Some things are predictable, for example that Jonathan Freedland will write elegantly and enthusiastically in support of the Gang of Quitters; more unpredictably, he suggests that it’s OK to have “no clear policy stance” (The odds are against them, but these MPs could yet change our politics, 23 February). Although he is often a shrewd observer, on this occasion he shows few signs of understanding what influences Joe and Josephine Average. We are not waiting around for the next Trump or British Macron to captivate us with grandiose claims to put the “Great” back into “Britain”, or the United into Kingdom. People want answers to the big questions, such as how the fifth largest economy in the world has led the way in creating low-paid insecure work, lags behind on productivity, consigns growing numbers of families to inadequate housing, and appears disinterested or complacent in the face of such alarming facts. A set of guiding values, a declaration of policies and a programme of action may seem a bit dry or so-last-century, but until something emerges, I’ll give the TIGgers the benefit of the doubt, and view them as a bunch of frustrated middle managers who have realised that the CEO and shareholders aren’t going to change, and have tentatively decided to start looking for another job.

Les Bright

Exeter, Devon

• Rafael Behr gives us a comprehensive slating of Jeremy Corbyn (Stay and fight? There’s no point in the church of Jeremy Corbyn, 20 February). He says that the view of “Labour moderates” is based on “Corbyn’s past associations, familiarity with the tactics of the hard left at local party level and the invective of online trolls”. Anyone who bases anything on the invective of online trolls is being silly; it comes in all flavours, supporting all sides of anything. However, Corbyn’s guilt by association with the other two factors may be valid, I don’t know.

What I do know is that no one else in British politics this century has dared to stand for election on an anti-neoliberal manifesto. He did, and he increased the number of seats and the membership of the Labour party, thus revealing a constituency longing for his message. For that alone, I thank him. Those who want to frighten me out of believing he could safely be prime minister need to tell me who, among those they approve of, would stand up to the neoliberal powers that be.

Jeanne Warren

Garsington, Oxfordshire

• Martin Kettle refers to Labour moving to the far left under Jeremy Corbyn (The exit of the ‘three amigos’ could be a Tory watershed, 21 February). How does that relate to Labour’s 2017 manifesto commitment to raise the tax paid by corporations to 26%, when it was never lower than 34% under Margaret Thatcher, or to recruit 10,000 more police to fill the gap left when Theresa May as home secretary got rid of 20,000? It is only under Corbyn that Labour has wholeheartedly endorsed taking railway franchises back into public ownership when they come up for renewal, a policy supported by 65-70% of voters – I suspect the Tory independent MPs still oppose that, while most of the Labour independents would also prefer Tony Blair’s support for privatisation.

Christopher Clayton

Waverton, Cheshire

• Before Gaby Hinsliff gets too starry-eyed over the so-called “three amigos” (The charisma of these Tory defectors could be infectious, 22 February), she should remember they all voted in favour of the austerity policies which have caused misery to the poor and vulnerable of this country. Not sure I would feel like kicking back and cracking open a bottle with people who have only now decided that they don’t like the direction their party is taking.

Susan Clements

Newcastle upon Tyne

• With all due respect, I can’t help thinking Gaby Hinsliff is being rather sexist to characterise Anna Soubry and Heidi Allen as the Thelma and Louise of British politics. Isn’t it Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson who want to drive off the cliff holding hands, while the “three amigos” desperately try to hit the brakes?

Manny Rayner

Geneva, Switzerland