Electoral challenges for Labour and the left

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/23/electoral-challenges-for-labour-and-the-left

Version 0 of 1.

I was disappointed to read the article “Farron hits out at ‘lame and toxic’ Corbyn” (20 January). Tim Farron needs to stop playing political games. Here in Surrey, where Tories dominate local government at every level, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens and other progressive-minded people have been working closely together in our local Compass group for over a year. We do not agree on every issue, but we have built up trust and, as the right consolidates its hold on power both locally and nationally, we are building an alternative and seeking a different way of doing politics: working collaboratively to try and build a more equal, fairer and more sustainable future, focusing on areas of agreement rather than party tribalism.

We find it difficult to empathise with Farron, clinging on to his 18% majority in Westmorland and Lonsdale, commanding his mighty army of nine MPs from his ivory tower in the Westminster bubble. The true progressive forces in the land are seeking ways of working together with others on the left and centre-left, rather than relying on the hope of a small group of highly compromised Lib Dem MPs propping up another Tory-led government after the next election. Is this really what Tim Farron wants?Steve WilliamsChair, South West Surrey Compass

• The fundamental problem in Britain is that a large section of the public believes it is possible to go back to the 1950s and recreate the industrial and social conditions that existed before Asian economies developed their own production capacity (Guy Verhofstadt, Opinion, 19 January). These citizens have suffered from the slow but steady decline in the industries that gave them status and respect – steel, ship-building, mining, textiles and other historic centres of employment.

Given that most of these electors consistently voted Labour, even though their views were wildly astray from any brand of socialism, the Labour party’s dependence on their votes meant that it did not dare to expose its policies too clearly. It is the severance of that link by the SNP in Scotland and, increasingly, by Ukip in England that dooms Labour electorally. It has also meant that Labour has not felt able to confront its traditional vote with the facts of life that come with the inexorable rise of globalisation. Leaving the EU or reducing immigration will not assuage the concerns of these electors. The health of our future politics depends of drawing these citizens who feel marginalised and of less worth into a society that values them for what they are as individuals, rather than their earning capacity.Michael MeadowcroftLeeds

• Professor Linden West (Letters, 16 January) is correct in his analysis of the background to the forthcoming byelection in Stoke and should be supported in his call for a renewal of this once great industrial and industrious city. It may be worth adding that the trustworthy nature of the workforce in the pottery industry, allied with the pride they took in their work, was disgracefully treated by the paternalistic owner-managers of the industry who, as soon as they could, took production abroad from the 1980s onward and left thousands without work.

Their unions were powerless to prevent these closures in the face of the prevailing neoliberal economic policies. At about the same time, the local coal mines were shut and production halted at the Shelton steelworks. Similar stories could be told right across the old industrial areas of Britain. None of this was the fault of the supposedly feckless and workshy. Loyalty, long service and pride in their work was given a good capitalist kick in the teeth. Brexit is part of the misguided payback.David BishopNantwich, Cheshire

• Labour faces a dilemma in the Copeland byelection, given that the Sellafield reprocessing plant lies within the constituency. This can be resolved by proposing a two-pronged investment programme. Among the wider electorate, public support for nuclear power is consistently below 40%, while two-thirds or more support wind and solar power. Labour should propose to cancel the subsidy for new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point and Moorside. Part of the savings could be used to boost renewables; they can generate more electric power and jobs in Cumbria and Somerset, more quickly and cheaply than nuclear. The remainder of the savings could create new jobs at Sellafield to boost its vital work in finding a safe, secure and politically acceptable solution to the nuclear waste problem. Emeritus Professor Keith BarnhamLondon

• Your write: “A progressive response would clamp down on super-sized pay and tax-dodging, while giving workers more rights and rewards and driving investment into infrastructure and research” (Editorial, 18 January). Aren’t these the policies of Corbyn’s Labour party, which most of your opinionistas dismiss as “hard-left”?John AirsLiverpool

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters