While it might be true that Tony Blair was the right leader in the right circumstances to win a landslide against the Tories in 1997, essentially its success was due to the powerful undertow created by the electorate’s disgust at Tory sleaze and a belief that things should be better. It is the public mood that a party needs to assess and then recast in order to achieve cut-through and gain votes. So, when John Harris focuses on Keir Starmer’s deficiencies as an inspiring leader, he is looking at Labour’s dilemma with one eye shut (If Keir Starmer doesn’t seize the moment now, then what is his party for?, 27 March).
Labour’s attempts at building a counternarrative to whatever the Tory project is will be a waste of time as voters can see it as reactive, not least in the deadening language of abstraction and euphemism. Instead, framing a viable alternative and vigorously and relentlessly pushing it forward plays to Labour’s strengths. Speaking of misery being perpetuated, and not of challenges to be met, would help.
Knowledge based on genuine experience of the needs and troubles facing the working poor is being gained daily by party workers active on the ground. This can help the party develop a coherent alternative to the Tories’ bluster around levelling up and shred the grotesque image of a millionaire chancellor pretending to share people’s pain.
In the end, effective cut-through works from the party out to the electorate only when the party’s base can cut through to the party’s hierarchy, not least the leader.
Dr Peter Mangan
Beckenham, London
• Despite the government’s manifest failings, Labour’s poll lead remains tenuous and Keir Starmer’s personal approval ratings lag behind those achieved in the early months of his leadership.
With the next general election perhaps two years away, John Harris is right to emphasise Labour’s need to define what it stands for with clarity and urgency. Complex ideas need to be expressed succinctly to achieve resonance. There is a long history of the effective use of short phrases that capture the public mood, from the noble “liberty, equality and fraternity” to the disingenuous “take back control”, but Starmer’s mantra of “security, prosperity and respect” is neither memorable nor distinguishable from the aspirations of other parties.
There is surely a role for Harris and like-minded writers who want to see the back of this government to move from analysis to a more direct form of political intervention. They should use their skills to offer pithy, apposite slogans that can compete effectively with the Tories, while emphasising Labour’s commitment to social solidarity, public services and environmental protection. As an eminent predecessor might have said, journalists have nothing to use but their brains. They have a world to win.
Dr Anthony Isaacs
London
• Keir Starmer’s three abstract nouns by which he hopes to establish his “contract with the British people” fail to inspire John Harris. What about an ABC policy offer? A for acceptance of diversity, B for benefits that work, including a universal citizen’s wage, and C for constitutional reform, including proportional representation and the replacement of the Lords with a senate whose seating reflects national vote share. These policies are concrete, comprehensible and clear about what life would be like with a Labour government. And no mention of Brexit.
Harold Mozley
York
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
