ONCE again in the correspondence columns of your paper (“Party in trouble”, SNJ, January 4, 2017) phrases such as “hard left” and “eccentric views” are used to demonise the Labour Party.

Tom Newman’s political tactics are no different from those he decries.

It is classic.

Just stick a bad label on what you oppose, without any justification, and then that is sufficient ‘proof’ that what you have labelled is bad.

But what exactly is the “hard left” and what is eccentric about policies such as the living wage, promotion of publicly owned housing, ensuring that an effective health service is there when we need it, ensuring that the ultra-wealthy make a reasonable contribution through taxes to the society they live in and from which they benefit, campaigning for fair employment rights and the ability of workers to challenge the unreasonable demands of their employers, demanding that realistic provision is made for the care of people unable to care for themselves?

I could go on.

Does Tom Newman really believe that Fleet Street really does scrutinise all the political manifestos and then publishes a rational critique of these?

The evidence suggests that, rather, it decides what it is going to print and then looks for evidence to back up its views.

Sadly, this generally prevents any airing of the issues I have listed in my previous paragraph.

If that were to happen, there would be much more support for the Labour Party, I think.

Stephen Moore