Polly Toynbee (Opinion, 27 September) continues her assault on Jeremy Corbyn. She has binned Corbyn’s olive branch, his assurance that the vast majority of sitting Labour MPs will not face deselection, and demands that Corbyn should stop all talk of deselecting MPs.
But it is not in Corbyn’s gift – if the party is a democratic one – to prevent all deselections. What he has done is give a clear steer that no widespread purge should take place. That surely implies that a good constituency MP who opposes Corbyn’s policies should not face any undue threat.
In the normal course of events it would be entirely reasonable for a lazy MP who does not adequately represent his or her constituents to be deselected. And if the Tory proposals for boundary redrawing go ahead, it is inevitable that there will be contests between sitting MPs and others to secure candidacies in a reduced number of seats. But in present circumstances there will be another category of MP who will be at risk – not those who engage in reasoned criticism of Corbyn and his supporters, but rather those who persist in angry denunciations in every possible public arena and who insist that Labour is unelectable, a stance that is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. It may well be that the leader’s olive branch will not protect them from the ire of their own party members.
John Gray
Belfast
• I cannot understand why Polly Toynbee is so opposed to what she calls deselection and the rest of us think of as normal democratic procedure. In the real world, outside the confines of politics and journalism, holding an election means the existing post-holder steps down and all contenders are on an equal footing. Holding public office should not be seen as a career move, but as a civic duty, like jury service. And yes, there should be a maximum tenure: three terms ought to be more than enough.
Jim Grozier
Brighton
• The “people power” backing Corbyn and Momentum needs to be reminded that legislation for change does not take place at rallies or community meetings: it is voted for in parliament. People did not get maternity or paternity leave, workers’ rights, climate change legislation etc through protest alone; it was debated and passed into law by elected MPs grouped behind an effective parliamentary leader. That’s why the Labour party has clause 1 in its constitution, stating that its purpose is to “organise and maintain in parliament and in the country a political Labour party”. The people-powered politics of the unions and the cooperative movement proved ineffective in the 19th century at securing radical change and it was realised that only members of parliament could enact the necessary laws. Protest has to translate into constructive constituency Labour party activism leading to actual government – otherwise it is just hot air, which I fear is the case with much of the leftwing protest taking place away from parliament at the moment.
Jeanne Caesar
Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
