Why Boris speech on ‘levelling up’ failed at every level

Oh, dear. For weeks, we had heard of an upcoming speech from Boris Johnson on ‘levelling up’, which appeared to be his favourite theme: his nearest approach to a big idea. The PM had raised expectations. He did not satisfy them.

An ex-cathedra speech from a Prime Minister should have three principal ingredients. First, there ought to be significant policy content: second, moral depth: third, inspirational rhetoric. Boris failed all three tests by a country mile. I cannot think of a shallower supposedly major speech from any PM, ever.

Let us start with the rhetoric. There, this PM had a problem, for he had blundered into a bad choice of words. ‘Levelling’ fits awkwardly when bracketed with either up or down. Levelling means to level. In the late 1640s, the Levellers were briefly a significant political force. Tony Benn claimed to draw inspiration from them. That ‘brave bad man’ Cromwell (Clarendon’s description) had other ideas. The movement was suppressed and some of its leaders executed. Boris should have followed Cromwell rather than Benn. ‘Levelling’ is a socialist word. It arouses expectations which no government could satisfy – and no Tory government should attempt to satisfy. Whatever happens in the North over the next few years, this government will be accused of failing to deliver on levelling up. As the speech disintegrated into rambling and burbling, Boris mentioned a £10 million fund for dealing with chewing gum on the pavements. It was not clear whether this would involve levelling up or levelling down. Either way, it is not much of a re-election platform behind the Red Wall.

Despite our Prime Minister’s efforts to trivialise it, this is an important topic – the North that is, not chewing gum. Politicians of all parties have been trying to do something about it for decades. Under Labour governments, that usually meant old-fashioned regional policy: trying to subsidise job creation, This often led to low-grade jobs which were snuffed out as soon as there was an economic down-turn. Michael Heseltine tried to revive Liverpool, but the most important contribution to the debate came from George Osborne: his Northern Powerhouse initiative. That speech still reads well. The title was a wise choice of words with a touch of inspiration which also drew on the North’s industrial history. The then Chancellor identified several crucial components for the infrastructure of economic success. Transport links were one of them. So were universities, to encourage the North to rival the golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London. With the help of improved transport and the cooperation of the universities, Northern cities would be empowered to form hubs. They should also be able to draw on a rich cultural heritage, reinforced by easy access to beautiful countryside. That, plus the availability of attractive houses at a fraction of London prices, could help to attract foreign investors.

In all this, local government was crucial, especially in the form of elected mayors. On that latter point, there have already been successes. Andy Burnham in Manchester, Ben Houchen in Teesside and Andy Street in the West Midlands have shown the way forward. Although none of them can yet claim to have equalled Joe Chamberlain’s great days in Birmingham, they have all been more successful than any Mayor of London: yes, including him. It may be that mayoralties, in counties as well as cities, are the way forward for local government in Britain, partly because they will encourage voter involvement. Any healthy democratic form of government needs to grow from the bottom up rather than being imposed from the top down.

The Osborne agenda was sound. Unfortunately, however, the man himself was unable to see it through. When Theresa May became Prime Minister, the rumour was that the Northern Powerhouse would be binned, as she gratified her mean little soul by extirpating the Cameroons and all their works. In a more discreet way, Boris has similar tendencies. Like Mrs May, he never likes giving anyone else credit for anything. As the Northern Powerhouse was not invented here, he has no interest in stressing continuities.

Boris also has the wrong instincts. Remember Boris island and Boris bridge. He is drawn to big programmes regardless of cost and irrespective of merit. The regeneration of the North will inevitably involve considerable spending on infrastructure, which makes it all the more important to ensure value for money. There may have been a strategic error, which does admittedly predate Boris. HS2 is the most expensive and most controversial part of that programme. It might have been better to start with some of the West-East links which Northern cities urgently need.

It is also vital to stress the need for public/private partnerships. Governments cannot do everything. In Liverpool, there is one outstanding example of cooperation between the public sector and the private one: in this case, a Ducal one. Partly inspired by Michael Heseltine, the Grosvenor estates financed the Liverpool One project. The late Gerald Westminster was an outstanding public servant. Liverpool One came in over budget; the final cost was about three-quarters of a billion. It was also late. Was there ever such a large-scale development of which that was not true? The Grosvenors were visionaries, but also practical visionaries. Despite the disruption of Covid, Liverpool One is boosting its city’s economy, and its morale.

Morale brings one back to Boris, and the Tory Party. I have just read Sasha Swire’s naughty, indeed scandalous book. It should not have been published and is unput-downable. She understands Boris. ‘The idea of His Blondness with a finger on the nuclear button scares the shit out of me; it also scares the shit out of me that people don’t see him as the calculating machine he really is. This a man who has no obvious political identity or any proven ability to grasp difficult questions and decisions, there is always someone behind the scenes doing it for him, as with all of his election campaigns. He has never shown any loyalty to his party or his government, only ever to himself.’

That was in 2012. Since then, there appears to have been a change, and a deterioration. Prime Ministers do not need to write their own speeches or to think through all the complex problems of the day. There are lots of able officials to do that for them. But judging by the latest speech, Boris is now too idle or too arrogant even to draw on those resources. He is also too arrogant even to try to look prime ministerial. On the platform, hair everywhere, an insincere grin all over his face – in Sasha Swire’s words:  ‘looking like he had been dragged through a hedge backwards by a cuckolded husband,’ he certainly did not look like a serious leader of a serious country. He obviously believes that the public will continue to buy his act. Is he right? 

In one of the more intellectual passages of the speech, he referred to ‘the ketchup of catch-up.’ Circus clowns often end up covered in ketchup. Will the day not come when the voters suddenly lose faith in clowning? To switch to a grander culinary metaphor, if the souffle ever did collapse, there would be no recovery. Margaret Thatcher inspired hatred. She also inspired loyalty and indeed love. She had earned that because she did have moral depth. There were people who would have died for her. No-one thinks like that about Boris. He has been lucky in both the Labour leaders he has faced. But Sir Stumbler has a certain wooden decency. It could never plausibly be claimed that he was either too undignified or too amoral to be Prime Minister. Boris’s party puts up with him for one reason and one reason only. It believes that he is a winner. If that were to change, then, as some of the PM’s predecessors could testify, never underestimate the Tory party’s ruthlessness.