Labour has returned to its roots – so why are so many MPs resistant to change?

Early in Jeremy Corbyn's leadership period Frank Field called for hard-right neoliberal Labour MPs to stand as independents. Simon Danszuk tried to do just this and lost his deposit.

Even now there are still members of the Labour hard right still in denial both about the real historic traditionalist identity of the party – which was socialist with constitutional commitment to national collective ownership – and even the grassroots popularity of the return of the traditionalist project.

Chris Leslie, for example, was quick to condemn Labour's electoral performance as “not good enough”. To put this in perspective, after a number of New Labour neoliberal governments the party's electoral turnout under Gordon Brown was in 2010, dragged down to 8.6 million.

Under Corbyn with Labour being Labour again, and even in the face of one of the most hostile media campaigns in living memory, the Party achieved 12,858,652 votes – a difference of 4,252,125 votes. Which brings us back to the fundamental question: when is the parliamentary party going to look like the movement and country they're paid to represent.

Gavin Lewis
Manchester

It's great that Jeremy Corbyn has wiped out Theresa May's mandate for a hard Brexit, but he seems to be watering down Labour's commitments. Although their manifesto emphasises “maintaining the benefits of the single market and customs union”, Corbyn now talks only about tariff-free access.

The single market removes other barriers to trade on top of tariffs – which is why we harmonise standards across Europe – from chemical particulates to packaging. Access to the single market is the only way to protect our economy and future prosperity (not some fantasy about a future deal with Trump).

It's also in Europe's interest that we stay in the single market. They could insist on the hard border with Ireland if the UK leaves the single market – which everybody knows nobody wants. And they could revisit the temporary “emergency brake” on immigration – on a sector-by-sector basis.

Norway has this option in their “everything but fish” approach to the single market, but they haven't used it for fear of retaliatory measures. By not being a fully paid-up EU club member (they enjoy a 6 per cent discount) the Norwegians also get to implement the rules without having a seat at the EU table. But hey, it's a compromise and at least they can say, “We had our fish and ate them. Hail Norway!”

Stefan Wickham
Oxted

Although I respect the results of the EU referendum and of the recent general election, the kind of Brexit I would prefer is one in which the UK does not actually leave the EU at all, thus retaining the benefits of the single market and having a say in the EU’s rules.

The advantage of this form of Brexit is that the negotiations could be completed very quickly and the army of civil servants who were to be engaged in the process could be redeployed into more productive work such as developing an acceptable policy on social care.

Chris Norris
Wiltshire

Theresa May has been following Tony Blair's example in making decisions with little or no consultation with the cabinet.

In the US there are systems in place to curb the excesses of a rogue president. We don't have those; we should.

Susan Alexander
South Gloucester

I would like to suggest that we now call terrorists what they really are and refer to them as cowards. They may commit acts of terror, but to attack innocent, defenceless people is an act of cowardice.

Anonymous

If Theresa May wants to brake the neutrality part of Good Friday Agreement, she must break another part too – that parties may keep the names of donors secret. There must be full public access to DUP accounts including all its donors.

Robin Le Mare

Cumbria