Criticisms of the extreme policies put forward by the candidates for Conservative leadership by Polly Toynbee (Call this a party conference? It’s more like a weird Tory festival of mass delusion, 1 October), your editorial (30 September) and Zoe Williams (Why did Kemi Badenoch attack maternity pay? Ask the Tory members …, 30 September) ignore the fact that the contest is essentially a primary, and subject to the same conditions as primaries in US elections. To be successful, you must appeal to the membership, whose vote will determine whether your candidacy will go forward.
This necessarily involves pretending to be more one-sided than you really are. If you succeed, you have to negotiate an awkward transition to policies that appeal to the wider electorate. The key factor is the nature of the primary electorate. In the case of the Tories, this is their membership, whose opinions are famously skewed in comparison with the rest of us.
Toynbee says the Tories’ only hope is that “whoever wins has been lying through their teeth to their tiny reactionary electorate, and afterwards emerges with something – anything – new to say”. What she doesn’t say is that Keir Starmer did exactly the same in the contest for the Labour leadership after the 2019 election. It may be characterised as lying, but it’s also a political necessity in our current system.
Jeremy Cushing
Wiveliscombe, Somerset
• The headline on Simon Jenkins’ article says “former [Tory] prime ministers have a wealth of experience” (Opinion, 1 October). However, it is the experience of failure and disaster: for example, the insistence of William Hague (never actually PM) that Britain was achieving something positive in Afghanistan, or David Cameron’s Brexit – and the less said about those who followed him, the better.
We cannot have any sympathy for supporters of austerity. That failed policy was allowed to persist for too long. Labour prime ministers were no better, Tony Blair invading Iraq, and Gordon Brown selling about half our gold reserves, when there was no need, at a ridiculously low price. If we go further back, we are now experiencing the stupidity of Margaret Thatcher’s privatisations. Each of these mistakes cost billions.
That the system has produced such consistent disaster should convince us that it is broken. It produces leaders who are out of touch with the country. Perhaps there is now too much power concentrated in Downing Street or too much concern about legacy. Is it that sleaze and cronyism have merely become more obvious? The worry is that democracy is on a downward spiral and those in a position to reverse that are more interested in personal promotion.
David Diprose
Thame, Oxfordshire
• Now I know that Kemi Badenoch believes right and left used to be up and down but are now back to front (Right is left and left is right: Kemi Badenoch gets cryptic in Tory pamphlet, 30 September), I can understand why her party don’t seem able to tell whether they are coming or going.
Mark Lewinski-Grende
Swaffham Prior, Cambridgeshire
• I heartily agree with John Crace’s argument about Liz Truss (Please stop Liz Truss making public appearances. Not for our benefit, for hers, 30 September). However, publishing articles like this one ensures that such narcissistic personalities will persist in maintaining a public profile. I appreciate the irony that writing and publishing this letter perpetuates the problem. It’s a quandary, to be sure.
Matthew Hornby
Weaverham, Cheshire
• Do you have a photograph you’d like to share with Guardian readers? If so, please click here to upload it. A selection will be published in our Readers’ best photographs galleries and in the print edition on Saturdays.
