Why Keir Starmer’s life story won’t matter to red wall voters

An emotive back story doesn’t hurt in politics but with Starmer’s cautious account coming across in muted greys rather than bursts of technicolour, the red wall is likely to retain its shade of Tory blue, writes Sean O’Grady

Sir Keir Starmer became slightly emotional when interviewed by Piers Morgan – as would most people (ITV)

If Keir Starmer wanted to prove he wasn’t dull, that he was an emotional man with the power to move others, then telling his life story to Piers Morgan was a great success. The story of the life and, most poignantly, the death of his parents almost brought a tear to his eye, and that of the viewer, and possibly even to Morgan. On the other hand, the fairly friendly exchanges between the two men also confirmed what must be obvious to anyone who has had the slightest acquaintance with Starmer, which is that he is a clever, cautious lawyer. When Morgan, a bit clumsily, tried to put words into the mouth of his “witness” by suggesting that he’d taken drugs at university but not enjoyed them, Sir Keir Starmer QC, former director of public prosecutions, was well able to dodge it. “We had a good time at university” was the formula of choice. It must have been, for Morgan if not the audience, a bit of a let down.

Do back stories matter? Sometimes. Having a solid working class, trade-union background is a pretty substantial asset if you want to be elected deputy leader of the Labour Party, as Angela Rayner and John Prescott showed to their advantage. It doesn’t work so well for the leadership itself, which tends to go solidly to the lower middle, middle and upper middle class types, covering every leader from Attlee and Gaitskell through to Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn. Only Neil Kinnock serves as the exception, son of a coal miner and a nurse.

Starmer is very much in that line of middle-class Labour leaders. His father was a highly skilled toolmaker, though as Starmer pointed out, he was rather looked down upon because he worked on the factory floor. Starmer didn’t drag himself up from crushing poverty, and doesn’t pretend to, and has obviously done well for himself and made his parents extremely proud. However, rising up through the ranks of the law just doesn’t quite have the same romantic appeal as a start in life as a care worker (Rayner) or a merchant seaman (Prescott).

The contrast with Blair, whose father, like himself, was a barrister, is that Blair had a rather naughty period as a layabout and failed rock star (the group was called Ugly Rumours), a loon-trousered, flared splash of colour to add a bit of interest to the old CV. Despite using a bit of eyeliner and wearing a donkey jacket, Starmer, was, well, a bit grey, as he still is.

Which brings us to the most useful of back stories in recent political leaders – John Major. Here was a boy who fell from a pleasant life in the relatively affluent surroundings of Surrey to existing in a bedsit in Brixton, and who failed his first job interview to be a London bus conductor because he couldn’t add up quickly enough. Oh yes! He never went to university and was poor, yet he made his way in life and up the social ladder to audiences with the Queen and the Order of the Garter through the engine of opportunity and social mobility called, erm, the Conservative Party. In 1992 Major unexpectedly won the general election, partly on the back of his impressive back story. There was a party election broadcast called The Journey which had Major being driven round Brixton in the back of his prime ministerial Jaguar to see if his old home was still standing, and we saw his simple delight in seeing that it was. The political ad was so successful it was repeated.

The point about the John Major story, like that of his Tory predecessors Margaret Thatcher (famously the daughter of a Grantham grocer) and Ted Heath (a Kentish carpenter and housemaid) was that they informed a political message about meritocracy and opportunity, hard work and determination – qualities generally applauded by the voting public. If you haven’t got such a stirring tale of personal dedication, it doesn’t stop you from getting to be Tory leader or elected prime minister, as Old Etonians David Cameron and Boris Johnson amply demonstrate. If anything, their privileged lives are something of an embarrassment, and no photographs of them in their Bullingdon Club get-ups ever adorned a Tory PPB.

Keir didn’t have it easy because of his mum’s long-term disability and his father’s distant manner, and people respect his achievements, but given that we knew most of that, and given that Johnson’s often manic back story hasn’t done him any harm, it is hard to see how Labour can make much capital out of it.

What is missing is a link between Starmer’s story and the Labour story, as a pitch to voters. If it was one of meritocracy and opportunity, as it was in Harold Wilson’s day and later reinvented as what Blair called “the British way”, then Starmer’s back story might have some resonance.

But if the electorate perceives that Labour is only about equality of outcomes, and is against the instincts of people who simply aspire to better themselves, and which mocks their concerns and their patriotism, then it really doesn’t matter what Starmer did or does, because it isn’t in harmony with the party’s image or policies. Like Neil Kinnock before him (who appeared in a nice cameo for the Morgan-Starmer show), his impressive life story and achievements will count for nowt in the red wall.