Dear Labour, everyone's aspirational. It's opportunity that's lacking.

The delectable Chuka Umunna has withdrawn his bid to become Labour leader. This might be welcome by some, who accused him of being a Blairite but for others this is detrimental in breathing new life into a stale political system and out of touch party.

I like Chuka, mainly because he's young and attractive. He's a lawyer that talks in the same language as the rest of us. He seems to be on the side of fairness and equality. 

However, he got into a lot of hot water when he announced his plan for when/if he takes over the Labour Party. And a lot of it made sense. Then the media reigned down hard on him for aiming at 'aspirational' people. 

Great, the left-wing press said, another party who has the rich and bourgeois at the heart of the party, they said. I didn't see it like this.

Everyone's aspirational

There are people in the 'lower classes' who are packed with talent. Their intellect could probably surpass any minister's, but because of their financial situation or postcode, doors are closed to them. Does this mean they lack aspiration? 

I don't know anyone who isn't aspirational. Me writing this blog is aspirational, as is my career and lifestyle. I don't aspire to shop in John Lewis nor to I care for 5 star hotels in Dubai, I'd rather slum it in Mandalay. That doesn't make me lazy or listless, it's not a reflection of my class or ethnic background. It's all based on my personal stance. I loathe the tacky super-rich. I'd rather hang out in ale pub talking to the old boys from the factory. And these old boys from the factory are also aspirational, but their circumstances prevent them from achieving their goals. Or perhaps they're content and their aspiration is pure maintenance. 

Let's look at America (these issues exist in the UK, but it's more stark in the States). The poor are horrendously poor and there's a gulf of difference between them and the rest of the country. They don't have jobs and the ones that do are low-level and low-paid. They can't afford to send their children to school, so a disenfranchised youth begin to act out as they realise they're not offered the same opportunities as everyone else. They gain no qualifications and end up in low-level, low-paid jobs. And so the cycle continues.

It's not that these people aren't aspirational. They're just like us. It's probably this aspiration which forces them into possible criminality. They simply don't have the opportunity to realise these aspirations. 

The way to stop this is to offer free training. Huge corporations should be forced to positively discriminating so they offer jobs to people of a certain socio-economic grouping. They get corporate sponsored training, work experience and education. The companies gain a loyal workforce. Thus, breaking the cycle.

Ignoring Middle-England

I voted Labour because I was thinking about 8 million working poor and the 1 million people relying on food banks, as well as the rich who live in a system designed to benefit them while hindering the progress of ordinary folk. However, I was in a minority who thought like this. 

However, appealing to the electorate is not just about helping the poor and chastising the rich. It's about appealing to everyone. 

The majority of the UK is doing ok. Most people have jobs and earning an ok wage, they own houses and drive decent cars. They shop on the high street and go on a foreign holiday once a year. It's not a bad life. The Labour Party ignored these people. None of their policies would have touched them. In short, Red Ed sent the majority of the electorate to Coventry (apart from Coventry voted Labour).

So Chuka highlighted that future campaigns and leadership needed to include these people. He noted that the majority wanted to know about how the economic plan will benefit them to become more affluent, offer job security and not cause a strain on personal finances. They wanted to know about education, what the government will do to ensure school places and a better standard of education to ensure future success of their progeny. And a solution to the NHS crisis, immigration and membership to Europe. However, Labour addressed none of this. 

Yes, these are people are who most consider to be aspirational. And yes, these are the people that need to be addressed, along with the poor and super-rich. Labour needed to tell all of us how its policies will benefit us. As we're all aspirational - soup to nuts. 

First published 18/05/2015