Readers respond to articles by Zoe Williams and Clive Lewis about the party’s popularity crisis

Zoe Williams’s conjecture that pragmatism might be the solution to Labour’s polling woes is surely a triumph of hope over experience. ( There is no denying Labour is in crisis – but in a strange way, Keir Starmer is equipped to save it, 12 March ). Disavowal of ideology in favour of pragmatism is the precise cause of the apparent aimlessness and inability to convey Labour’s mission that she describes, compounded by unforced policy errors, U-turns and poor judgment. Labour members may well be discussing whether Keir Starmer should be tacking more to the left, but the underlying question remains whether he is the right person to lead a party that needs, as she says, a complete step change in orientation in the new multiparty environment.

Unlike Andy Burnham, for example, he has shown no interest in either proportional representation or cross-party collaboration to defeat the far right. The future of both the party and country are more important than the fate of any individual leader. With electoral disaster forecast for May, Labour MPs are increasingly likely to be considering that the best medicine for the party’s current malaise might be Starmer replacement therapy.
Dr Anthony Isaacs
London

Readers respond to articles by Zoe Williams and Clive Lewis about the party’s popularity crisis

Zoe Williams’s conjecture that pragmatism might be the solution to Labour’s polling woes is surely a triumph of hope over experience. ( There is no denying Labour is in crisis – but in a strange way, Keir Starmer is equipped to save it, 12 March ). Disavowal of ideology in favour of pragmatism is the precise cause of the apparent aimlessness and inability to convey Labour’s mission that she describes, compounded by unforced policy errors, U-turns and poor judgment. Labour members may well be discussing whether Keir Starmer should be tacking more to the left, but the underlying question remains whether he is the right person to lead a party that needs, as she says, a complete step change in orientation in the new multiparty environment.

Unlike Andy Burnham, for example, he has shown no interest in either proportional representation or cross-party collaboration to defeat the far right. The future of both the party and country are more important than the fate of any individual leader. With electoral disaster forecast for May, Labour MPs are increasingly likely to be considering that the best medicine for the party’s current malaise might be Starmer replacement therapy.
Dr Anthony Isaacs
London

Readers respond to articles by Zoe Williams and Clive Lewis about the party’s popularity crisis

Zoe Williams’s conjecture that pragmatism might be the solution to Labour’s polling woes is surely a triumph of hope over experience. ( There is no denying Labour is in crisis – but in a strange way, Keir Starmer is equipped to save it, 12 March ). Disavowal of ideology in favour of pragmatism is the precise cause of the apparent aimlessness and inability to convey Labour’s mission that she describes, compounded by unforced policy errors, U-turns and poor judgment. Labour members may well be discussing whether Keir Starmer should be tacking more to the left, but the underlying question remains whether he is the right person to lead a party that needs, as she says, a complete step change in orientation in the new multiparty environment.

Unlike Andy Burnham, for example, he has shown no interest in either proportional representation or cross-party collaboration to defeat the far right. The future of both the party and country are more important than the fate of any individual leader. With electoral disaster forecast for May, Labour MPs are increasingly likely to be considering that the best medicine for the party’s current malaise might be Starmer replacement therapy.
Dr Anthony Isaacs
London