I am somewhat perplexed by those who expend so much time and energy talking about what they see as a conflict between Labour’s duty to its so-called heartlands and its appeal to something called ‘Middle England’. As my Merseyside colleague, Peter Kilfoyle, has done so much to spark this debate, let us consider Liverpool as a typical heartland and Exeter as archetypal ‘Middle England’.

Throughout the 80s and 90s, with one or two exceptions, Liverpool returned Labour MPs to Westminster. Exeter, which had gone Labour only once, in 1966, remained stubbornly Tory. Exeter was one of the seats Labour had to win if we were to form a Government and be in a position to actually deliver for Liverpool and the other heartlands. To put it more directly, Liverpool got a Labour Government and Peter Kilfoyle became a minister only because we won Exeter and seats like it. No Exeter, no Labour Government and, definitely, no delivery.

But something else had been happening in places like Exeter throughout the opposition years. Labour had been gaining a foothold, taking control and consolidating its position in local government. Towns and cities across England, most noticeably in the South which had traditionally been true blue, were electing and re-electing Labour councils.

What had been happening in places like Liverpool? Peter will know better than I, but certainly the impression given was of tired and complacent Labour councils and declining, faction-ridden and inactive local parties. The result has been Liberal Democrats reaching parts of Labour’s heartlands they should never have been allowed to reach.

This year’s local elections brought further inroads by the Lib Dems in some of these areas, while in places like Exeter the Labour vote held firm. In fact, we didn’t lose a single seat and both our share of the vote and turnout held as firm as our previous very good years. The Liverpool/Exeter experience shows why the heartlands versus ‘Middle England’ debate is so dangerous and why people from the Prime Minister downwards have been right to call it a Tory trap.

As anyone who canvassed through the 80s and 90s knows, it was not just that the suburbs were a virtual desert for us. We’d lost the semis and a good part of the terraces, too. Some of us still seem to have difficulty acknowledging that a good proportion of our core voters had abandoned us. They only came back in 1997, specifically because we had broadened our appeal.

The concerns of both the inner cities and the suburbs are common ones. They want the schools that their children share to be better and better-funded, they want to see improvements in the health service and they want decent jobs for themselves and their children. They want economic stability to enable them to plan, budget and save. They want cleaner, safer streets, a more pleasant environment and better public transport. They want security and dignity in old age. They don’t, in fact, want wildly different things. They want similar things and expect Labour nationally and locally to deliver them.

To suggest that all or any of our achievements favour one section of Labour voters more than another is nonsense. That is what the Tories and the Tory press want people to think. It should be no business of any of us to help them.