• JEF Smith’s letter (About that propaganda, August 15) misses the point about the source of divisiveness in Labour Party politics in recent weeks.

Nor is the issue about discrediting Martin Plaut. Rather it is about setting the record straight about the responsibility for the divisiveness.

Had Sir Keir Starmer not set about threatening a whole range of suspensions of hard working and long-standing Labour Party members, particularly Jewish members, but also others, including myself, for our support of Palestine and opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza; had he formulated a coherent and humane strategy to tackle Camden’s scandalous issues of homelessness and child poverty; had he supported rather than vilified legitimate strike action by underpaid public sector workers, the need for an independent community-based challenge to his position might not have arisen.

Every single day of the election campaign Andrew Feinstein was out in local estates, in front of supermarkets, talking with constituents and engaging with them about the issues that concern them. Many decided to vote for him because he could connect with them.

Why did so many say that they had not seen or heard of any local visit by their incumbent MP, who they had willingly supported in 2019?

Why is it that Starmer’s vote in 2024 fell by around 50 per cent in comparison with 2019, while Feinstein, who few had heard of before the election campaign, won more than 7,000?

HARRIET EVANS, NW5