Your Leader (31 July) suggests that the "more open process" of choosing the new Labour leader could lead to "chaos and discord" in the party because, if Corbyn wins, he would "not command the support of most of his parliamentary colleagues". You appear to view this as a "flaw" in the system rather than in the research carried out by MPs, and see the "Conservative model" as a better way of electing a new leader. Stephen Bush, (Observations,31 July) similarly sees the future, following Corbyn`s leadership, full of "Tory victories and Labour splits", and blames Brown for spiking the careers of "would-be heavyweights".
What is probably nearer the truth is that Corbyn`s massive popularity is revealing the huge distance between the the moderate policies on offer from a centrist Labour party, and its "Stepford" candidates, and the wishes of a populace fed up with austerity, faked compassion and sincerity from politicians, and Labour policies far too similar to those of the Tories. A parliamentary party led by Corbyn should incorporate the left-wing policies which are clearly popular with Labour voters, ignore the nonsense from the right-wing media about 1983 "suicide notes" and such like, and show a united front. After five years of Osborne`s austerity and state-shrinking measures and ever-increasing inequality, the country will be ripe for change by 2020, something that will only come with Corbyn.
Peter Wilby (First Thoughts,31 July) reckons the "glass floor" can be broken by so-called "elite" universities being given "upper limits" on numbers of privately educated students, but questions whether "even" Corbyn would "dare to advocate" such a thing. Only 7% of the country`s children are educated in the private sector, yet they dominate up to 70% of the top jobs, so to think that Corbyn would not "dare" has to be mistaken. In fact, it`s one of the many reasons why thousands, like me, will be giving him their vote.