Thread by @shaunjlawson

And now, a note on Labour's future direction, with or without a progressive alliance. This note, I fear, will not go down too well with many. But y'know, bear with me, and try not to jump down my throat if at all possible.

As we saw, under FPTP, Labour was forced to try and look in both directions at once on Brexit... so it got run down on both sides, with its message especially ineffective in Leave areas. And working class voters piled into the Tory column. A historic, awful moment.

Should Labour therefore have run a campaign accepting Brexit? No it should not. Because for all manner of reasons, Brexit is just plain wrong.

More than that: Brexit is not accepted by the large majority of Labour's members.

So what people insisting Labour should've had a Brexit platform are saying is: you're expecting Labour's volunteers, Labour's activists, most Labour MPs and most of Labour's members to have argued for something fundamental which they don't believe in. At all. That is ridiculous.

And here's something equally fundamental. Labour's Brexit position frequently bewildered the public not just because of media lies and misrepresentation. It's because, to huge swathes of the public, it just didn't make sense that Labour wasn't pro-Remain.

When much of the public thinks of Labour, it thinks of:

- Metropolitan cities

- Young people

- Ethnic minorities

- The green agenda

- Social liberalism

- Pro-immigration attitudes

- Being open, not closed; internationalist, not nationalist

And with Labour's base now so much in London and the cities, a process which has accelerated since 2015, the clock can't somehow be turned back. If we try to, we'll end up with no support anywhere at all.

What will become of all those traditional working class seats we've lost? That's for the Tories to decide. They either win them over for good - or lose them by betraying them (and my money's firmly on the latter).

But trying to win them back by becoming, for example, anti-immigration is a road to nowhere. Again, it would involve advocating something most of us just don't believe in, and is completely against our values. How we view the world. That's why Blue Labour is a non-starter.

We shouldn't underestimate just how significant Islamophobic, even white nationalist attitudes are among *some* who moved from Labour to Tory last week. Not all, but definitely some. That isn't something that can be reasoned with effectively.

And on the whole question of Labour having 'abandoned the working class':

1. That's what New Labour did. It's just that we're paying the full price for it now

2. We've not even been in government since 2010, for heavens' sake - and local councils have been defunded by austerity

I'm not saying "don't try and reach out to voters we've lost" at all. I am saying that trying to turn the clock back is to swim against the tide: of huge demographic and cultural shifts that are going on across the West. If we do that, we'll drown.

The Democrats can't magically turn back into the old Democrats of before the Civil Rights Act, and especially before Clinton. Labour can't magically turn back into the Labour of Attlee and Wilson either.

Technological change means huge changes in work patterns; labour is no longer organised, but disparate. Atomised. So when we talk about workers and unions' rights, many in northern England and the midlands do not have a clue what we're on about.

Labour has to embrace that change and make the best of it. In future, it has to seed policy in advance; not announce a whole slate of amazing new policies in one go. I'm quite sure it will end up supporting Universal Basic Income by 2030 or earlier; we need answers to automation.

But in terms of its overall recovery, I see Labour's future as, in effect, a post-Remain party. Advocating many of the things which Remain stood for (but NOT demanding a return to the EU); consolidating our position among the young, city dwellers and the BAME communities.

And crucially, such a party would also steadily reach out to liberal or Remain Tories - who only stayed with Johnson because of fear of Corbyn. Under a different leader, that fear should dissipate.

As I've already said, I want a progressive alliance above all, and have set out why here:

compassonline.org.uk/why-we-despera…

A post-Remain Labour Party would fit such an alliance perfectly. And in the end, there's only one priority here: not you, not me... but getting the Tories out.

It IS possible to steadily win working class voters back if Brexit is a shitshow. And especially by getting the message over loud and clear: "We hear you. We get it. You've been betrayed. So join us and we'll change the environment into something that helps you and your families"

But that can only be done by advancing what we - well, most of us, at least - believe in. Changing the message, but not changing the substance. Because the reality is: only with large scale investment into these many communities will lives improve and attitudes change.

Large scale investment, mind you, which needs to be carefully costed - and run past the IFS before we announce it. Here's the thing about the IFS:

1. They're not partisan

2. They're never wrong

Rightly, they realised that Labour's 2015 manifesto was completely balanced.

It's just that Labour ran as 'pro-austerity' because Miliband was too scared of what English voters would think if he told the truth about it. Labour's manifesto that year was way more anti-austerity than the SNP's!

Sadly, the constant 'Labour always crash the economy' drivel has had enormous cut-through. All voters will expect us to properly cost all policies, and to have that verified by an independent organisation like the IFS. We ignore that at our peril.

I'd go further than just costing them. I'd hypothecate all taxes, ie. I'd explain what proportion of what tax pays for what. The public has a right to know - and to expect anyone who'll be taxing it to run the economy responsibly. That's not 'right wing' - it's common sense.