There seems to be a fatalistic acceptance among Labour MPs that the party is doomed and that the problem lies with its leader (Report, 1 July). The key problem appears to be the disconnect exemplified by 80% of the parliamentary Labour party expressing no confidence in a leader elected overwhelmingly by 60% of the party members. I suggest the following solution: Jeremy Corbyn agrees to rerun the leadership election on condition that all Labour MPs submit themselves to a vote of confidence by their constituency parties. There should be a clean debate about principles and policies, which is respectful and not about personalities. Leader and MP must agree to be bound by the democratic expression of the party members and abide by their decision.
I’m sure it’s not too hard to assemble policies and principles which promote social justice and fairness, expressed as policies which deliver jobs, health, housing, education in a better society. Whatever Jeremy Corbyn’s failings in the referendum may have been, his campaign last year energised the party and labour movement and was based on a clear agenda for a Labour government.
Ian Reissmann
Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire
• I am getting increasingly irritated to be told endlessly that Jeremy Corbyn is “a good, decent, principled man who tells the truth” (Letters, 1 July) and similar autopilot formulations from his supporters. What is decent about destroying the political party which has given him a platform for decades? Which principles are being advanced by the lack of strategic vision and bitter divisiveness that has characterised his leadership of the party? How much truth does he speak when refusing to engage with critics at senior levels of the parliamentary party? Even accepting that he may have good personal qualities, is that anywhere near enough for a potential prime minister?
Can he not see that his stubborn refusal to resign in the face of the near complete loss of confidence in his leadership among Labour MPs, plus Labour MEPs and hundreds of local councillors, looks like vanity and self-regard? The causes he apparently stands for now appear to boil down simply to getting a hard-left stranglehold on the party machinery, regardless of the wider electoral consequences. The Tory party will almost certainly soon close ranks and embark on more radical “reforms” which will impact on the most vulnerable people in society, with a fractured Labour party unable to do a thing about it. Please, Jeremy, do the decent thing.
Giles Oakley
London
• As a career politician, Jeremy Corbyn can surely appreciate that his current position in fact presents a golden opportunity. The radical economic and social policies that he has put forward address many of the problems that have led to disillusionment and despair, and a Brexit vote, in Labour heartlands. A leadership contest, even if he wins, will split the party and reduce its vote at the next election. To avoid this, Corbyn should negotiate with his opponents to ensure that, if he stands down, key elements of his policies are incorporated into their platform and the next Labour manifesto. This would put country and party before personal ambition and allow him to step aside (not down) with dignity and a valuable legacy. Please give us (some) Corbynomics, but without Corbyn.
Bryan Turner
Birmingham
• Your editorial (28 June) rightly points out that Jeremy Corbyn’s opponents have failed to outline political alternatives to his programme. Having spent months undermining his leadership at every opportunity, he is now apparently responsible for the loss of votes in the deindustrialised areas. Many of those shouting loudest represent these areas, which have been under local Labour control and neglected for decades by both Labour and Tory governments. Corbyn argued that the real problems were caused by austerity and cuts, and not the EU and immigration, whereas his detractors ran a campaign to maintain the status quo in partnership with the Tories. Little wonder that erstwhile Labour voters were confused by party grandees parading around with the Tories who have been responsible for these policies.
The coup has been planned for months and is not really about the referendum or the perceived leadership qualities of Corbyn, but rather an attempt to reverse the political direction that a large majority of Labour members voted for last year.
Keith Elliott
Bristol
• The letter above from Giles Oakley was amended on 7 July 2016. An earlier version said all 20 Labour MEPs had lost confidence in his leadership. A letter was sent on behalf of Labour MEPs calling on Corbyn to resign, but of the 16 MEPs who were present at a meeting that passed a motion about the sending of the letter, 11 supported it and five voted against.
