As an active and loyal Labour member, I am infuriated by what is happening within the party (Burnham allies warn against quick ‘coronation’ of Streeting if Starmer quits, 12 May). The ongoing circus about the leadership is a terrible distraction from the numerous global and national issues that the government and the prime minister should be focused on. But the most infuriating aspect of the entire shambles is the relentless speculation and briefings from so-called “allies” of Andy Burham.

No Labour member has an innate right to be selected as a parliamentary candidate. The assertion that a sitting Labour MP should give up the seat voters elected them to, necessitating a byelection so that Burnham can run, then assuming that he would automatically retain the seat, is arrogance beyond belief. And it makes the party look ridiculous.

There are more than 400 Labour MPs already elected to parliament; if there has to be a leadership contest, which I am not convinced there should be, surely there must be at least a few of them suitable for the job? Burnham chose to give up his seat as an MP to become the mayor of Greater Manchester, and he’s already run for the Labour leadership twice unsuccessfully.

The country needs a stable, credible and capable government. Trying to prevent others, whoever they are, from running to become Labour leader while Burnham scrambles around trying to wangle his way back into parliament somehow is not in any way putting country before party.
Fiona O’Farrell
Richmond, London

Jess Phillips, the departing safeguarding minister, was correct to insist in her resignation letter that deeds are more important than words. In the two years since its election, the Labour government, under Keir Starmer’s leadership, has pushed through several pieces of significant legislation including the renters’ reform bill and the online safety bill, increased the minimum wage and laid out a clear plan to remodel our educational provision for students with special educational needs and disabilities.

In 2024 we voted for change, not revolution, and these are all substantial steps towards deep social change. On the international scene, through tumultuous times, Starmer has trodden with finesse the tightrope of transatlantic relations, and made substantial repairs to the broken relationship with Europe that Boris Johnson left behind.

When will we the voting public have the wisdom to value deeds instead of words? Instead, in the local elections last week, the electorate gave their votes to a man of many words but few policies and still fewer principles, and this week we are embroiled in a potential leadership challenge.
Sarah Mulholland
Goldsithney, Cornwall

In all the furore surrounding Keir Starmer, I find myself wondering: where is Rachel Reeves in all this? She is the architect of many of the disastrous decisions his government has made: restrictions on the winter fuel allowance; the delay in removing the two-child benefit cap; the rise in national insurance contributions; the threat to personal independence payment; the moves to restrict spending on Send provision. I could go on.

Yet she appears to sail onwards, oblivious of the harm that she has caused. Starmer should sack her and bring back Anneliese Dodds to put our economy on to a more sustainable footing.
Jennifer Evans
Aldershot, Hampshire