Too much time has been spent worrying about Jeremy Corbyn’s popularity, and by implication Labour’s electability. Like many others who are optimistic and positive about Labour’s likely offer to the electorate, I’ve found myself getting sucked into this displacement activity, when it would be far better to be challenging the substance of the government’s performance since Johnson arrived in Downing Street three months ago.
Polly Toynbee’s withering critique of his government’s record, coupled with a challenge to the view, peddled by obedient commentators, that Labour voters are now ready to back a divided, inconsistent and mediocre Tory party, lifted me above the standard narrative – that Labour is doomed, unless and until there is a change of leader (Even if the Tories win an election they will be finished, Journal, 29 October).
Maybe they are currently hiding their light under a bushel, but I doubt that many Tory candidates, or the manifesto on which they will stand, will show any understanding of – or sympathy for – the problems confronting those whose lives have been blighted by austerity. When the election comes, let’s hope that it will be possible to see through the Brexit fog.
Les Bright
Exeter, Devon
• Polly Toynbee makes interesting comments, but falls into the trap of exaggerating the Labour standing across the UK. She says 30-year-olds are twice as likely to vote Labour. But where? Certainly not in Scotland, where Labour has sunk below the radar at all levels of government. The famed “duopoly” are not functioning well north of the Tweed either, and Scotland can no longer be shoehorned into the UK political landscape south of the Tweed. In fact, after the joint statements made recently by Nicola Sturgeon and the Labour Welsh first minister, Labour in Wales is developing a less metropolitan focus in relation to an indyref2.
Polly Toynbee seems to forget that there are other parties and nations of the present UK represented at Westminster, which can and have altered the cosy duopolistic hegemony.
John Edgar
Kilmaurs, Ayrshire
• My goodness, why can’t your contributors see what the rest of the country sees and address the nub of the matter? The electorate will not vote for Jeremy Corbyn to be our prime minister – he is not up to it. Polly Toynbee and Tom Kibasi (The polls may seem dismal. But here’s how Labour could win a general election, 28 October) seem gloriously unaware of this. Bash Johnson all you like, but that’s not the problem. Labour’s problem is internal. Their inability to select an electable prime minister will be the key to Labour losing a lot of seats – remember Ed Miliband?
Lesley Gore
Ilkley, West Yorkshire
• Your correspondents agreeing with Jonathan Freedland’s criticism of Jeremy Corbyn as leader neglect one important element (Letters, 28 October). Whoever leads the Labour party with a manifesto that explicitly ditches neoliberal economics and supports Palestinian rights will receive very much the same treatment as Corbyn. Ed Miliband’s stance was much less radical, but look at the treatment he received – and he lost badly. Tony Blair received the backing of the Murdoch papers, and thus a good public image, because he negotiated a deal with Murdoch. He was allowed to be elected as long as he followed the same economic path as the Tories.
Hazel Davies
Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition
