Three points for a win

At this stage of the campaign there’s no point in playing for a draw.

Theresa May has set out a very defensive stall, “Jack Charlton at Middlesbrough”-style, and is so far staking everything on pretending this is a policy-free Brexit election that she can win by simply repeating Cameron’s Lynton Crosby-prompted “strong and stable leadership” mantra.

While the media puff her up as the vicar’s daughter married to a “successful” hedge-fund manager — defining her through men in her life — it’s important not to forget the brutal cynicism of her “Go Home” van, and the sucking-up to Trump.

Not only is she avoiding the TV debates, she’s also being kept away from the “public”.

That’s because she’s not strong and stable at all — she’s shaky and easy to rattle.

Having said that, Labour need to play the ball not the woman, but in the style of Stuart Pearce.

And, for me, that means focusing on three key points, with clarity and passion.

First, on Brexit, Labour should propose a second vote in March 2019. By this time, there should be more than enough understanding of the negative economic impact of losing access to the single market that it will outweigh any pro-Leave arguments. Our relationship with a rapidly-changing EU can then develop sensibly and carefully over the long-term, taking account of the bigger international context as well as what changes arise in France, Germany, Spain and Italy. There is a logic, 2 years on from Article 50 being triggered, in saying “well, we voted to leave in June 2016, and now that we’ve looked in more detail at what that would mean and, understanding the likely consequences, do we still want to go through with it?” There’s more sense in that than the LibDems’ opportunistic “remain at any cost” and the Tories’ little England anti-immigrant Brexit for the wealthy.

Second, on “the people vs the establishment“, Corbyn has made a strong start, but all the party representatives need to have a clearer response when questioned about “who are the rich?”, “who are the establishment?”. Dawn Butler flailed embarrassingly about the system being rigged, and even the admirable Barry Gardiner (on C4 News) and Andrew Gwynne (on Newsnight) didn’t have the concise pat response that will stick in people’s minds. The people know very well who the people are, and they know very well what Philip Green and Mike Ashley are, but “the rich” (over £70,000 annual income?) and “the establishment” (public school, Oxbridge/Ivy League-educated?) are harder to define. Liam Byrne, at least, shifted the emphasis from income to wealth on the Today programme this morning, but it’s not just about taxing wealth, it’s about showing up the discreet systems of privilege and patronage and preference that extend the wealth and privilege of the wealthiest (Philip May, for example) in a way that directly damages the health and well-being of “the people”. It’s an obscenity that needs highlighting, and giving everyone free copies of Owen Jones book isn’t going to swing the election.

And that leads straight into the third point — public services. The Tories don’t want to talk about them — understandably. Housing, health, education and social care are all known to be in crisis, largely as a consequence of Tory/LibDem austerity. Their response is to quote big numbers — “the NHS asked for £8bn and we gave it to them”, “we’ve just put £3.2bn into social care on top of the Better Care Fund” etc. Those numbers don’t really mean anything, but they tell people “we’re doing what we can and money’s very tight, isn’t it”. The cosy relationships with the beneficiaries of Capita, Serco, G4S, Southern Rail, and their ilk show that money is tight for the people but not for those who are sucking public money out through the private sector.

The wise pundits, and the bookies, say Labour haven’t got a chance, but hope in social justice springs eternal. And they’ve been wrong before.