The BBC audience was not biased during the TV debate

The BBC have been accused of bias by sections of the press, regarding last night’s general election debate after the audience saved its biggest cheers for “left-wing” policies.

Has anyone considered that it just might be because they actually prefer them, left wing or not? I don’t know anyone who is in favour of having to sell their homes to pay the dementia tax, or slashing funding to the police service, NHS and schools. I don’t know any ordinary person who wants more cuts, low wages and zero-hour contracts. I don’t know anyone who thinks it’s a good idea that the NHS, prisons and police services are being privatised.

I don’t know anyone who thinks that cuts to disabled benefits should fund tax giveaways to the already very rich.

Maybe if the Tories wanted a cheer to two, they should try producing a manifesto that is for the many and not the few.

Julie Partridge
London

It appears to be quite clear that the aim of this Government is to fully privatise the NHS. The process described by Noam Chomsky has been followed to the letter:

“...defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital”.

Even though it is equally well known that virtually the whole voting population is against the privatisation of the NHS, the Government has never been challenged on it during this election period.

Could someone PLEASE ask a simple question, preferably to Theresa May or Jeremy Hunt:

“Is it the ultimate intention of the Government to fully privatise the NHS or not?”

Andrew McLauchlin
Stratford-upon-Avon

Like you, I was the child of an Anglican clergyman, I was educated at a state grammar school and I graduated from Oxford with a second-class degree in geography, albeit in 1982 rather than in 1977.

Thereafter, however, our paths seem to have diverged – largely, I believe, because everything I learned in my upbringing told me that equality of opportunity is the key to a better world. My daily bus ride to my privileged school through Manchester’s 1970s slum-clearance schemes, talking to my dad about his ministry during the Toxteth riots of 1981, meeting public school boys with their trust funds and a desire to join the Bollinger Club at Oxford – all these experiences made me realise that inequality of opportunity is as divisive and unproductive as it is unnecessary.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, I chose not to find my natural home in a party which defends the rights of those already wealthy to amass greater wealth to the detriment of others, a party which entrenches inequality of opportunity and, as you yourself have famously acknowledged, a party which is widely referred to as the nasty party.

I won’t, therefore, be voting for you on 8 June but, if you are elected, please stop making those at the bottom – those with disabilities, those who use food banks, those in low-paid, insecure employment – pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and an austerity programme in response to a financial crisis that they did not cause. You read geography at university and, presumably, understand what Gini coefficients say about a country – so don’t witter on about rising tides lifting all boats, do something for those at the bottom.

Chris Henshall
Tonbridge

As part of her election campaign Theresa May insists that she is “best placed” to lead in the “great national mission” of Brexit.

“Best placed” where exactly?

Hiding under her bed? Or is she in her wardrobe?

It is a disgrace that Theresa May, who chose to call a snap election, will not debate head-to-head with Jeremy Corbyn.

If she can’t face the public here, how is she going to handle the pressure of the Brexit negotiations?

Sasha Simic
London

Amid all the understandable anger and pain being felt in response to the recent attack in Manchester, no one seems to be talking about, or taking any action in the direction of, gaining a deeper understanding of the social/psychological factors that can lead any individual to commit such an atrocity.

But if we don’t learn from these terrible experiences and try to find out as much as we can about how and why anyone (and these people are human beings, probably not so different from any of us in many ways) can be drawn to carry them out, we will be ill-equipped in terms of being able to prevent a repeat of such violence by someone else. The sight of heavily armed police on the streets may be reassuring to some, but because of the highly clandestine way in which extremist groups operate, I‘m not sure their presence will have much effect in terms of making any of us actually safer from attack.

Our response to extremist violence on our streets – and to all violence, in fact – should be on a par with how we deal with deadly diseases. In order to eradicate a highly infectious illness like malaria, we try to understand the nature of the disease and how people become infected so we can create a response which combines helping people avoid it, with knowing how to cure them, or at least relieve the effects and aid recovery, if they do fall prey to it. We need to take the same approach with extremist violence. Limiting ourselves to the mentality of “punishment” will not only fail to lead to a reduction of cases, it may actually appeal to the distorted mindset of the people who carry out such acts as a kind of perverse justification.

This will be especially true if we are seen to be in any way hypocritical or applying double standards, and we are on tricky territory here because we as a society unthinkingly condone the use of violence to achieve political ends when it fits with our own political values and ideology. The only clear distinguishing factor between the violence we carry out militarily, and that carried out by a terrorist, is the extent to which innocent people are targeted. But we know that many civilians are, and have always been, killed in the pursuance of military goals, and while that might be acceptable to us as an inevitable collateral damage and a justifiable price to be paid for the achievement of larger aims, it’s understandable that the families and fellow citizens of those affected don’t see it that way and experience the effects with the same level of outrage and revulsion – and the same thoughts of seeking revenge – as we do when civilians – including many women and children – are killed on our streets.

We need to be clear and unequivocal in our condemnation of all violence, and particularly of attacks on innocent people, wherever and whenever they occur, and at the same time pursue research into what attracts people to extremist groups here in the UK, so we can devise and implement a programme of interventions which will target and “inoculate” the individuals most at risk of being infected by the life-negating ideology which they espouse, and effectively reduce the risk of others having to experience the tragedy and devastation which occurred last week.

Stephen Garrett
Cardiff

In 1945, Churchill tried to brush aside “a modest little man with much to be modest about”. That man, Clement Attlee, won a landslide victory for Labour.

Today, the Tories and many of their media cronies have worked tirelessly to denigrate the Labour Party’s present leader. It may no longer be fashionable to be a man of principle, but Attlee won through and his government gave us the fairer society that we have enjoyed for decades. It became the paradigm for most of our European neighbours. The fairness of supporting all members of society was at its root and the necessity for that today is still as great. It is not old fashioned, it is just morally correct.

Successive UK right-leaning governments have chipped away at this model. If we allow the election of a May government, who knows how much of it will be left. An off-shore tax haven for the wealthy is likely to be the only result. One thing is sure – our exit from the European Union will have a very hard landing.

Charles Jarah
London

If “Tin Foil Theresa” won’t even get in the ring with Jeremy, what is the chance of her surviving 15 rounds with Angela Merkel?

Bernie Harris
Oxford