Can anti-no-dealers unite behind Corbyn? Or should he give way for Britain’s sake?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/06/can-anti-no-dealers-unite-behind-corbyn-or-should-he-give-way-for-britains-sake

Version 0 of 1.

Gary Younge’s article (For those who want to stop no deal, Corbyn is the only hope, 4 October) made me rack my brains again to try to understand the consensus of aversion against Jeremy Corbyn. He is obviously not a very good leader and not very charismatic, but I can see nothing which justifies the extent of the prejudice against him. The principal issue which makes him “unfit” to be prime minister seems to be that he is accused of promoting a “hard left” or “extreme left” agenda. When I examine the policies promoted by the Labour party under his leadership (a party of which I am not a member or even a voter), I am baffled by such a description.

For me, “hard left” or “extreme left” implies a rigid state authority imposing a universalist state economy and social levelling, with insufficient priority for values of democracy or tolerance or personal freedom. The Labour party under Corbyn is nothing of this kind, promoting, yes, greater state management and regulation of the economy and greater equality, but simply as a push towards a more mixed economy and a necessary rebalancing after 40 years of continuous rightwing neoliberal change. Little that they propose would have been out of place in a Liberal or Social Democratic party manifesto of former times. Nor do I detect any sympathy with undemocratic, intolerant or illiberal means to achieve these limited ends.

The leader of the Labour party has always suffered from the vilification and smears of the predominant rightwing press, but what has given this propaganda much greater traction with the public in Corbyn’s case is the support for this campaign by significant elements within the Labour party, including very many MPs, and their lack of any meaningful support for their elected leader. I am dismayed that, faced with the genuine unfitness of Boris Johnson and his odious team, the next election will be lost to progressives as a result.Stephen SmithGlasgow

• Unless the Labour party changes direction soon, it will be complicit in the huge damage the UK will suffer if we leave the EU, with or without a deal, on Boris Johnson’s terms. By failing to unite around a leader who has a chance of being elected by the British people and a clear policy on Brexit itself, Labour has played into the hands of the Conservative and Brexit parties. It is just too easy for them to whip up anti-Labour sentiment with claims of Marxist tendencies, policy dithering and antisemitism, whatever the truth.

This is now really urgent. With the Brexit deadline rapidly approaching, Labour needs to do something different. Does the party really believe it could win a majority in a general election in its current state, with so many Labour party supporters unsure of how they would vote and the Liberal Democrats resurgent?

There is a very serious risk that the Conservatives would win a working majority when we go to the polls, destroying any chance for Labour to implement a progressive agenda. After Brexit, Scotland would almost certainly demand a second independence referendum, with a strong chance of a vote to leave the union.

The stakes could not be higher. For the sake of this country, Labour needs to get a grip: find a leader who can win wide support around the country; stop hedging its bets on Brexit; and join the other opposition parties to stop Boris Johnson destroying the UK. This will require tough compromises. But in my book, that is exactly what leadership means.Patrick DaviesFormer deputy UK ambassador to the US

• As many commentators (from Dominic Grieve to Polly Toynbee) recognise, the current coalition of opposition MPs, including the independent conservatives, is the most precious resource that we have in these dangerous times for UK decency and democracy. The resolve of this group to act in the national interest, and place country before party, is the only chance we have to bring the Brexit crisis to a well-managed conclusion, and this rogue government to a swift end.

This requires a caretaker government with the sole remit of resolving the Brexit crisis through a final referendum that, this time round, will give people an informed choice between remaining in the EU or leaving with a deal that protects the economy and preserves the Good Friday agreement. That is the fair compromise. It means placing a referendum ahead of a general election (which will splinter alliances and risk the same parliamentary impasse). As for all referendums, it means accepting voting patterns and local campaigns that will not follow party lines. And it means collective decision-making and a shared purpose that is not driven by needless squabbles over who leads it.

If ever there was a time for pragmatism and compromise between the opposition partners, indeed, among all of us in the UK, this is it. History tells us that the rise of far-right governments is made possible through the failure of opposition parties to join together to fight such dangers. We can’t let that happen in our country. That is a bigger threat than Brexit itself.Prof Bren NealeLeeds

• While there is much I agree with in Gary Younge’s article, I would dispute that the 2017 election was a success for Jeremy Corbyn, or that in it the public “effectively endorsed” his leadership. For all his faults, Tony Blair won, respectively, 418, 413 and 355 seats in successive general elections. In 2017, running against a hapless Conservative leader, running a hapless campaign, on the back of a hapless manifesto, a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour won 262. He lost. Even his much-vaunted energising of the youth vote is, I believe, much exaggerated – if you offer people £27,000 each, they will unsurprisingly vote for you in large numbers.

With only around one in five of the public currently approving of Corbyn’s performance as leader of the opposition, it would seem that when David Cameron and Theresa May asked him to resign, they were possibly the only occasions in their time as prime minister that they acted in the interests of the country, not their party.Alan TerryExeter

• Thank you, Gary Younge, for your timely reminders. Fact: “Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party.” Fact: “He has a mandate.” Fact: the 2017 election saw a huge increase in vote share and seats for Labour. Fact: the Tories lost their majority and had to bribe the DUP for its support. So, Guardian readers and writers, if you really want to avoid a no-deal Brexit – and to see the end of this callous and selfish Tory government – then back Jeremy Corbyn and Labour.Gwyneth PendryHolyhead, Anglesey

• Gary Younge rightly argues that it is not for Labour’s rivals to choose the Labour leader. But, as he also says, right now the house is burning. Politicians are searching for a viable leader of a temporary government of national unity to help put out the flames. The Lib Dems are currently ruling out one possible but also highly divisive leader of such a cross-party alliance. Labour are ruling out all but one, effectively saying it’s Corbyn or no deal. By all means let Corbyn lead Labour into a general election, as soon as the government of national unity has removed the imminent threat to the nation. Until then, if anybody is placing party before country, it is surely Labour.Chris WebsterGümligen, Switzerland