Labour was all but annihilated in the south of England on 6th May. We now have a PLP dominated by the concerns of Scotland, Wales, London, and northern cities. Few speak for southern England. That means it is more important than ever that we elect a Leader who ‘gets’ the south, and can rebuild our support in southern towns and suburbs.

As the new analysis published by Liam Byrne here at Progress shows, seventy per cent of the 938,000 votes Labour lost on 6th May were in the east, south-east and south-west. Labour’s share of the vote in the south-east (outside London) halved to just 16 per cent. I’ll say it again, in case you thought it a typo: 16 per cent.

Across the entire southern-eastern sweep of England there are just 10 Labour MPs, sustained by a combined majority of just 57,500 – out of the 10 million votes cast. We lost our southern coastal towns: Brighton, Hastings and Dover, as well as the seats on the north Kent coast. In Southampton Itchin, John Denham’s majority is 192. In 1997, Labour had a 11,707 majority in Crawley. In 2010 Crawley has a Conservative majority of 5,928.

To understand Labour’s defeat in 2010, you have to understand why we lost the south. One reason is presentational. We had a Scottish prime minister and a Scottish chancellor of the exchequer, and a raft of cabinet ministers from the north of England, London and Wales. If you lived in the south, there was a sense that the government belonged to somewhere else. It spoke with a different accent.

Harold Wilson and Tony Blair managed to construct public personae which connected with English voters. Wilson had his tinned salmon, his HP sauce and his pipe. It was only in private that the hand-rolled havanas and VSOP brandy made an appearance. Blair had his jeans, his mug of tea, his rock music and his concern for the drivers of Mondeos. Gordon Brown just had his suits, his sense of ‘duty’ and a Presbyterianism entirely alien to voters in the south.

But the far more complex reason is policy-based. Skilled workers – the fabled C2s – deserted us because they felt the government was doing nothing for them. They were working harder, but not getting richer. They were told they were too affluent to deserve any help from the government, yet they felt ever more squeezed. The vortex issue into which all other issues, from housing to schools, from the NHS to transport, were sucked, was of course immigration. Immigration has transformed many communities in under a decade. In other places in the south, it was fear of change that made immigration a top-five issue. Either way, Mrs Duffy spoke for England far more convincingly on this issue than any Labour politician.

I want immigration to be a major issue in the Labour leadership debates, not least because the only two nominated candidates on the ballot paper, as things stand, are the sons of immigrants. As it happens, being brothers, they are sons of the same immigrants. Ralph Miliband fled from Nazi Europe with his father Samuel in 1940. On arriving in London as a refugee, he started a furniture removal business, went to the London School of Economics, and became a Marxist (swearing an oath of loyalty at Marx’s grave in Highgate). Like many student Marxists, he became active in the student union. Unlike most student Marxists, his university career was interrupted by service in the Royal Navy. One or other of his sons will probably be leader of the Labour party by the autumn, and quite possibly prime minister.

If Ralph had kept going, like thousands of other European Jews, and ended up in New York, Ed and David would be running to be president of the United States. The US media would love it – brothers in rivalry for the job of leader of the free world, just like the Kennedys. And in America, their ‘backstory’ – their father a penniless immigrant fleeing the Nazis – would be considered a priceless electoral asset. They would embody the American Dream.

There is no ‘British Dream.’ The achievements of immigrants to Britain in building new lives, creating successful businesses, and contributing to the wellbeing of the nation is not celebrated. One question for the leadership candidates might be: why not? After all, aspiration is a core British value: the desire for your children to do better than you did, to enjoy opportunities and experiences, as well as material security.

For Labour to reconstruct its appeal to the south won’t be easy. Who speaks for the south now that all the MPs are gone? Who in the shadow cabinet? In the 1990s, the Fabians did us a great service by publishing Southern Discomfort? a study into voters’ aspirations and attitudes in southern seats. It informed much of New Labour’s appeal. We also had ‘Operation Toehold’ which gave support to CLPs in areas without Labour representation (and which recruited a future general secretary Peter Watt). This is the kind of work we need to start again.

Labour must understand the needs of families on a combined household income of £50,000, who feel on the edge of disaster. It needs to speak to people who work in offices, who do not belong to unions, who have never been to Manchester, Newcastle or Scotland, and never will. As one MP put it at the Progress conference last Saturday, Labour needs to understand why people want a conservatory. Until we do, we will never win back the south.

Photo: Eric in SF 2005