If political parties cannot reconcile themselves, it is better to start anew

The Independent's article Labour's right wing draws up new plan to undermine Jeremy Corbyn (Jon Stone, 1 July) points to what has become almost traditional, destructive Labour Party infighting.

It also begs the question whether anyone in the current Labour Party has a memory longer than that of the average goldfish.

Having witnessed first-hand the Militant Tendency years I would have thought it obvious, many moons ago, to Momentum that a new party was the answer. But no, the Jeremy groupies choose, yet again,  to waste time, energy and, yes, lose momentum to infighting rather than take the Macron route, shake off the old and surge ahead capitalising on their popularity.

Amanda Baker
Edinburgh

With the Labour Party once again preparing for war amongst themselves, it is rather predictable that they want to ruin the momentum of goodwill that has been built up in the aftermath of the election. With both sides warring against themselves could we perhaps see the breakup of the Tories and Labour into smaller factions? I know it might seem unlikely but it might just be the healthiest thing to happen to what has become a fossilised form of democratic politics.

David Murphy
Address supplied

Labour First group secretary Luke Akehurst has put forward his group’s proposal to increase (from two to four) the number of delegates directly elected by 7,000 councillors to Labour’s ruling body, the National Executive Committee, at the expense of reducing the number (from six to four) directly elected by 600,000 members.

That’s democracy, folks. It took years of campaigning to raise the number of delegates elected by members from four to six and we won’t give that up now.

Corbyn has his work cut out in his laudable attempts to fashion a party that once again reflects the will of its members, which is anathema to those whose inclinations have been at odds with the altruism which led people to first form, and then support the party through thick and thin. We are many, they are few.

Eddie Dougall
Suffolk

Jonathan Longstaff (Letters, 30 June) asserts that “It is a sad comment on the morals of this nation when a Prime Minister has to go against her religious principles and allow more women to obtain abortion paid for by the NHS, and at the same time undermine the democratic decision in Northern Ireland regarding abortion”.

I have no idea what Theresa May's religious principles are, or, indeed, whether her moniker 'the vicar's daughter' conveys anything other than the profession of her father. The sadness – and, indeed, a source of shame – is that a political party in the UK still legislates against abortion and puts 'religious principles' before any other considerations.

Religious principles are, after all, social constructs imposed (typically by men) as a means of social control. If one wishes to make reference to Christianity for their religious principles, one may wish to reflect that, in contrast to the established church, Jesus was not so condemnatory.

Beryl Wall
London W4

So Iain Duncan Smith now feels that “work capability assessments” are too harsh, does he? I think that the issue might simply be that they have been applied incorrectly. Perhaps it would be more advisable to carry out these assessments on people who are already in work. I would suggest that it might be more advisable to carry out such assessments – to pick examples entirely at random – on Health Secretaries, Education Secretaries, Ministers for Work and Pensions, Transport Secretaries and Foreign Secretaries; just to make sure that those in office are up to the job, you understand.

Julian Self
Milton Keynes