Sunday Times article, 1 June 2008.  

These are tough times for Labour. The local election results and the opinion polls tell a depressing story. The Crewe by-election defeat cannot be dismissed as normal mid-term blues. Nor can it be laid at the door of the local campaign. It is more fundamental than that. Voters are walking away from us because they fear we have failed to keep pace with them.

It is not just that the credit crunch, falling house values and rising prices are hitting hard-working families in their pockets. Or that a series of self inflicted wounds - most damagingly over the 10p rate of tax - have taken the initiative from Labour and handed it to the Tories. After 11 years in office, time takes its toll. The issue now is whether we are prepared to capture the mood for change in the country or simply cede it to the Conservatives.
Fatalism about the inevitability of a Conservative government would be misplaced. Despite the thumping Labour took in Crewe I do not detect that voters are comfortable about placing their trust in David Cameron to govern the country. He and his party are policy-light and a long way from being ready for government.

We have a fight on our hands if we are to prevail at the next election but it is a battle we can - and must - win. I am not one of those siren voices who say that a spell in opposition would do Labour good. I remember being in opposition - and I didn't like it. More important, nor did the people who paid the price in unemployment, recession and underfunded public services.
To win, Labour has to heed the lessons of the past year and be clear where it stands. To begin with we should show far more confidence in promoting our record. Those in Labour's ranks who want to create distance from what we have achieved are misguided.

Adopting a new Labour approach has not just delivered unprecedented electoral success - a record three consecutive terms - but it has changed Britain for the better. What we have achieved in reducing poverty, improving services, increasing jobs and extending people's rights is something to be proud of. If we don't defend new Labour's record, nobody will. New Labour won by being the party that is both against poverty and for aspiration. We introduced a national minimum wage and a windfall tax on the profits of the privatised utilities while reforming public services and cutting corporation taxes.

Now, as we heighten our drive against poverty, we must avoid giving the impression that we are no longer bothered about aspiration. Modern progressive politics means building coalitions of support that cross class and geographical boundaries. Those who seek to make it a choice of winning back either our "core" support or our "aspirational" voters are doing Labour a disservice. Victory at elections means winning both to our cause. In any case, the so-called "core" voter is often the most sharply aspirational.

There is much that the government is doing in this direction. Being told the government is on your side, however, is not enough to convince people we are. Mass migration and globalisation are increasing uncertainty. For many, community identities seem at risk. Life feels tough. People are demanding action and they are looking for clarity, but for all the blizzard of initiatives that emanate from Whitehall, Labour has yet to develop a coherent post-Blair agenda.

I believe that agenda should be based on the notion of giving people greater control over their lives and a fairer share in power. The draft Queen's speech published by Gordon Brown last month hints at this idea but it is not yet drilled through the whole gamut of government policy like a stick of rock. Tentative change will not get Labour heard. It is big, bold reforms that are now needed.

Taxes should be cut, especially for the low-paid. We should sharpen the drive to get many more people off benefit and dramatically improve help for first time buyers to get onto the housing ladder.

Efforts to prevent and deter antisocial behaviour should be reinvigorated with a bigger role for restorative justice and community courts. Tough but fair rules should be put in place on immigration and housing and welfare allocations. Parents as well as patients should be given choice over services. People who have long-term health needs and those requiring help in old age or with childcare should be offered their own budgets so they can make the choices that are right for them. Local services, such as the police and NHS, should be directly elected. And local communities should be positively helped to run local schools, housing estates and childcare centres.

These policy priorities go well beyond the new Labour agenda of 1997. They go with the spirit of the times. In a more insecure world, where citizens are more informed, people want to exercise far greater power both in their own right and in their communities.

This is the zeitgeist. It is about empowering citizens and communities so they can realise their own aspirations to progress. It contains a redefined relationship between state and citizen in which government controls less but empowers more. Its tone is one of optimism at a time when pessimism is all too pervasive.

Empowerment can be the key that unlocks greater equity. What has changed is that Cameron wants to take that ground for the Tories. We should have the courage to take it ourselves.

In other words, we have to make the battleground for the next election more than just a fight over which party has the best credentials on the economy. Naturally, government has to take action where it can, but the economic problems Britain faces are largely global so there are risks in promising we can fix them all. In any case, the mantra of economic stability does not give us momentum.

A third-term government looking for a fourth term has to prove to people not just that it can stabilise things but that it can change them. We have to prove we have wind in our sails and a big agenda.
The willingness to change is what has made new Labour so dominant in British politics and forced even our most strident opponents into contemplating changes they once thought abhorrent. After a decade in office, the question we now have to be able to answer is: what next?

If we can do so over the next two years, victory will be achievable. However, time is pressing. Short-term policy fixes are no substitute for long-term strategic purpose.

There will always be events that buffet governments, but leadership is about steering a consistent course and being clear about both the direction of travel and the point of destination. We all have a responsibility to learn the lessons of the message voters have sent us over the past few months. They are signalling their preparedness to move on. It is time for us to catch up.