Does Lisa Nandy seriously believe that Labour lost the election because voters carefully considered the issues and studied the records and manifestos of the two main parties before making a decision (Labour’s route back is through local activism, 4 January)? Of course Labour should be engaging in local activism and should have a high profile in all local constituency affairs, but as a route to power it will never be enough.
There are two main reasons why Labour lost the election. First, voters were fed an endlessly repeated simple message, negating the necessity for studying anything or even thinking very much. But second, and more important for the future of the party, was the unjust denigration of Labour’s leader. Yes, the tabloid press were guilty, but so too were many of his own MPs, who persistently and publicly attacked him. How could voters be expected to support him when his own MPs could not?
So will the new leader suffer the same fate? Jeremy Corbyn was elected twice according to the rules of the party, but that was not enough to command loyalty or respect for democracy. So do the rules need to be changed? Or do Labour MPs need to take a collective vow to respect the vote and, publicly at least, get behind whoever emerges as leader.
Catherine MacKinnon
Breakish, Isle of Skye
• I agree with Polly Toynbee (After years of division Labour unity is now a real possibility, 7 January) that Keir Starmer may be the best candidate and may build a strong party. However, Keir, encouraged by many like Polly, pushed for Labour’s adoption of a second referendum – possibly the right move, but is it not at least useful to remember that Labour did much better in 2017 when its position was that the referendum result be honoured? Polly also laments the monstrous attacks of the rightwing press. Excuse me, but until the Labour manifesto was launched on 22 November, my memory is that Polly was one of the many Guardian columnists denigrating the leadership.
Ruth Overy
Leeds
• Labour unity may now be a real possibility but, faced with a hard-left leadership, is it conceivable that the great majority of MPs, along with many members, will simply go along with this on a road to virtually certain electoral suicide? A more likely outcome is a decisive split in a party that has become far too broad a church, uncertain about its purpose and complacent in the belief in its own rectitude. The decline of the organised industrial working class presents Labour with an existential threat. The party needs fresh thinking and a reassertion of social democracy for the 21st century. As Polly Toynbee asserts, this needs to start with a clearing of the current gang of four from the leadership of the party. This will not come without the election of a centrist leader and a serious scrap. I fear party unity is still a long way off.
Roy Boffy
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands
• Polly Toynbee’s quoting of Herbert Morrison in an article on Labour unity reminds me of a contribution by Morrison. When a colleague remarked that Aneurin Bevan was his own worst enemy, Morrison replied with “not while I’m alive ’e ain’t”.
Andrew Krokou
London
• Rebecca Long Bailey praises Jeremy Corbyn’s general election campaign as possessing “some of the most exciting and innovative policies we’ve seen in a generation”. The captain of the Titanic could lay claim to have been exciting and innovative when he steered too close to the iceberg – with similar results!
Phil Bramall
West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire
