Jeffrey Archer saying he'd vote for Jeremy Corbyn if he lived 'up north' is patronising and ultimately means nothing

Despite hitting on an obvious truth that there is an economic north-south divide in the UK, one wonders what the novelist and former politician plans to do about it

Archer's latest revelation about the appeal of JC, as he's known to his fans, appears to have come on a trip to the north of England (AFP)

Jeffrey Archer has had an interesting career: MP, peer, novelist, playwright, convict... He is not a man who is shy about expressing himself either.

In a weekend newspaper interview he argued against a second Brexit referendum, despite being a Remainer, and heaped praise on Jacob Rees-Mogg, though he doesn’t think he’d make a good PM. He also, more intriguingly, had warm words for Jeremy Corbyn, half of whose policies Archer said he agreed with "100 per cent".

It's not the first time the Conservative peer has sounded a positive note about the Labour leader (he told The Spectator last year he was "convinced Corbyn will be prime minister"). However, Archer's latest revelation about the appeal of JC, as he's known to his fans, appears to have come on a trip to the north of England.

"I was travelling through the northwest recently," he told The Sunday Telegraph, "and as I looked out of the window it did make me think I’d vote for Corbyn if I lived up here."

Now at one level, there is a degree of insight here which is painfully lacking among many people in public and political life. The simple truth which Archer recognises – however patronisingly – is that it really doesn't matter what the establishment, or media commentators, or the Tory front bench, or dyed-in-the-wool centrists think about Corbyn: all of them are minorities.

For the great many people in Britain (northern or not), who feel poorer thanks to the crash and thanks to austerity, Corbyn offers an alternative approach to government and to national economic management. He offers, in short, a way to a better life.

The other truth which Archer hit on while he was looking out of a window as the grim north sped by, is that there remains a divide in this country on broad geographical lines. People die younger in northern England. Unemployment rates are highest in towns north of an imagined line between the Severn and the Wash. In the last 10 years, spending on transport per head of population was £708 in London compared to £289 in the north of England. Back in 2016 there were reports that un-needed donations to food banks in Surrey were being redirected to Newcastle.

There have been myriad political attempts to create a more level playing field. Key northern cities underwent significant regeneration programmes in the 1990s and the 2000s. During the Coalition years, the Northern Powerhouse scheme took off; and HS2 will create improved transport links between north and south. Furthermore, city mayors have been granted significant devolved powers.

Nevertheless, these advances have not always brought lasting rewards. Swanky apartments in places such as Manchester were a boon to property developers and buy-to-let landlords but, of course, came at a premium to renters and ordinary buyers. Regeneration of cities such as Doncaster and Sunderland in the years before the global financial crisis did not boost employment rates. HS2 has as many critics as supporters – and we won’t know for years whether it’ll be worth the wait. And while powerful mayors are regarded as a good thing in theory, as soon as they become critics of central government they become rivals for authority.

So, the divide remains – and for as long as Brexit distracts government, it seems likely only to widen. As for the effects of EU withdrawal, it is obvious that any economic downturn will disproportionately affect those places which are already struggling, which means the north will suffer most.

Indeed, despite hitting on an obvious truth (albeit a simplistic one, not least given that there are plenty of people in the south who are suffering economically too), one wonders what Archer plans to do about it. He went on to describe how, as he stared out at the northern bleakness, “I felt I had too much, that I’m over-privileged”. But if he understands Corbyn’s appeal and agrees with many of his policies, will he vote for him?

It seems fair to assume that the answer to that is a resolute “no”. Indeed, there is a peculiar sense reading Archer’s remarks that they were born not just of any sympathy for or real understanding of the problems experienced in England’s north – or indeed in any of its economically deprived, or unbeautiful corners – but also of a relief that he was able to escape back to a comfortable life in Cambridgeshire.

Greater economic and social equality may seem like a great thing in principle to people with wealth, but only if it means bringing the bottom half up at no cost to those at the top. As soon as anyone mentions something like inheritance-tax rises, ideals fly out of the door. Sure enough, that is one of Jeremy Corbyn’s proposals which Archer can’t get on board with.

Whenever the next election comes, there are many in the north who will vote for Corbyn; and there are many in the south and the east and the west who will do the same. He offers alternative policies for one thing. For another, he doesn’t condescend. That’s a trick Archer hasn’t learned.