Read on Twitter
This focus on patriotic values is a misled strategy, but possibly well intentioned. Starmer believes that the 'Red Wall' is Labour's base, but this simply isn't true. Labour is not a party of old property owners, it is a party of working-age people. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/02/labour-urged-to-focus-on-flag-and-patriotism-to-win-voters-trust-leak-reveals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Part of this problem is demographically intrinsic to these regions. Postindustrialism is what defines these areas, and it is what defined where I grew up in Swale (pic nabbed from Google Maps of location below). Swale has been Tory since 2010.
While it is true that Swale is a deprived area, it is about 95% white, very few young people go to university, compare that to deprived city areas and it becomes apparent how the difference in ethnicity and its perceived link to deprivation by the population affects these areas.
Swale and Kent have a higher average age relative to the rest of the country. Swale's average age is 40 years old, London has an average age of approx. 35-36. This is a BIG deal. Data from 'Red Wall' seats shows large numbers of older voters moving in and of younger voters out.
This isn't even talking about 18-24s alone, we're talking about your 18-40s! People have slowly been moving to where the cities are over the last 40 years, and this will not change. Labour's traditional voting base hasn't changed its views, it has literally physically moved!
Of course, when analysing this data we have to scrutinise it carefully. Some of this will certainly be younger voters growing older, but a large proportion of this is asset-rich older people previously split between cities and towns now buying cheaper houses in periphery areas.
Young people in contrast are forced into the cities or close-peripheries for work purposes, stuck in high-cost rent contracts/living cost situations, if they have a student loan as well it gets even worse. This disables their ability to save adequate amounts to get assets.
People without assets know they will be financially insecure. It used to be that you could buy a house much younger, not anymore. The average age of a first time buyer in 2019 (not the average age at which somebody buys a house) was 34, 6 years older than in 2007!
We can assume from this that those younger people who *are* buying houses are doing it a *lot* older than they used to. This also implies that very few young people are buying houses. Young people are therefore either homeless, living with their parents or renting.
For the vast majority, it will be one of the latter two options. Those with a degree or a professional qualification will have a high-ish income, probably around the national average (£20,000-30,000). Those who don't have qualifications may still have better IT or reading skills.
Given that the places where higher salaries are paid have those aforementioned higher costs of living, it is not all that surprising that young people feel financially insecure. I hypothesise that *this* is Labour's natural base.
Statmer is fundamentally putting the wrong people around him. Concluding that former miners who own their own home are working-class and the young service employee who rents and has no savings is middle-class is a blatantly dysfunctional assessment of the British class system.
Hence, this odd appeal to patriotism is foolish. By misidentifying Labour's natural base, Starmer and his team are leaving Labour open to yet another defeat in 2024 when we fail to win Scottish, 'Red Wall' and southern seats. I may be wrong, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
