Jonathan Freedland writes that Keir Starmer has a short time, after the narrow reprieve of Batley and Spen, to clarify what he stands for and against, but the latter does not necessitate picking a fight with his party (Starmer has a little breathing space after Batley and Spen. He must use it wisely, 2 July). With few exceptions, Labour members will be only too willing to unite behind a radical policy platform driven by a clear set of principles and based, as advocated by Andy Burnham, on “a limited number of evocative themes” painted “in primary colours”. The Tories’ mismanagement of the Covid pandemic presents a persuasive case for what Labour should be both for and against: proper resourcing of health and social care and the kind of levelling up to tackle health and social inequalities proposed by Michael Marmot (Jaw-dropping’ fall in life expectancy in poor areas of England, report finds, 30 June), coupled with a relentless focus on cronyism and double standards. With the Tories showing every sign of repeating their past mistakes, Starmer should take the lead in publicising the initial findings of Michael Mansfield’s People’s Covid Inquiry, due to be released on 7 July, and in proactively setting out a recovery programme based on the best scientific advice, rather than the special interests of party donors and the rightwing press. Dr Anthony Isaacs London • I have a huge respect for Jonathan Freedland’s writing and usually read his articles before any other. However, I strongly disagree with his analysis of the Batley and Spen byelection, in which he says there was a 2.9% swing away from Labour and towards the Conservatives. There was no swing towards the Conservatives. Their share of the vote dropped from 36% to 34.4%. It was George Galloway who took a large chunk of the traditional Labour party vote. Under no circumstances could you interpret his 21.9% of the vote as any endorsement of Boris Johnson’s morally and intellectually bankrupt bunch. Evi Trickey South Croydon, London • The complex postmortem on the Batley and Spen byelection has highlighted the fact that we are in denial of the seismic shift in British voting behaviours that has occurred since Brexit. The idea that former “red wall” seats are traditional ideological battlegrounds between Labour and Tory, and that George Galloway was a threat to split the Labour vote, demonstrates our outmoded thinking. Brexit has given a new political power base to the nationalist vote, which was formerly equally divided between Labour and Tory. Having drifted between Ukip and the Brexit party for the past five years, it has now mainly been captured by the Tories. In Batley and Spen, there were 8,000 votes up for grabs formerly cast for either the Brexit party or the Heavy Woollen District Independents (effectively Ukip in another disguise). It was the distribution of these votes that decided the outcome. Galloway made no disguising of his Brexit credentials and his association with Nigel Farage. So, a number of these votes were probably siphoned off by him. We must conclude that his intervention in this byelection inadvertently delivered it for Labour. Michael Ashdown Stoke Gifford, Gloucestershire • In view of George Galloway’s stated intention of eating his hat, referred to by Marina Hyde (2 July), maybe he could try eating it hatatouille style or how about neeps and hatties? For breakfast, a bowler porridge would go down nicely. Christine Khawaja Yateley, Hampshire • While there was much to enjoy in Marina Hyde’s takedown of George Galloway, her dismissal of all hat wearers as poisonous man babies, weirdo anatomists, football-club-owning rapists or Bono was unkind to say the least. Having worn one all my adult life, I can assure her that I am none of those things. Richard Haswell Liverpool • I am delighted to see another woman snatching a byelection victory. We desperately need more women in parliament defending the rights of their communities, putting people before party politics, systems and budgets – as Kim Leadbeater has done so eloquently. So often it is the women in parliament who provide the most astute, detailed and grounded arguments, as did Sarah Champion on 30 June as she introduced the estimates debate on official development assistance. Rarely do we see such probing collaborative debate bringing together MPs from across the house. We need more of these astute, humane and ethical women at the heart of government. Yvonne Williams Ryde, Isle of Wight • Friday 2 July was the 93rd anniversary of the vote being acquired by all adult women in the UK. It coincided with the third occasion in recent weeks that a parliamentary byelection result has surprised many of our political pundits. All three of these elections were won by women, all three of the surprised runners-up have been men. Entirely coincidental? I think not. Andrew Warren Aldeburgh, Suffolk • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.