Diane Abbott is the victim of a sordid stitch-up

As a longstanding Liberal Democrat, I do not share Diane Abbott’s political views. And, as a Jew, I find what she wrote in The Observer grossly ill-considered and highly offensive.

My late uncle, though, was a long-standing Labour councillor in her constituency, who was eventually forced out by extremists in his local party.

When he died in 1995, it would no doubt have been politically convenient for Abbott not to get involved. Instead, she delivered his funeral oration. That was an act of decency and showed her true character. I subsequently believe that what she later wrote in her open letter was an out-of-character mistake.

She deserves to be treated better by the Labour leadership than this sordid stitch-up to deprive her local party of the opportunity to reselect her ("My friend Diane Abbott accepts she caused offence, but she deserved better", Wednesday 29 May).

Philip Gold

Woking

I completely agree with Sean O’Grady (”By dishonouring Diane Abbott, Starmer has dishonoured himself – and Labour”, Wednesday 29 May) on Keir Starmer’s treatment of Diane Abbott.

I am a “middle of the road” Labour Party member but this incident has been so badly handled that it has resulted in a huge distraction. When the party should be putting all its energy and resources into fighting the Tories, they are now fighting each other. I don’t always agree with some of the policy stances Abbott takes, but she is popular with her constituents.

Moreover, she has apologised for her unwise comments and taken the course that was suggested to her. The stance taken by Starmer could result in Abbott being elected as an independent and the Tories having the satisfaction of a massive Labour own goal.

David Felton

Cheshire

I agree with John Rentoul (”Don’t bash the global rich, Keir Starmer – tax them instead”, Wednesday 29 May) regarding Labour’s promise to add VAT to private school fees. It sends out the wrong signal to people who want the best for their children. This really does seem like a class war manoeuvre which has not been properly costed and thought out.

Many parents feel that they have no choice but to send their children to a private school, not because they can either afford it or really want to. They do it because they genuinely do not have a choice of schools for their children to go to.

Take south Buckinghamshire, for example, which has a good number of grammar schools in the area but only one community college. In a very rich commuter belt, parents who send their children to private junior schools and/or pay for private tuition to get their children the necessary pass mark, inevitably get the lion’s share of the state grammar school places in the area.

The state junior schools hardly get a look in because the pass mark for even the brightest children in the school is beyond them. They then have one school, which whether good, bad or indifferent is the only one they can go to. Or they can find a place in a private school.

Parents may not comfortably be able to afford the fees but will sacrifice everything to get their children a good education. I know of nurses and other public workers who are in that situation. Many grandparents will pay all the fees or half to ensure the same. These are not rich people. These are ordinary people (as Labour likes to label people who work for a living, assuming rich people pick their money off trees).

Has Labour thought about the number of extra places it will need if children in private schools now have to move to state schools to complete their education; all because sacrificing parents and grandparents cannot afford the extra 20 per cent on top of already expensive fees? Has Labour properly costed his out? Are there enough spare places to absorb these children? Have they thought about the impact this can have on a child who is happy in their school with their group of friends who now has to move to a state school to start all over again to fit in?

All this is probably for a pittance to the coffers of the government when the proper checks and balances have been carried out. Cruel and unnecessary.

Cynthia Younis

Address supplied

The problem with John Rentoul’s recent arguments on tax is twofold. The first, on abolishing VAT on private school fees, is that the cost has to be met by parents. The schools are businesses, and when they have a rise in their costs, which this effectively is, they have choices: they can work on reduced profit margins, they can cut costs elsewhere or they can increase prices.

When state schools had their budgets slashed by George Osborne through his austerity measures they had no choice but to cut costs, as that was their only option, just as teachers at those schools who had their pay frozen also had to make cuts at home.

With a finite amount of money available to spend on education, and 14 years of inherited problems, I don’t accept the argument that private schools should be unable or unwilling to cut their costs and pass price increases onto parents. The idea that it is somehow unfair that they should be exempt from making the same tough decisions that 95 per cent of headteachers have had to make in state schools for the last 14 years is ridiculous.

As for the idea that a fairer tax system discourages the footloose rich, that is an argument always made by their representatives or the people who make money from their existence. Perhaps trying a new system would test that argument.

Who knows, maybe we would find it’s a better country if they did all go off to live in Monaco after all. I doubt we would actually miss them or their money because, from recent tax reports, it’s clear that they don’t really contribute to a healthy and happy society after all.

John Murray

Bracknell