Thank you, Jackie Ashley, for (finally) getting an honest and intelligent article in recognition of the left-right divide into the paper (A return to left-right politics promises a fascinating year , 2 January). Along with the well-judged enumeration of the coalition's policies – entrenched support for the super-rich at home and the transatlantic alliance abroad – your incisive and courageous attack on Blair's project "to erase Labour's leftwing identity" represents welcome and overdue support for the position of the present Labour leadership.
I very much hope that this perception will mark the start of more engaged support for Labour's developing clarity in breaking from the disasters of the Blair government's foreign policy and its notorious support of the super-rich. Once Polly is back, we may find that, with the two of you writing so perceptively, the Guardian once again proves to be the sound source of support, inspiration and constructive criticism which readers of the paper have despaired of during the dark days of winter 2011. Let's hope that, however much worse things become in this new year, the paper may return to its unique role as a critical friend of the left.
Mary Lloyd
Southampton
• Once again the bias the Guardian has shown against Ed Miliband continues, with an anti-Miliband letter (31 December) given prominence. Someone called Mike Allott intimates Ed is a Judas and says his defeated brother is "one of the most able centrist politicians of his generation". Really Blair mark II might be a better description. Ed is characterised as "weak", yet his decision to campaign against his brother – and win – suggests otherwise. He has a massive task to gain credibility with disgruntled Blairites, press hostility and the blaming of the world financial crisis on the last Labour government. Under these circumstances a saint would struggle, so give him a fair hearing instead of the churlishness shown by several Guardian writers.
Peter Ward
Saltford, Bath
• Your headline (Labour told: accept cuts to be credible, 6 January) was grossly misleading. The text made it clear that Jim Murphy was referring only to the defence cuts, and many of us would cut those even deeper, eg scrap Trident. For one of the newspapers opposed to the savagery of the cuts imposed by this Conservative-led government, it is shameful that you provide ammunition for its benefit.
Russell Sweeney
Leeds
• Can we assume when, and if, Labour comes out of denial and accepts the cuts, the Guardian will do the same?
Paul Gleave
Warrington