I agree with most of what Martin Kettle says about Boris Johnson’s speech (Johnson tells a striking story of Britain’s future, but it’s the results that will count, 7 October) and it may be that it’s the kind of speech that “most political leaders with their backs against the wall would have given”. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that he left out what we most needed to hear. Although an enormous amount of scholarship has been produced over the last 30 years about what leadership is, in the end we recognise a good leader when we see one. The difference between Jacinda Ardern, for example, and Johnson is that the former can speak into her country’s hopes and fears, not just their hopes. Yes, it is incumbent upon a leader to be able to describe a better tomorrow, but in order to earn the right to do so, they have to say something about what preoccupies those they are leading today, so that people can recognise themselves and what they are enduring. They need their experience to be taken seriously. How could I trust a leader to realise a better tomorrow if I have no sense that he is dealing adequately with today and how I figure in it, even if he were to admit the truth that it would be a struggle for anybody to deal with? Chris Mowles Oxford • In Boris Johnson’s speech to the Tory party conference (What did Boris Johnson’s conference speech really mean?, 6 October), he was characteristically selective in his use of history. He said that in 1942 the government “sketched out a vision of the postwar new Jerusalem that they wanted to build. And that is what we are doing now – in the teeth of this pandemic”. In fact, the Tory-dominated national government refused to commit itself to implementing the Beveridge report (which is what Johnson is referring to) and thus provoked a huge revolt of Labour backbenchers. Churchill’s defeat in the 1945 general election owed much to his lukewarmness over Beveridge. It was Attlee’s government that attempted to build the new Jerusalem, making the state responsible for the welfare of its citizens on an unprecedented scale. Johnson did not acknowledge this since, despite the failures of Serco, Capita and the rest to cope with the present crisis, he hankers for the state to “stand back and let the private sector get on with it”. Dr Piers Brendon Cambridge • As Boris Johnson is so fond of invoking Winston Churchill and the second world war, surely it is time for him to emulate his hero and set up a national government, with Keir Starmer as deputy PM? Anne Kirkman Willingham, Cambridgeshire • In his speech, Boris Johnson asserted that his government is stopping the criminal justice system from being hamstrung by lefty human rights lawyers and other do-gooders. This is, on one level, meaningless pap masquerading as morale-boosting rhetoric. But it is more than that. It is offensive to all those barristers, solicitors, judges, probation officers and others who strive daily to ensure that people are dealt with fairly in court, according to the rule of law. It is dangerous that we have a prime minister who demonstrates his contempt for such professionals who, regardless of their own political persuasion, fearlessly work to preserve our hard-won freedoms. Fortunately, such people are made of stern stuff. Unlike politicians, they do not crave popularity. Johnson will take them on at his peril. That he appears to contemplate doing so shows a lack of judgment. His Honour Michael Heath Retired circuit judge, Lincoln