Keir Starmer has, yet again, utterly failed to read the mood of the country. More importantly for his leadership, he has, yet again, failed to read the mood of the Labour party (Dozens of Labour MPs defy Keir Starmer to vote for ceasefire in Gaza, 15 November). Crucially, this time he has failed to read the mood of his own frontbench, and as a result has lost eight of its members.
Shadow ministers dispatched to talk to the media have repeatedly said that Labour MPs must vote with the party because of the principle of “collective responsibility”. It must have escaped Starmer’s notice that the principle of collective responsibility only applies to ministers in government. There is no such principle applying to a party in opposition.
The Labour party believes it is a “government in waiting”. Starmer has got ahead of himself. This potentially misplaced belief is driving the party’s agenda, to the detriment of both the party and its members. It results in a limp timidity, and the widely held view that Labour has no policies worth forcibly speaking out for. Starmer should check his job description to remind himself that he is the leader of the opposition. That is usually taken to mean opposing the more extreme measures of the government, not members of his own frontbench.
Hannah Walker
Thornford, Dorset
• Keir Starmer has been criticised for failing to prioritise principled leadership over electoral and fiscal considerations, on issues ranging from lifting the benefits cap to bringing in universal free school meals. Now, however, he insists in the name of leadership on Labour’s unstinting support for a cause that, apparently, trumps both UK public opinion and the appeals of the UN and international humanitarian organisations: Israel’s unfettered right to exact bloody vengeance on Palestinian civilians for Hamas’s atrocities.
When, critics ask, will it be time to call for a ceasefire? We know the answer already – when the US does. At least Labour party members and MPs don’t need to worry about what a Labour government’s foreign policy would look like. It would be made in Washington and be called “leadership”.
Chris Sinha
Cringleford, Norfolk
• Conventional wisdom states that divided parties don’t win elections. No doubt the rightwing media will try to exploit this division within the party. However, to disillusioned Labour voters such as myself, it gives me a reason to vote Labour.
After so many compromises, such as denying free school meals to all primary pupils, Labour seemed to be losing its moral compass. Now these MPs have demonstrated the contrary: that if Labour wins, there will be a party brake on the temptation to compromise further with those powerful groups that don’t share Labour’s values. Further privatisation of the NHS will probably face opposition from within the party, as will the chancellor’s determination to continue underfunding it.
I have always believed the Labour party is not Keir Starmer and the shadow frontbench. It represents a morality that cannot be reduced to simply political expediency determined by electoral strategy.
Derrick Joad
Leeds
• Why, given the known strength of feeling over this issue, both in parliament and outside, didn’t Keir Starmer allow his party a free “conscience” vote? In my eyes, this would have shown leadership and flexibility. Instead, he has damaged the party and himself. Is he afraid of appearing weak? This issue is tearing many apart.
Linda Marriott
North Hykeham, Lincolnshire
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
