Labour should embrace ‘levelling up’ as the Tories look primed to drop it

It is one of the very few things Boris Johnson deserves merit for – even if he went about it the wrong way, writes Chris Blackhurst

Is the notion of ‘levelling up’ going out with the PM? (AFP/Getty)

This could be a question in a pub quiz. What was “big society”? Was it: a) a large club? b) a club for large people? c) a jokey name for a club for small people? Or d) a Conservative initiative that advocated giving more power to the people?

The answer is d). But there would be those who would struggle in making the right selection, such was the short life of a key plank in the Tory 2010 election manifesto. Looking back, the policy only ever had one real champion, and that was David Cameron. When he went, his flagship idea died with him. It’s hard to recall any of his senior colleagues even voicing the words “big society”. If they did, they certainly didn’t do so with the same gusto as Cameron. Come forward 12 years. Is “levelling up” destined to go the same way?

The parallels are close. Like big society, no one is entirely sure what levelling up means. It sounds good, though, and paints its standard-bearer, Boris Johnson, in a concerned, caring, sharing light.

Similarly, it’s hard to find anyone else calling for it with Johnson’s enthusiasm. During this leadership election, there have been occasional, lacklustre references to the need to “level up” by the candidates, but that’s about all. Compared with Johnson’s talk, theirs has been muttered, sotto voce, almost as if they must go along with something that brought down the “red wall” of Midlands and Northern Labour seats and got them elected.

Its future was raised by concerned MPs at Johnson’s final Prime Minister’s Questions. His vague answers didn’t inspire confidence.

Perhaps there’s a sense of embarrassment at being so obviously associated with the prime minister who was driven from office. How telling it was that during the ITV debate, when asked if they would have Johnson in their cabinet, not one said they would.

Certainly, Labour believes it’s effectively perished with Johnson. Shadow levelling up secretary, Lisa Nandy, said promises “made with a bang are fading with a whimper”.

In theory, there remains a levelling-up department in government. For how long, in the shake-up that is bound to come with a new leader, must be doubtful.

Just as Cameron deserved credit for drawing attention to the desire for a more caring society, one based around more people doing their civic duty and volunteering (his critics argued it was happening anyway) and a smaller state machine, so too does Johnson merit praise for his central measure.

Within the Midlands and North, there are pockets of affluence, just as in London and the South East there are centres of deprivation

Of course, with Johnson, it came with a high degree of bombast and boosterism, plenty of shouting and not much doing. And he never fully explained what it entailed. Possibly, he typically could not be bothered; or, as more likely, he did not know exactly.

If it was taken at face value, and the comparison made with German unification and how the West made strenuous efforts to bring a semblance of equality to the East, then Johnson was looking at a bill of £2.5 trillion.

Not only is that the sort of sum that would likely cause Rishi Sunak, for one, to collapse, in truth it’s not an amount that our cash-strapped nation can even contemplate. We simply do not have the money.

It could have been higher, however, since there was confusion as to what was included in levelling up. If it was only the Midlands and the North, then £2.5 trillion, give or take. But in his speeches, Johnson referred to health inequality and difference in average lifespans depending on where someone lived. That’s not a North-South issue but a rich-poor issue.

Within the Midlands and the North, there are pockets of affluence, just as in London and the South East, there are centres of deprivation. And while we’re at it, what about the west, the South West and the east? They too suffer from the same issues as those thought to be covered by Johnson’s vision. They also lag London and the South East in transport infrastructure, some of their towns and cities have deep-seated social problems, and they were hit by the decline in manufacturing and traditional industries.

At least Johnson did raise the divide, even if he was never sure how far it extended and how he intended to close it. Plenty of other politicians, certainly on his side, would never dare raise it in the first place, let alone campaign so vigorously for it.

There is a golden opportunity here for Labour. While the would-be prime ministers prevaricate and obfuscate, the opposition can step in smartly and claim the phrase for their own. Of course, it should have been a Labour scheme in the first place, and the branding is down to Johnson, not them. But that should not matter – the Midlands and the North are craving to be loved and that’s what Johnson saw and gave them.

Labour should develop levelling up, pursue it and explain it, and accompany rhetoric with genuine promises of action. More fool Johnson’s successor, whoever he or she may be, for not picking up the baton and running with it.

If Labour plays its cards right and does not get hung up on levelling up being so closely associated with the former Tory premier, but embraces it, the party could retake those red wall constituencies. Who knows, levelling up may avoid becoming a quiz question after all.