Zoe Williams is spot-on when she reminds us that “consensus is not what the Farage spirit seeks” (There’s no point railing against Farage. You have to present an alternative, 3 November). The underlying problem, however, has deeper roots than Williams’ solution, which correctly says we must build a plan to replace the negatives of Nigel Farage, Donald Trump and other libertarian-inclined conservatives. At base is the chasm between the fundamental mindsets of conservatives (of any political colour) and of progressives. Progressives accept that change is inevitable and seek to engage with and explore what we call “challenging” situations. To resolve difficult matters we want to examine the evidence and, as CW Mills once said, to employ our sociological imaginations. Conservatives feel no such compunction to resolve matters. They would like the rest of us to agree with their views, unchallenged. Inbuilt self-entitlement to their beliefs protects them from any requirement to re-examine the fundamentals. They are “right”, in both senses of the word. The real question is, as Williams suggests, how in turbulent times to reach those with set views and no wish to test these against objective realities – while also retaining the integrity of an open mind ourselves. Are non-progressive mindsets in reality a protection against personal insecurities and uncertainty? If this is the case, how can we best present plans that will make sense to those who don’t want to know? Hilary Burrage London • The answer to the question “How do you solve a problem like Farage?” is very simple, but fulfilling it is extremely difficult. Collectively, we have to be committed to raising the quality of political discourse from its current abysmal level. To achieve this requires using intellectual rigour in articles and speeches, and moving away from the present attachment to slogans and short-termism. Present-day politicians are far too entranced by the immediate soundbite, which only draws a hollow laugh from the electorate, to engage in explaining what vision they have for society and the means of achieving it. The law lord Patrick Devlin, in expressing his approval of juries who determined cases on the evidence, wrote that if politicians treated the electorate as a giant jury and sought to present evidence and to argue their case, they would find that many voters would respond with their view of what was “right thinking” rather than their prejudices. It’s worth a try. Michael Meadowcroft Leeds • While Zoe Williams is right that populists such as Nigel Farage thrive because the mainstream parties fail to put forward a compelling counter-narrative, there are other reasons. Mainstream parties, fearing the loss of voters to Farage’s extremists, have compromised and been complicit in aiding his rise. Ever since David Cameron’s “loonies” remark, politicians are wary of criticising Farage for fear of alienating their own socially conservative supporters. At one Labour party pre-election rally I attended, there was a collective gasp of horror when one of the panelists called Farage and his supporters racist. Labour had decided to follow the Conservative lead and offer a kinder version of Faragism to minimise any electoral losses. By compromising, they and the Tories became complicit in giving legitimacy to Farage, and so making what was a fringe agenda mainstream. Derrick Joad Leeds