I wonder how many other readers will have, like me, been drawn to make comparisons between these two articles: Andy Beckett’s (Britain is usually excited when it boots out a tired old government. Not this time, 31 March) and Richard Partington’s (Can this ‘ethical capitalist’ solve the UK’s social housing crisis?, 31 March). Beckett asks: “Why are so many voters so unsatisfied with Britain’s main political parties?” It seems to me that Partington provides at least a partial answer. The sad fact is that it takes a wealthy and socially minded philanthropist (and no criticism of Julian Richer for this!) to articulate a pretty obvious solution to the appalling housing crisis that afflicts our society. We must of course provide local government with the means to undertake a massive house construction programme, not to be sold off to a new generation of would-be landlords, but to be owned as a national heirloom for the future generations who need housing. Successive Tory governments have undermined this key pillar of a progressive society through their right-to-buy ideology. I was horrified to read recently in another article that new council housing (such as that recently built in Norwich) is still subject to this heinous policy (Councils now sell off more houses than they build. Thatcher’s legacy, right to buy, is a failure, 26 March). And yet when the need for a strong social housing programme is so clearly undeniable, Labour, under Keir Starmer, does not have the courage – or perhaps the political will – to stand up for the many people, and particularly young people with families, for whom secure, affordable housing would be life changing. In the end it would seem certainly on important social issues such as housing that the only real difference between the Tories and Labour is the colour of their ties. As a lifelong Labour voter, I will be joining the ranks of the many out there seeking an alternative. Dr Fiona McMillan Bridgwater, Somerset • Thanks for the great article by Andy Beckett on the disconnect between politicians and the electorate. However, I would suggest that the real reason for the disconnect that now clearly exists is that people are now much better and more broadly educated than previously, and therefore don’t totally identify with either of the two traditional parties. For example, many people I know identify with the socialist values professed by the Labour party (not necessarily what they have delivered, mind you), but economically with the professed values of the Tory party (not what they have recently delivered, either) because they understand that a sound economy is required to pay for and thus deliver the social policies. As a result, most people don’t really support either main party. They are also wise enough to understand that for all their bluff and bluster, Reform and other fringe parties are unlikely to do any better in delivering their policies. The reason that Labour under Clement Attlee and the Tories under Margaret Thatcher could command such a large and loyal base of supporters was that, like or loathe their policies, the respective leaders believed in them and tried to deliver them. Today’s political leaders simply try to judge what they think the public wants and then cynically reflect it back at them with no thought of delivery after that. Chris Ottewell Bristol