Tom Clark (Blair’s frail legacy, 11 December) talked good sense about the need to transform the political discourse. As a Labour member who voted for Jeremy Corbyn, I am still supportive of the man, his values and his message. I have not moved left – it was the party that moved to the right after Blair and left people like me – middle class, 70 – feeling alienated and angry. I lament the inability of senior Labour MPs with valuable ministerial experience to understand that the thousands, old and young, who elected Corbyn are sending them a clear message about the core value of distributive justice and its support in this country. They could take up this message either in support of Corbyn or instead of him – it is the only message that will win my vote. They have five years to add their competence and experience to his untried idealism, to increase the Labour vote against this heartless government that was elected by just a minority of the population.
Maria Brenton
London
• Tom Clark hits the target. What greets Corbyn on challenging the dominant narrative is an incontinence of spite – from those who peddle the narrative and from those who so shamelessly bought into it. Blair, Tristram Hunt and the rest fall into the latter group. But the narrative must be challenged. Austerity is unnecessary and catastrophic. It’s not a question of whether Labour can win under present circumstances but whether the narrative can be changed in time for Labour to build the alternative electoral base. With the media – including the Guardian – so resistant to supporting the challenge, their prophecy of Corbyn’s failure seems self-fulfilling.
Saville Kushner
Auckland, New Zealand
• It is reassuring to see pragmatic democracy perhaps beginning to work again through the Open Labour initiative (Letters, 10 December). Hopefully this will draw us away from the proposed reliance on democratic centralism, where settlement relies purely on a statistical majority.
We are surely unwise to deviate from our tried and tested practice of representative democracy. One where our minority views as party members – and citizens – are not ignored. Your correspondents are absolutely right. We need a space “free from the divisive and intolerant voices that have come to dominate Labour debate”. We already know that many of our elected MPs are unhappy with the current settlement. It is also now reassuring that a number of influential elected councillors are signatories to your letter.
It is particularly comforting that Ann Black, Labour’s most respected and longest-serving NEC member, is contributing to the argument. Ann is directly elected by the CLP members, and has, for many years, established a formidable reputation as a two-way communicator and as an informal reflector of all-party opinion. A spot-on model of representative democracy. And, in case we rely too heavily on statistical democracy, remember our current leader was elected by less than 50% of Labour party members.
Mike Allott
Chandlers Ford, Hampshire
• So Jess Phillips would knife Jeremy Corbyn “in the front not the back” if she thought it would mean Labour winning in 2020 (Report, 15 December). And she is supported by John Mann and others who say she would make an ideal leader.
I spoke at her constituency Labour party of Yardley, Birmingham, as it met on 23 July to decide who to nominate for the leadership race. Jess spoke in favour of Yvette Cooper and I spoke in favour of Corbyn. By 21 votes to 18 Yardley nominated Corbyn. Jess does not even have the support of her own CLP, so rather than talking of knifing why does she not talk of policies and programmes to build support for Labour? Jess speaks at Progress meetings. Is she a supporter of Progress? Will she defend Progress’s pro-privatisation, pro-corporations, anti-trade-union stance?
Progress supported Liz Kendall for Labour leader and Kendall polled 18,857 votes or 4.5% of those cast, while Corbyn polled 251,417 or 59.5% of those cast. Such a vote reflects the miserly support for the rightwing among Labour members and supporters, and the massive support for Corbyn and his policies. And all subsequent polls indicate support around 75% for Corbyn and his policies. Jess had the sense to heed the mood among members and vote for Corbyn’s position on bombing Syria. Perhaps she could heed the same mood on other issues, fight her corner inside the party and support the democratically elected leader.
Darrall Cozens
Labour party member in Coventry NW
• A great deal depends on the attitude of the allegedly progressive forces to proportional representation (At last, a cross-party alliance to stands up to the Conservative government, Opinion, 16 December) – preferably by single transferable vote in multimember constituencies. If their response is an enthusiastic yes, then a successful alliance is surely a winner. If, however, Labour, the biggest beast in the left-of-centre jungle, clings to the possibility that it might yet win a majority on its own and thus be able to put its exclusive prescription for the good society into effect, then we’re stuck with the Tory hegemony for years to come.
Peter Wrigley
Birstall, Yorkshire
• Owen Jones makes many good points about the lack of rational debate concerning Jeremy Corbyn (Opinion, 16 December). I would like to point out that there is another group that is being ignored in this debate. I, and many people I know, voted for Jeremy Corbyn purely on the basis of his proposed policies and his intent to widen the party decision-making process. We have no interest in him, or any other MP, as an individual. In fact, it is precisely this reduction of UK politics down to the opinions of a few individuals that has disillusioned so many of us in the past, leading to our withdrawal from active politics. That, and a Labour party that could introduce a policy so destructive to the NHS as the private finance initiative.
For many of us, being allowed to choose who leads us is not an adequate level of democracy. We want a greater say in the debate, and it looks like a move in that direction might be starting. So, we are back and actively taking part again, but it is not because we believe in Jeremy Corbyn; it is because we believe he believes in us.
Jonathan Crook
London
• Can the left find a definition for “progressive” that isn’t a fancy euphemism for “hates Tories” (16 December)? Raphael Behr implies the answer to his own question: it is in the last and most important in his list of core Labour beliefs – “government’s duty to intervene when wealth and opportunity are unequally distributed”. The failure to tackle this glaring problem has led to widespread dissatisfaction with the complacent tax-avoiding capitalist-funded political class throughout the industrial world. Gross inequality is not only socially unacceptable but economically destructive, funnelling income and wealth into positional goods and financial assets rather than consumption or productive investment – leading to low productivity, inadequate demand and financial instability.
Ed Miliband saw all this, but was not allowed to say what he would do about it (beyond restoring the 50% top tax rate and a half-hearted mansion tax borrowed from the Lib Dems) because anything more would be “antibusiness”. We need a programme to include proper taxation of wealth, starting with upgraded council tax and land tax, local authority borrowing for housebuilding, and an end to further “austerity”. This is not “antibusiness” – it would be entirely consistent with promoting markets and competition as against rent-seeking market power and short-term asset-stripping. In the short term there would be effects on the City, sterling and “confidence”. That is why it needs to be tackled in a moderate, responsible fashion. But in the longer term it could and should lead to a fairer, more balanced, Scandinavian-style mixed economy. And cautious middle England may come to see its attractions, after the next financial downturn, if there is a serious worked-out programme.
Alan Bailey
London
• Surely few could object to a “performance review” of MPs provided that the selectorate is representative of the constituency that the candidate represents, and that those chosen by them have earned that right and their respect by bringing demonstrable judgment, common sense, and the ability to identify practical solutions to recognisable problems (Letters, 10 December). That sometimes involves disagreement on some issues, but also secures their election to parliament.
The main anxiety, however, is that hardline activists have seeded constituency parties with individuals who are deaf to the opinions of others, seek no compromise, and wish to turn parliamentary candidates into delegates not representatives. They might as well send text messages rather than bother with elections.
Colin Ancliffe
Bourne End, Buckinghamshire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
