Far more important than Jamie Reid’s motives for resigning (by their exit strategies shall ye know them…) is the upcoming bellwether contest in his Copeland seat – a first acid test of Labour’s post-referendum prospects in a “Labour-leave” seat (Corbyn critic quits and triggers election test for Labour, 22 December). Labour’s chances will stand or fall on the party’s ability to articulate – finally – a position on Brexit that’s both principled and comprehensible.

Something like: “We believed in June, and still believe today, that leaving the EU is a disastrous choice for Britain. We make no apologies for that conviction. But we acknowledge the outcome of the referendum. And precisely because we hold the convictions we do, you can trust us to fight for the best possible deal for Brexit – one that protects jobs, will not sell out workers’ and consumers’ rights or the environment, and recognises that Britain’s prosperity depends on amicable relations with our fellow Europeans – our closest neighbours, our historic allies and our biggest trading partners. We understand how much uncontrolled immigration concerns voters and we will put forward a policy that is humane and realistic”.

Voters – even those who don’t agree with every sentiment – will reward clarity and honesty, just as they will punish (continuing) incoherence and evasiveness. Furthermore, provided Labour don’t select a leave candidate – a suicidal and self-defeating choice which would reap absolutely no electoral dividend – those centre-left voices calling for a progressive alliance must renew our call for unity among anti-Tory, anti-Ukip, anti-hard-Brexit forces. By choosing not to field a candidate in a contest where they stand no chance, the Lib Dems can demonstrate greater political maturity than Labour did with their futile candidacy in Richmond Park last month.

For the Green party this will be more difficult, given their opposition to nuclear power and the certainty of a pro-nuclear Labour candidate. But the far bigger prize of holding down May’s majority should be worth swallowing even that bitter pill.

Professor Barry Langford

Royal Holloway, University of London

• Steve Richards argues persuasively for “taking back control” being a slogan for the left (Opinion, 20 December), but there is a great flaw at the heart of his case: there is no practical definition of the “left” that is today capable of supporting his case. Labour, in its belief that it owned the left, relied on that massive bloc of voters that identified itself by class, trade union membership or employment, and automatically voted for the party.

As a group those voters have gone. Heavy industry has all but disappeared, the unions, faced with adverse economic conditions, cannot preserve jobs and are themselves struggling; and class solidarity is drifting increasingly towards identification with rightwing parties, primarily Ukip or, as most vividly in Scotland, with nationalist parties. This misalignment of Labour’s core voters with the party’s views is far from being new, but Labour took their votes for granted until it was too late.

Now there is the great paradox that these electors want low prices, but reject the dependence on imports from lower-wage economies overseas, or from the employment of new immigrants. It is similar to deploring the disappearance of the corner shop, but steadfastly shopping at the supermarket. The “right”, whether Ukip or even much of the Conservative party, can mouth slogans, but their world is a chimera and their appeal is fraudulent. The past, as this swathe of good, solid citizens remembers it, has gone and cannot return in the same form. What is needed is a commitment to long-term support for different but worthwhile jobs, for domestic policies that provide the basis for rebuilding local communities, and for an emphasis on human values that do not depend on high earning.

It is not easy to combat selfishness – particularly when a few earn shamefully high salaries while average wages decline in real terms – but there is no stability nor worthwhile future if we do not succeed.

Michael Meadowcroft

Leeds

• As a Christmas present to Jeremy Corbyn’s critics, you headline a report from a group of Labour MPs hostile to Corbyn, rightwingers you refer to as “moderates” (‘No passion’ – swing voters’ damning verdict on Corbyn and Labour party, 24 December). The report is based on focus groups of Ukip sympathisers and – surprise, surprise – advises those same MPs to “isolate from Jeremy”. Just what they want to hear. You then repeat playground insults from the same source.

Any disarray or disunity in the party is the responsibility of those MPs. They attack Corbyn and John McDonnell day after day, refusing to promote party policy on jobs, housing, transport or the NHS, the core concerns of those they should represent. They offer no support, in parliament or outside. Worst of all, they show contempt for the hundreds of thousands of new members, mainly Corbyn supporters, who have made Labour the largest political party in Europe.

This bunch of political losers are intent on the destruction of a Labour party they cannot control.

Ken Loach

Sixteen Films, London

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters