A more equal society is only possible with the pragmatic approach of Tony Blair

The hopes of those young and left-leaning voters like Harriet Williamson, who dream of a fairer and more radical society, should have been reminded in 2019 that the British public will never be inspired when this is in the gift of naive politicians like Jeremy Corbyn.

As John Rentoul consistently reminds us, the vision of a more equal society will only be realised by adopting the pragmatic middle path taken by Blair and Brown in the early years of this century.

Using clear and uncluttered language that told people what was wrong with Tory Britain, they articulated a simple vision that people recognised would serve their own as well as the nation’s needs. Blair was a gifted communicator who understood the cut and thrust of politics and operated decisively in ways that, until the disaster of Iraq, people respected.

New Labour wasted all that they had achieved by failing to attend to the succession planning that would have secured the longevity of its vision of a better future for the country and its people. They left the door open for opportunistic Tory operatives to make use of a shallow version of Blair’s communication techniques in support of their own self-interest; whilst leaving Starmer with the unenviable task of soldering up a fractured Labour Party.

Unfortunately, as honourable as Keir Starmer is, he is not as able and direct a communicator as Blair or, sadly, Johnson. His soundbite directives are unmemorable and too abstract, whilst his personality does not have the wider and immediate appeal that our age requires.

Most people do not attend to politics for longer than a few seconds, and are persuaded by what is memorable even if it is shallow and without substance. As Johnson knows – and has cultivated for decades – any high-visibility publicity is good publicity in a world where opinions are formed by social media and headline news.

Meanwhile, Starmer is uncomfortable in front of the camera and looks like he is walking on broken glass; he is not an experienced or particularly able politician but he needs with great urgency to persuade Harriet Williamson and others that he can be trusted to articulate a clear and unifying vision for the nation at this most critical moment in its history.

Graham Powell

Cirencester

I read your editorial on 5 May, and I agree. Although not my party, there will be many decent, hard-working Conservative councillors who will lose their seats, primarily due to the louche behaviour and scandals emerging from this government, resulting in a total turn-off for the electorate.

Local elections have been hijacked by the central government and this is a great shame. I was always told that in local elections you voted for the best candidate, regardless of party, and in the general election for the party. This has been completely discarded, to the detriment of local government.

Somehow this whole issue has been seen as a litmus test for party success and a huge bandwagon has assembled to get the party messages across. I am sure that Conservative candidates do want to see themselves as “local Conservatives” because they are often light-years away from the parliamentary debacle we are witnessing now.

It is now not a case of let the best man or woman win, based on what can they bring to the local table, it’s just about what colour rosette they are wearing.

Judith A Daniels

Great Yarmouth

It turns out that the weather has more of an effect on deterring migrant Channel crossings than Priti Patel’s Rwandan £120m scheme. So “taking back control of our borders” has resulted in many more dangerous Channel crossings and vastly increased profits for people smugglers (stopping people coming in hasn’t really worked).

At the same time, border controls have made it more expensive to trade with the EU, look likely to hasten Irish independence and the break up of the UK, and have created difficulties for UK passport holders going on holiday, UK drivers in Spain, and those trying to negotiate Operation Brock in Kent.

When we were in the EU, it was very easy to get out of this country to travel, work or live in another EU country, and there were accepted and legal ways of controlling migration from other countries. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to me the complete antithesis of what we were sold by Brexiteers.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Can we remove the cabinet in favour of praying to whichever deity we believe controls the weather to solve the woes caused by Brexit, the climate crisis and skyrocketing fuel bills?

I feel it would be more responsible – and certainly cheaper.

Katharine Powell

Cheshire

The employer of one of my family members is in the process of closing down their London office, expecting their staff to work from home 100 per cent of the time. Her partner’s office has downsized so he works from home three days a week.  Both employers are saving considerably, but are passing costs on to their staff.

Meanwhile, my family members need to dedicate both their spare rooms as offices – the opportunity cost in London is considerable – and fund additional heat, lighting, communications and printing costs. They have also had to buy their own office equipment but don’t save on commuting costs, as they used to cycle to work.

I believe we should start a national debate to impose a moral – perhaps a legal – obligation on employers to provide a working at home allowance to ensure their cost savings are not subsidised by employees.

And while we are at it, employers’ duty of care to their employees should be reinforced to ensure statutory provisions relating to health, safety, wellbeing, fire regulation and ergonomics are proactively extended to the home office environment.

Tim Sidaway

Hertfordshire