Thread by @shaunjlawson

Now then. Here's a challenging thread. Keir Starmer and the red wall.

Of all the criticisms I see of him on here, this one's obvious. A VERY Remain London lawyer trying to reconnect with working class, Leave-voting, Brexit-backing, northern voters? "Pull the other one, Keir..."

Starmer's answer to this, more than anything else, is devolution and localism. Putting power back into people's hands. And heeding that one of the main causes of Brexit was how incredibly powerless so many people - especially working class people - felt.

Of course, few people say on the doorsteps "I want devolution! Give me my devolution!" It's just not the sort of thing that's talked about by politicians or the public. But I do think his is the correct interpretation. Well: part of it, at least.

And one of the reasons I think that is because... Rebecca Long-Bailey's called for the same thing. And was hailed for it! Lisa Nandy's pitch isn't so different either. There's just something about Nandy's approach which is palpably different to the other two somehow.

At the heart of the critiique of Starmer on this, though, is two things:

1. He was about the most constantly active Remainer on the front bench, and is therefore blamed by the left for the election result.

2. Where he's from and how he sounds.

Point 1 comes down to events: whether Brexit is a success or a failure. If it's the former, the Tories win in 2024 regardless of who our leader is. If it's the latter, having been on the right side of history is hardly going to be held against him.

Point 1 is also massively more in tune with where most Labour voters and members are than Corbyn was on this. That's what gives him a chance to unify the party and move us all on from Brexit. And focus instead on the causes of them.

What I'm waiting for from him is some sort of pledge re: a constitutional convention. Even though he's not spoken about electoral or constitutional reform at all, I think his platform should automatically lead him there. Why do I think that?

Because his platform is a complete mix of socialism, social democracy and liberalism. He's very pro-immigration - and on the BBC the other day, shut down an appalling question from Nicky Campbell on it:

theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/ke…

He wants full voting rights for all EU citizens living in the UK. He wants to overhaul the entire immigration system and remove its cruelty and harshness: exactly as he does on the benefits system too. His views are what will enable Labour to be a post-Remain party.

All of which doesn't so much drag Labour towards the Lib Dems as drag the Lib Dems towards Labour. If he wins, the first thing that should happen in the polls is the Lib Dems go down; Labour go up. And that brings a progressive alliance of some sort a lot closer.

As it also does with him focusing heavily on the green new deal. That instantly aligns Labour with the Greens - with the crucial difference that the Greens (and Green voters) are heavily pro-EU. So they didn't trust Corbyn but do trust Starmer.

So that's the Greens and Lib Dems mostly taken care of: in exactly the same way as they were in 2017. When, as I remarked at various points last year, the whole liberal left united around common values in a way I'd never seen before under FPTP. I thought it was brilliant.

Then we come to the red wall: a different kettle of fish entirely. Of course he's going to have difficulties there. ALL possible leaders are going to have difficulties there.

Take RLB. She's not seen as associated with Remain and is from the north herself. That's good - right?

Except that she IS seen as very heavily associated with Corbyn: who is bloody loathed by so many of those who switched from Labour to Tory. That "ten out of ten" comment is gonna follow her around and be used against her for years.

Meanwhile, I'd love to know how many former Labour voters on the doorsteps say "I hate that Starmer. He's the problem. I do like that Long-Bailey though..." I bet the answer to that is very few.

The reason for that is simple. She doesn't stand out; she has no real gravitas.

Every time I see RLB speak, I see someone who is competent, quick-witted, and left wing. The demonisation of her by the right wing press is completely absurd. I quite like her overall. She must play a major role going forward.

But I don't see someone who anyone on the left is going to be convinced by. Quite the reverse. That's why I've highlighted her taking the easy way out in this contest of constantly focusing on her base; not trying to win more unconvinced people over.

If that's her approach just to the membership, what's it going to be like if she's leading the party - which is faced by hostility bordering on outright hatred in parts of the north, midlands and Scotland?

And the further issue is as follows.

So many people on the left like to claim that working class people want socialism. Socialism is the answer. More socialism will win them back!

Where is the evidence for this beyond basic assumptions?

Working class people are patriotic and expect the armed forces to be supported.

Many working class people support the renewal of Trident.

Many working class people are socially conservative; even authoritarian.

According to polling in 2017, MORE THAN HALF of Leave voters want the death penalty brought back. More than half!

And it's not just social and cultural attitudes which are different. Huge numbers of working class people want to get on in life and progress economically.

Offering them handouts is seen by them as undignified and patronising. It's a hand-up they want. To put it another way: they're a heck of a lot more individualistic and aspirational than we ever acknowledge. And they're a lot more scared of and turned off by traditional socialism

Meanwhile. the proportion of workers in trades unions has collapsed since the 1980s; heavier proportions of black people than white people are in unions; and get this. Professional degree-educated people are much more likely to be in one than working class people without degrees.

All of which is to say: our entire view on what working class people want is almost certainly wrong and quite miserably outdated. Any emphasis on certain overseas issues sends them scurrying away in horror. And no mere northern accent is magically going to change that.

As I wrote at the time, when Boris Johnson declared for Leave in early 2016, that was an absolute disaster for Remain. He was popular then and popular now; and him being a posh Tory is irrelevant when he has a vision of the UK which chimes in with working class Leavers.

This is a change in political and cultural demographics which is sweeping the West. Exactly the same phenomenon has been ongoing in the US for the last 20 years. Working class people vote increasingly to the right; middle class people with high level educations vote to the left.

Can the red wall be won back by anyone? Only if Brexit is a disaster. Putting power back into the hands of people is a longer term thing. People won't see the difference that'll make until they have it.

But beyond that: if you want to win working class people back in their droves, I'll tell you what you absolutely can't do. You can't put together a manifesto which amounts to an a la carte wishlist... because so many working class people are scared of massive levels of spending.

They have to trust us first. They know we'll spend money. ALL Labour governments spend money! But in a contest between Labour saying "we'll spend lots and lots" and the Tories saying "we'll spend... but not recklessly", what do you think so many of them will do?

And something else too. What was another huge cause of Brexit? Chronic distrust, even loathing of, all politicians of all hues.

So our message to them is: "The system's completely failed. You've all been failed. How about... we take control of all the things you use every day"?

NOW do you see why they don't trust us? Most British politicians couldn't run a bath - and our solution is to give the state more power over their lives? Are you kidding me?

That's why renationalisation should only happen in cases where there's already massive popular consensus.

That certainly means the railways. It probably means energy. It *might* mean water. It *might* mean the postal service (a natural monopoly). But it has to be considered carefully: don't do anything which pushes voters away needlessly. Don't over-promise and do NOT over-spend.

What's Starmer's solution to all this? Remember him putting power back in the hands of local people? Remember what I mentioned about this taking us, almost unnoticed, towards a progressive alliance by swallowing up Lib Dem and Green support?

Starmer's solution - in cases other than the railways and probation service - is common ownership at local level. That's the Preston model. It's not about letting the state massively expand. It's about tackling market failure by letting local people take control.

That's where you take a traditional (and entirely accurate) leftist view that the market is very often completely wrong... and you update it to something fit for the 2020s, not the 1940s. That's linking both conviction and realistic but new solutions together.

A huge part of what the DWP has done in recent years has been wilful, deliberate and disgusting. But the idea that Westminster and Whitehall can somehow efficiently govern areas hundreds and hundreds of miles away is ridiculous. It doesn't work. Not fit for purpose at all.

If and when universal basic income comes in, it needs to be implemented at local level. Not by the state, but locally. The green new deal is about rebalancing and remaking the economy; it's not about a world in which everyone travels to London for 'opportunity'.

It's about a world in which local communities are reshaped and strengthened. Not one in which we all travel more and more. We have to get off the roads, not turn the country into a mass polluting standstill. Renationalising the railways is a vital part of all this too.

Labour hasn't lost the north for good. But for so many, the proof of this pudding will only be in the eating. The massive difficulty lies in getting from A to B - it's a catch-22 in some ways.

I don't see Starmer as some miracle worker. I think we're massively up against it at the next election regardless of who leads us. It's the person who follows him who's most likely to win us power again - but we can only do that through being competent and professional.

The press can't attack him for baggage in his past. It can't paint him, a London lawyer, as a 'danger to Britain'. And as he holds the Tories to account over Brexit - which has NOT been 'done' and may turn into a catastrophe - him being a Remainer gives him more credibility.

RLB, on the other hand? If Brexit's a disaster, she can't cut through on that in the way Starmer can. She can't distance herself from Corbyn in the way Starmer can. And she's not tried to persuade anyone who wasn't already supporting her to begin with.

I don't blame her for any of that. I think, more than anything, it's too early for her. Yes, she entered Parliament when Starmer did - but he has a lifelong record prior to that, which she doesn't. The public is quite wildly unlikely to view her as a credible leader at this point

Just having a northern accent doesn't change any of those fundamentals. Some will even view us as tokenistic idiots if we choose her in the belief it'll make some magic difference. Frustrations with Labour in our old heartlands run infinitely deeper than that.

But the first thing we do to challenge those frustrations? Be competent. Be credible. Message clearly and effectively. Hold the government to account every week, every day. And show that we've listened by not choosing the candidate most identified with someone hated in the north.

It's a long road back. A very long road. But obsessing where someone's from misses the point. We have to win EVERYWHERE: north, south, east, west, Scotland, Wales, cities, towns, rural areas. If a posh Old Etonian Tory toff can do most of that, of course a London lawyer can too.

Because it's not about where someone's from. It's about what they say, how they say it and - here's our advantage over the totally amoral Johnson if we get this right - who they and we are.

/ENDS