Wouldn’t it be great if Tony Blair kept his mouth shut about the Labour party (Tony Blair tells Starmer and rivals: abandon net zero and move closer to Trump, 26 May)? Since he entered his messianic phase, his utterances have undermined the leadership while attempting to push the party ever further to the right. He’s entitled to his views, but if he is still a party member, his are no more valid than anyone else’s.

Does he think that the millions he has earned by leveraging his former office will protect his grandchildren from horrendous climate change if we abandon net zero ambitions? Having led us into one illegal war through becoming too close to a US president, does he think that going into another illegal Middle East war alongside the deranged inhabitant of the White House is really a good idea? Does he think that criticising the Employment Rights Act while decrying the change to non-dom status is a vote-winning strategy?

Yesterday’s man with yesterday’s answers would do better to get back to what he does best, increasing his multimillion-pound fortune as a shill for autocrats, dictators and the sovereign wealth funds of unsavoury Middle Eastern regimes.
Fred Pickering
Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire

Whenever Tony Blair speaks out on where the Labour party has got it wrong, one can invariably guarantee that the solution lies in more neoliberalism spearheaded by the kind of mega-corporations that support the Tony Blair Institute.

The institute is funded by private billionaires, notably Larry Ellison of Oracle, who has given it more than £250m over the past five years. It has also received at least £9m from the Saudi Arabian government to assist with its Vision 2030 programme, which is aimed at diversifying its economy away from oil and updating its social institutions.

It is hardly surprising, then, that Blair wants Keir Starmer and any successor to follow economic policies that maximise profits for his sponsors, reduce public expenditure by cutting welfare spending, remove restrictions on oil and gas exploration, and get closer to Donald Trump.

It is now more apparent than ever that Blair belongs very firmly to the right of the political spectrum, where the creation of wealth is prioritised in favour of an elite of which he is a part, with any attempt at a fairer society to be postponed until an indeterminate future date when we might be able to afford it.
Bill Jackson
Nottingham

In his recent essay, Tony Blair argues that the government should prioritise cheap energy over clean energy and exploit all North Sea oil and gas reserves. But despite this essay landing in the midst of a fossil fuel energy crisis sparked by the closure of the strait of Hormuz and on the day it was announced that energy bills would rise by £208 as a result, he fails to admit that it is our dependence on fossil fuels that threatens British economic stability and prosperity.

Further oil and gas licensing will do nothing to bring down energy bills, because prices are set on the international market.

The only credible answer is to double down on the clean energy mission. Clean power is cheap power. Despite claiming to preach radical centrism, Blair also fails to address climate change. If every country followed his advice to exploit all fossil fuel reserves, it would lead to runaway climate change and global economic collapse. The Tony Blair Institute has taken money from a range of fossil-fuel interests. This may help to explain where his true allegiance lies.
Ed Matthew Director of the UK Programme, E3G, Areeba Hamid Co-leader, Greenpeace UK, Holly Brazier Trope Director of politics, Green Alliance, Chaitanya Kumar Head of economic and environmental policy, New Economics Foundation, James Sutton Co-executive director, Zero Hour, Suzi Shingler Stop Rosebank

Tony Blair says the UK should abandon net zero targets because “Britain’s emissions are under 1% of global emissions” and that we shouldn’t impose costs on consumers and businesses.

Blair’s assumption is that all we think about is what’s in our pockets. Actually, some of us understand that sacrifices need to be made to save the planet and every human living in it, including our own children. We cannot keep on with our relentless greed, and we should refuse to be defined solely as “consumers” with no stake in society beyond shopping.

We are citizens, each with a moral obligation to act for the planet and for the common good. And for me, that common good is to offer a beacon of change around climate change, even if that is in a small country like the UK.
Dr Deborah Talbot
Harescombe, Gloucestershire

Instead of pontificating, Tony Blair should instead reflect on how his administration harmed the country, and in particular adversely affected Labour’s natural supporters, the working classes, to the point of neglect.

He should consider the loss of council housing with the continuation of the right to buy over 13 years; the number of soldiers lost and traumatised from the invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq war, many of whom are now homeless; and the liberalisation of gambling laws, resulting in the proliferation of ways to bet, and endless advertising to people who can least afford to lose money.
Susan Roebuck
London

Winning three elections in a row, starting almost 30 years ago, does not give the man who helped get Britain into the state it’s in by following the neoliberal economic model introduced by Margaret Thatcher the right to headline news. His critique of the Starmer-led government has some limited merit, but his so-called solutions are way off the mark. He is the past, not the future. If he cares about “his party” he would be best keeping his own counsel.
Moira Sykes
Manchester

For all his election-winning nous, it’s unsurprising that Tony Blair’s essay has not been welcomed in the Labour party (‘Stuck in his glory days’: Blunkett and others cast doubt on Blair’s advice to Labour party, 27 May). His huge misjudgment in 2003 was a tragedy for – in descending order of importance – the people of Iraq, the standing of this country and the former prime minister’s own reputation. It overshadows everything else.
Jeremy Waxman
Canterbury

Tony Blair has done something vitally important. He’s got Labour discussing vision and policy, and he’s right that this is what’s needed. Let’s not call it a “row” or a “battle”. Let’s call it a “debate”; let’s applaud the reasoned responses from, for example, Torsten Bell and Andy Burnham, and let’s have more of this.
Rev Michael Camp
Salisbury, Wiltshire