Your editorial berating the current Tory high command for its incessant repetition of “inane slogans” (Leadership means spelling it out, 13 May) rather misses the point that this has always been the core principle of Tory electioneering. The constant refrain “strong and stable” versus “coalition of chaos” is just the latest variation on the age-old theme that Labour is not competent to govern. What is unusual this time around is that Labour seems hellbent on performing the Tory script, as gaffe after gaffe clouds what Jeremy Corbyn has bizarrely come to call his “offer to the electorate” – a rather inappropriate economic-transactional term, given the palpable inability of his leading spokespeople to get their heads around the numbers.
Yet when Corbyn and his coterie have gone, the basic problem will remain. The election of a Labour government has two preconditions, only one of which is currently being met. The first: a prolonged period of Tory-dominated administration, during which, inevitably, public services begin to fall apart. And second: a widespread belief that a putative Labour government waits in the wings, capable of halting and reversing the Tory-induced decrepitude. Corbyn’s removal does not of itself satisfy the second condition. In fact, Corbynism has its roots in an earlier failure (2010-15) to build that aura of competence that Labour’s electoral success requires. Over the next five years, Labour needs to revisit the New Labour years with pride rather than shame – the falling class sizes in schools, the virtual disappearance of waiting lists in the NHS, etc – and to confront the egregious Tory lie that these achievements somehow resulted in the near financial meltdown that afflicted most of the western world in 2007-08.
Dr William Dixon and Dr David Wilson
City, University of London
• Matthew D’Ancona argues quite correctly that people’s belief that Theresa May can do an effective job as prime minister and that Jeremy Corbyn cannot will be more crucial in this election than policies (Opinion, 15 May). But he joins the chorus of those quoting opinion polls that show that certain policies in the Labour manifesto are popular. What seems to be ignored is that other policies are very unpopular, in particular those giving huge power to trade union leaders. The unpopularity of union leaders is reflected in the falling membership of unions, and in the fact that only 12% of Unite members bothered to vote in their recent leadership election. Most people in work want protection and support from the law for their rights as workers, but also protection from union action that interferes in their right to get to work.
I suspect that Conservative proposals on workers’ rights will prove more popular than Labour’s about union power.
James Pullen
St Ives, Cornwall
• The Labour manifesto has been likened to the 1945 manifesto of Clement Attlee. Quite right. Costings for proposed policies were pretty irrelevant, as paying for the war left the country more or less bankrupt, our foreign reserves had been dissipated, and, as a last straw, President Truman immediately stopped all aid, saying that “US tax dollars should not go to a socialist state”. However, on being elected, the Labour government proceeded to fulfil manifesto commitments. Railways and mines were nationalised, in 1948 the NHS came into being (the nation breathed a huge sigh of relief – you could now go to the doctor for free), the 1944 Education Act was activated, allowing free education up to age 15. Not bad for a country apparently financially on its knees.
One last point: it was automatically assumed that Churchill, the great warrior, would be elected. He wasn’t. Clement Attlee (Churchill called him “a modest man, with much to be modest about”) led the greatest reforming government of the 20th century.
Martin Sheldon
Oxford
• Danny Dorling and Sally Tomlinson detail how Clement Attlee was vilified by Labour, Conservatives and the media for his lack of talent, drive and personality (Is Corbyn as lacking in drive and personality as Attlee? Let’s hope so, theguardian.com, 9 May), yet many on the left acknowledge him as Britain’s best prime minister for implementing radical social justice reforms in the face of economic crisis. Their comparison of Attlee and Corbyn has provoked some derision and outrage – but their point was that it is not personal characters or qualities that matter most, it is the radical vision that others can get behind.
Leadership theory has progressed well beyond the “trait-based” theories that dominated until the 90s; it now recognises leadership as most powerfully understood as a fluid property of an organisation. People at the top still matter, but they are at their most effective when they stand for a set of shared values, and hold open a space in which others can discuss how best to put them into action. Our continued yearning for “strong leaders” betrays a damaging cultural immaturity: they offer us the chance to give up our shared responsibility for leadership, and to scapegoat those strong leaders when they inevitably let us down.
The cultural fabric of democracy is weakening in the UK and elsewhere. Labour’s response must not be to find a new father or mother figure to take control. We must unite through conversations around shared values and desired outcomes. Labour’s leader, whether Corbyn or another, should champion and enable this process.
Dr Rupert Higham
Lecturer, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge
• Mrs May is riding high, apparently heading for a general election triumph, idolised by the tabloids for defying those beastly Europeans who seek to do Britain down. But today’s winners often end up as tomorrow’s losers. More than a century ago, in 1902, there was not a cloud on the horizon for Salisbury’s administration, with the Liberal opposition deeply divided in the aftermath of the Boer war. Four years later saw an all-time record anti-Conservative landslide.
Chamberlain was a hero when he came back from appeasing Hitler in 1938 and proclaimed “Peace for our time”. The few dissidents led by Churchill were denounced as warmongers. Then Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia. In 1956 Eden launched the Suez war with strong nationalist support. It proved a disaster and soon his reputation lay in tatters. In 2003 the invasion of Iraq led to a widespread outbreak of patriotic fervour – but destroyed public trust in one of Britain’s most successful and popular recent prime ministers.
Mrs May has decided to take us out of the single market and customs union. If we face the harsh reality of a hard Brexit or no deal, what price then for her “strong and stable leadership”?
Dick Taverne
Liberal Democrats, House of Lords
• Watching last week’s BBC Question Time, I was shocked to hear Conservative minister Ben Wallace claim there were items in Labour’s manifesto that Jeremy Corbyn did not himself agree with. I wonder if there are any other current examples of party leaders whose programme centres on a policy that they publicly opposed less than 12 months ago.
Simon Aldous
London
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
