The Tories are still leading in the polls despite everything Boris Johnson has done – how depressing

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

When I saw that the latest opinion polls show the Tories have taken a “commanding lead” following the events of the past week, I thought I must surely be having a bad dream.

It is nothing short of incredible, and a terrible reflection on the British electorate, that after seeing Boris Johnson bumble and lie his way through debates, he is now actually more popular.

It is even worse that after the shocking attempt by the Tories to fundamentally mislead the public by pretending to be an independent fact-checking service, and then swiftly after that disgraceful move, pretending to be the official website for the Labour manifesto –​ and actually paying Google to place it at the top in searches –​ that they have risen in the polls.

I cannot see why they are not being prosecuted for these two dirty tricks. I take issue with the claim that anyone could see they were actually Conservative Central Office sites –​ how many people would have noticed, or realised the significance of the four tiny initials underneath the banner headline?

We are repeatedly told that traditional working-class Labour supporters are turning against Labour and in favour of the Tories because of Brexit. I can only ask those voters to seriously consider whether they want to make themselves victims of yet another Tory government.

I would also like to ask them what glorious benefits they believe Brexit will bring that will justify abandoning all concern for anything else the Tories have done or may do in the next five years?

Penny Little
Oxfordshire

Jo Swinson’s popularity

Janet Street-Porter describes Jo Swinson as appearing cold and severe.

If that’s so, she’s no way near as cold as Princess Elsa in the film Frozen, who in the end was liked by everyone, except the baddies.

Roger Hinds
Surrey

I fear that the Liberal Democrats are in danger of shooting themselves in the foot. The somewhat strident statement that they will “cancel Brexit” appears undemocratic in that it reverses the result of the 2016 referendum. This will antagonise the 17 million who voted Leave but, more seriously, it could have a negative impact on those who voted Leave but are reconsidering their position.

The same point could be made in a manner that underpins the democratic process by stating that “if the Liberal Democrats attracted sufficient votes at the election to enable them to form a government then they would regard that as being a decision of the people that they wished to remain part of the EU”. This is a much softer and more defensible position than the simplistic “cancel Brexit”.

James Emerson
North Lincolnshire

Corbyn and Brexit neutrality

In the event of a second referendum, Jeremy Corbyn has announced that his decision to remain neutral is a sign of “strength and maturity”. This is complete nonsense. He is incapable of decisive action for fear of alienating potential voters, which is why he would be such a poor leader if he were to win the forthcoming general election.

If he became prime minister and we found ourselves under attack from a foreign power, how would his dithering nature protect the UK?

Christopher Learmont-Hughes
Wirral

Jeremy Corbyn’s neutral stance on Brexit is showing real leadership. He is leading the country into the area of reasoned debate followed by a vote as opposed to bouncing us out at any price, as advocated by Boris Johnson.
Ken Scott
Address supplied

Why all the fuss about Jeremy Corbyn saying he will remain neutral on the question of leaving or remaining in EU in a second referendum? Harold Wilson adopted the same stance in the referendum of 1975 when the decision was to remain.

Valerie Crews
Beckenham ​

Labour’s divisive language

One of the reasons for the electoral success of Tony Blair’s Labour Party was its rejection of the language of resentment that seems to characterise Jeremy Corbyn’s project. It is alienating people with its relentless oppositions of them and us, the many and the few, the struggling workers and the “bankers, the billionaires and the establishment”.

I want to see a more egalitarian society, but I don’t see how this persistent divisive language is likely to achieve it, and I certainly don’t see how it is consistent with Corbyn’s stated aim of trying to “bring people together”.

Matthew Taylor
Address supplied