Re Zoe Williams’ article (After Corbyn wins, Labour has to make up or break up, 19 September), the most important thing about Jeremy Corbyn is what he symbolises to the thousands of people who have joined the Labour party since he became leader. After years of soulless Blairite pragmatism without principles, Corbyn represents a return to conviction and hope for radical change. The numbers inspired by Corbyn are not enough by a long shot to win an election. Nonetheless, it’s a huge number of people, and their energy and conviction could be a crucial part of a broader election-winning strategy.
But this should not blind us to the fact that Corbyn has proved extremely bad at the practical skills of leadership. After many years of being a backbench rebel, he has not taken well to the business of putting out press statements, formulating catchy messages that are repeated to death, putting together a simple narrative that gives people a sense of Labour’s positive vision. In the real world these are things you need to do if you want to cut through to the vast proportion of the electorate who don’t follow lefty politics on social media, and who get their politics by catching the odd line on the television or radio news.
The energy and enthusiasm that Corbyn has brought about is crucial. But I hope that it becomes tempered with a little more calm pragmatism, and that the thousands who have been attending rallies start knocking on doors.
Philip Goff (@Philip_Goff)
Associate professor of philosophy, Central European University
• Zoe Williams says Owen Smith is “exactly like Corbyn on all matters of policy”. Really? What about Trident? Corbyn’s unilateralism is not only a sure-fire vote loser, it marks out Smith as a “serious” politician for his pro-deterrence stance. And what about Brexit? Corbyn’s rush to invoke article 50 betrayed his enthusiasm for quitting the EU. By contrast, Smith’s position could prove hugely appealing to a large section of remainers. And were a snap election to be called, given that a political party needs far fewer votes to get elected than to win a referendum, Labour under Smith could do well. Well enough, that is, at least to avert the inevitable electoral disaster that Corbyn’s leadership would bring. Which could mean the difference between 10 years of Tory misrule and a generation of it.
Simon Platman
London
• I fully concur with Lisa Nandy regarding the need for the Labour party and other progressive parties to bury the hatchet (Nandy: party must end tribal divisions to survive,19 September). If we’re ever to rid our country of Tory governments, we have to learn to collaborate. However, in my experience the Labour party will be the most troublesome of all the “left” parties to convince. Having been out of it for over 10 years – after a 25-year membership, 12 of them as a Labour councillor – I see an arrogance and an attitude of “might is right” that I couldn’t see when I was in the party. Unless Labour MPs in particular but also “old guard” party officers recognise both that their grassroots membership is very obviously changing and also that give and take is required for genuine collaboration, they will have the “blood” of the NHS, the welfare state and our education system on their hands. Many of us would never forgive them. So come on, comrades – a little humility, respect, and a commitment to a fairer voting sytem.
Lucy Craig
London
• You report that Labour MPs are “fuming” and have complained about “bullying” because a list of some few of those who have criticised the leader was inadvertently released (‘Hit list’ slip by Corbyn aide sparks row with Labour MPs, 15 September). None, I think, can pretend that they have not criticised the leader. At a time when the party has suspended and/or denied a leadership election vote to hundreds of members on flimsy and often unexplained grounds, MPs seem to expect to be allowed much greater latitude. Many, well beyond the confines of the list, frequently declare that the party they represent “cannot win” the next general election. It’s difficult to imagine a more damaging or indeed subversive claim. No Tory MP would dream of saying such a thing. The time has come when parliamentarians undermining the party in this way suffered some consequential loss of privileges.
W Stephen Gilbert
Author, Jeremy Corbyn – Accidental Hero
• Can we just get real? “Rebel MPs face the axe” (19 September) is not a threat but a fact. The Tories – not the Labour party, let alone Jeremy Corbyn – are driving through new gerrymandered constituency boundaries as part of their organised objective of “voter suppression”, where inevitably two or more sitting MPs will have to go head to head for selection to contest the new larger seats on behalf of Labour. Why should anyone be surprised that the candidate reflecting most closely the views of the membership is likely to win? Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas; nor, in a democracy, should one expect the majority to preference the minority. This is not any dastardly plot, but rather the law of mathematics.
Glyn Ford
Labour MEP, 1984-2009
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
