell, Livingstone and their ilk, who would protect my freedoms? How would government be held to account? And who would make the law? The instincts of these individuals are clear – and very worrying.
Presumably power would rest with a secretive cabal or party committee shielded from democratic scrutiny.
Dr Robert Crowcroft
University of Edinburgh
• Jonathan Freedland seems to understand little about why people have recently joined Labour in their thousands. Many members supported Tony Blair, recognising that policy was constrained by the influence of a powerful rightwing media. But we thought that after successfully implementing a progressive agenda and getting the economy expanding, Labour would be able to persuade voters that its moral philosophy was the right one and go further to build a fairer society, including repealing retrograde Conservative laws and privatisations. Instead Blair moved to the right and arrogantly ignored members’ views, leading to the huge mistake of the Iraq war and mistakes like academies and privatisation in the NHS.
If the PLP votes for military action in Syria without first addressing the difficult issues and coming up with a proper rationale, members will leave in droves, having once again been disillusioned by politicians who put media influence above moral principle and rational debate. No doubt Freedland is right that debate causes problems because the media would rather discuss the political fallout from a policy than the policy itself. But if Labour fails to show that it does hear its members’ views after the revival Corbyn has led, that could be the end of it.
Stephen Bendle
Bath
• Jonathan Freedland’s great truth is that Labour’s leaders need to compromise with the electorate. At present they appear to be more comfortable out of office, blaming the Conservatives because the poor have no loaves, than they would be in office because they could only offer the poor half-loaves. As for those party members who think Jeremy Corbyn’s election to the leadership has given him a meaningful mandate, they need to recognise that the only mandate with meaning will come at the next general election and it will come from the people, not the party.
Steve Loveman
London
