Flood victims would rather meet an empathetic Jeremy Corbyn than a phoney Boris Johnson

Jeremy Corbyn meets families and volunteers in flood-hit Doncaster, South Yorkshire: Getty

I agree with your editorial that Boris Johnson has indeed been placed on the rightly deserved back foot because of his lack lustre treatment of the ongoing flooding situation. I am positive people placed in these dire situations would appreciate an empathetic visit from Jeremy Corbyn, to yet again another phoney and opportunistic photo opportunity from Johnson.

Whenever he is commenting on a situation, a thought bubble always appears above my head, saying: ”Does he really care?” It’s correct, this election has been called at the worst possible time with that meretricious mantra “Get Brexit Done”. It misleads the electorate into believing exactly that, when this is only the start of complex and difficult negotiations.

The public should be informed of the actual situation and not be subverted by a patently disingenuous slogan.

Judith A Daniels
Cobholm, Great Yarmouth

Don’t just sit there, vote

It is all rather strange that the fate of our country could simply be in the hands of the voters in Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and those in Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

Should the people in those two constituencies not support their former members of parliament, we (the rest of the UK) could be far better off. Perhaps then our lives, jobs, environment, conservation and, most of all, our membership of the EU will be protected.

It must be difficult for people living in those two constituencies to know the whole future of Britain could be in their hands.

Do we really want a Boris Johnson government? Do we want one led by Jeremy Corbyn? My suspicion is that the answer is no. Do you now believe the UK will be better off outside of the EU? I have a feeling once again, the answer is no.

12 December must be one of our most important general elections. Do not just sit there and do nothing. You must vote. Your vote could make a difference.

To get back to my opening comment, unseat both Johnson and Corbyn.

Richard Grant
Ringwood, Hampshire

Sturgeon’s gamble

Despite all the damage done to Scotland and the rest of the UK by the 2014 and 2016 referendums, some would recklessly have us do it all again.

Nicola Sturgeon says Scotland should face two referendum re-runs next year. One on the EU, the other on Scottish independence. Concerned at the prospect of a UK government being elected with a sufficient majority to properly govern, the first minister prefers to promote the idea of holding two more divisive votes. Opinion polls suggest these could quite possibly deliver outcomes with no clear winner, so resolving nothing.

Ms Sturgeon cares nothing for what all the resulting discord and mayhem of imposing two referendums in quick succession would mean for Scotland. Instead, like the worst kind of gambler, she wants to throw the dice again, regardless of the the impact on all of us. Instead, all that matters is the chance, however slim, of the SNP gaining some political advantage.

Keith Howell
West Linton, Scottish Borders

Climate election

All three main parties are busy promising flood defences in response to the severe flooding in the north of the country. There is much talk of a national emergency, but nobody is mentioning the existing climate emergency.

Time our politicians learned to join the dots.

Lynda Newbery

Debt life support

There’s a limit to what the wealthy will bear in taxes before they opt to leave the country, as happened in France under the socialist President Hollande. The bidding war between Labour and the Tories to pump more and more money into the NHS and other services, therefore, could result in our national debt spiralling out of control, putting Britain itself on life support.

Roger Hinds

Delete or repeat?

When I’m sorting out photos on my phone and click delete, it asks me: “Are you sure you want to delete this file?”

In 2016 we were asked if we wanted to delete our EU membership. This is a much bigger decision than deleting a photo, so it makes sense to double-check this before we actually leave the EU.

We voted to leave in the referendum but without any detail about how that would be done. Now that we have a withdrawal agreement we know the terms on which we would leave, and in the political declaration we have an outline of how Mr Johnson sees our new future relationship with the EU and with other countries.

Holding a confirmatory referendum will enable people to vote on whether they would prefer to leave the EU, as per the actual negotiated arrangements, or to remain in the EU. To leave without having that check would be both reckless and undemocratic.

So why do Mr Johnson and Mr Farage insist that we should “get Brexit done” without checking first: “Are you sure you want to delete your EU membership?” Perhaps they are afraid that we have changed our minds.

Liz Sidebotham
Newcastle upon Tyne