Labour and antisemitism: there's nothing sinister in being for the many, not the few

Jonathan Freedland implies quite wrongly that Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour supporters take a “malign individual” view of history that feeds a conspiratorial paranoia, rather than seeing history as a stream of mutating, socioeconomic structures (Deep within left populism lies the stain of antisemitism, 13 July).

But surely one does not exclude the other? Malign individuals have surfaced only too regularly during the past 5,000 years of mankind’s “progress”. Resistance to malignancy has cost the oppressed their lives, sacrificed often selflessly for others, and indeed the “Spartacus” spirit can be extrapolated from “for the many, not the few”, deemed “a sinister slogan” by Freedland. To me it means greater justice and equality for people who have been left behind.

Reckless, base populist rhetoric belongs to the “isms” of the right. It is socialists’ duty to ensure that the disaffected masses are not swept up into dangerous fascistic populism. No other political grouping in the UK but Labour has the power or determination to make that happen in these febrile times. To undermine Corbyn’s efforts simply helps open the door wider to rightwing populism.
Rosie Brocklehurst
St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex

• Jonathan Freedland reckons “the many not the few” is a sinister slogan. Not really. It came to the forefront in Blair’s introduction to our 1997 manifesto: “I want a Britain that is one nation … run for the many not the few, strong and sure of itself at home and abroad”. The slogan itself was taken directly from Clause IV of our then newly modernised constitution.

Clause IV defines democratic socialism as “community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few; where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe … To these ends we work for … a dynamic economy, the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition.” Therefore, for most of us, Labour became a party of what counts is what works, not one of outdated ideology.

However, it is sinister that a modernised Labour movement – strategically delivered by the many – could so easily be hijacked by a recalcitrant few. Nevertheless, even after four years of far-left resurgence, our reforming Clause IV settlement is still intact and binding.
Mike Allott
Chandler’s Ford, Hampshire

• Contrary to Jonathan Freedland’s bizarre suggestion, “the few” of Labour’s slogan “For the many, not the few” are not to my knowledge seen by Labour members as being more likely to be Jewish than the rest of society; many Jewish people and families are among the “many”, on average incomes, or in poverty.

The UK is one of the most unequal countries in Europe. Money has trickled up, not down, the richest having more than doubled their wealth in a few years, while incomes in general are 3% lower than before the financial crash. Boris Johnson’s offer of more tax cuts to the wealthy came just months after Philip Alston, UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty, reported that poverty has inflicted “great misery” on people in the UK, with the government in denial. The Labour slogan “For the many, not the few” is about actually being “all in it together”.
Elizabeth York
Northampton

• It was a measured article by Jonathan Freedland. Two points. First, capitalism isn’t either a structural issue or about individual agency – it may have its own logic but it is knowingly implemented and applied by individuals and groups, so the two are mutually constitutive.

Second, there is confusion among populists about elitism, which in a time of increasing inequality and social fragmentation stirs racism. Greater political education and critical engagement with the causes of elitism, inequality and exclusion would help, and this requires unpacking the ideologies of populism that sustains this. Not so easy when there are forces afoot in politics, the media and elsewhere that are more than happy to sustain this status quo.
Dr Paul Clements
Goldsmiths, University of London

• It would have been useful if Jonathan Freedland had quoted polling evidence in his article. While its focus is on levels of antisemitism among party activists and members, if we look at Labour supporters a 2017 YouGov/Campaign Against Antisemitism survey suggests they are a little less antisemitic than the general population: 64% of everyone polled did not endorse any antisemitic statements, while 36% endorsed one antisemitic statement (this compares with 68% and 32% respectively for Labour supporters). Similarly, a 2017 report from the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (IJPR) found “the political left, captured by voting intention or actual voting for Labour, appears in these surveys as a more Jewish-friendly, or neutral, segment of the population”.

Also, the 2017 YouGov/Campaign Against Antisemitism poll found “Labour party supporters are less likely to be antisemitic than other voters”, such as Tory and Ukip supporters. And comparing YouGov polling on antisemitism from January 2015 and August 2017 (Corbyn was elected Labour leader in September 2015) shows antisemitism among Labour voters reduced slightly in this period.

The IJPR concluded that “the absence of clear signs of negativity towards Jews on the political left” was “particularly curious in the current context” as there were “perceptions among some Jews of growing leftwing antisemitism”. Could this confusion be down to commentators using insinuation and anecdotal examples instead of hard evidence?
Ian Sinclair
London

• The antisemitism or alleged antsemitism in the Labour party reported in the media has come as a shock to so many party members. I’ve been a member for 63 years, a parliamentary candidate five times and a Labour councillor for more than 40 years. During this period I have attended hundreds of meetings and met thousands of members. I can honestly say that I have never ever heard an antisemitic remark. In fact the opposite: I’ve seen very strong support for the Jewish community.
John Mann
Irchester, Northamptonshire

• If, when asked half a decade ago, to which of our two main political parties should one ascribe the terms “racism” and “anarchy”, few would have difficulty answering. How swiftly things fall apart as we now are faced with the racist left and anarchist right. No wonder fear and confusion haunt our increasingly friendless country.
Dr Richard Clubb
Ealing, London

• In your article (Corbyn decries BBC’s ‘inaccuracies’ over Labour antisemitism, theguardian.com, 13 July) you quote Jeremy Corbyn as saying that “It’s less than 0.1% of our membership that have ever been involved in any accusation, never mind any resolution of the issue.” Mr Corbyn needs to be asked: if that is so, then why is it that so many Labour candidates for high office seem to be selected from that 0.1%?
Bernard Kay
York