Tackling the deficit may not be a vote winner as such, particularly if you combine it with swingeing cuts, but not setting out the exact expenditure or appearing to look crazily relaxed about the deficit (and cumulative debt) might be enough to lose Labour the 2015 general election. The great unknown is whether we will actually enter a ‘triple dip recession’ – it would just two quarters of negative figures, as well as the OBR adjudicating that the Government has not met itself its deficit target due to such poor cumulative growth in the last two years (at least), which could put the Conservatives’ economic prowess in jeopardy. Of course, their claim has been that the markets take their deficit reduction plan seriously, but it would take a downgrade of our credit status due to terrible growth which could see that particular claim smashed to smithereens.

Labour’s plan for government, I feel, should be courageous and bold. This is the rather modest view you get on leaving Waterstones bookshop on the corner of Gower Street and Torrington Place in London: a window with placards which spell out ‘Change the World’.

This may be a subtle message to Labour, which should perhaps read ‘Delete the word’ (the word being ‘New’ off ‘New Labour’), or rather ‘Change the tune’). To draw inspiration of what Labour should attempt to do, I placed a question strategically on my own personal Facebook, ‘The Labour Party Forum’ of Facebook, and ‘Labour Left: London’ also of Facebook: “Should Labour be more radical?’ For a very rare occasion, I received a unanimous answer, ‘yes’. This was, however, a strange sort of ‘yes’. It turned out that all the responses converged on undoing some item of Conservatives legislation from the last few decades. Curiously, there was no ideological agenda from all people who replied, who presumably are all supporters of Labour, dressed up as ‘socialism’, but what Sandel might call a combination of corrective and visionary politics.

There was a resounding ‘yes’ for the repeal of the Health and Social Care Act (2012). The thing to bear in mind here is that there will probably some elements which are here to stay, such as NHS Foundation Trusts and clinical commissioning in some form, but the major thrust of the legislation, encouraging private provision and competition, has been promised to be repealed by Labour unequivocally. McKinsey’s has been involved in a number of reorganisations of the NHS since 1974, when the late Sir Keith Joseph instructed them. You would have thought they’d have got it right by now; these reorganisations have become what is known in academic business management as a ‘cash cow’ for McKinsey’s. The current reorganisation is estimated at having cost £1.5-2 bn at least, and has seen the Dilnot plan for the provision of social care being kicked into the long grass for two unnecessary years. This is a vote winner, in that nobody actually voted for the present reorganisation, and it is a fact beyond reasonable doubt that the Liberal Democrats directly enabled progress of this legislation.

The cost and feasibility of renationalising the utilities are both critical issues. Having said that, these are resounding vote winners in theory. The reason for this is that competition in the utilities has not served to generate value for the customer, with the energy companies all acting to inflate their prices ahead of the Winter Freeze in virtual unison. The competitive market is far from perfect, allowing shareholders in the utility companies to have a free rein in delivering profits. The Conservatives’ policy of everyone being on the lowest fixed tariff cannot work because all energy suppliers will inflate their lowest tariff. It is simply only a matter of time now before the general public will blame elected politicians for this, even if they do not necessarily have any interest in blaming the ideology of the markets. Climate change is, in fact, a good example of an area of life where Labour could make a distinct impression, in being a country which does not wish to leave everything to the markets and the liberty of the individual, but where there is national policy recognising that some fuels are a scarce commodity. The ‘Clear Air Act’ is the direct opposite of an approach based on ‘nudge’ or incentives, and where legislation exists to protect what is precious about society, like the health of its citizens. Climate change under this framework is not simply a commodity for trading in the City, like healthcare or education. This approach would distinguish Labour as a simple error-corrective mechanism pertaining to the free markets, and make use of Ed Miliband’s genuine proven skill, interests and experiences (amongst many other things Ed could leave a lasting impact in.)

Fundamentally, I found that people wanted some further easy things, and some not-so easy things. One of the easy things is to reduce the level of VAT, which the Conservatives increased, in a bid to increase consumer demand, one of the principal contributing factors to the current double-dip recession. Secondly, I found a genuine thirst for taxing excessive profits; the argument that such taxation ‘would contribute nothing’ is clearly a lie, and this thirst for redistributive taxation is intrinsically coupled with two further notions. The first of these notions is that bankers have got off virtually unscathed from the recession (in fact the City are still awarding themselves generous bonuses), and the second notion is that a growing number of multi-national companies have openly admitted that they have been engaging in legal tax avoidance schemes worth at least millions. These two effects could greatly improve the income of the Treasury. But two things which could cost money could see the return of many Labour floating voters: genuine improvements in social housing, and the reintroduction of the Educational Support Allowance. There is no doubt that removal of this support has been a disgusting kicking away of the ladder of people who genuinely needed the help, and, quite simultaneously, the impact of the ‘Pupil Premium’, from the Unliberal Undemocrats, has been accompanied by much noise but not much real achievement. Certain initiatives, which cost money, such as the ill-stated Building Schools for the Future could indeed help to kickstart the company, and it is an inescapable fact that last week’s UK construction figures were certainly disastrous. The problem with the liberal and libertarian approaches to healthcare and education is that the Conservatives (and indeed Liberal Democrats) really struggle massively with what to do with the failing NHS Foundation Trust or the failing free school; instead having such entities being flogged off with the help of management consultants to the nearest bidder, in a mechanism closely resembling asset stripping at best, Labour’s philosophy could have an unique selling point of being distinctively national and comprehensive. Yes, ‘One Nation’ if you prefer!

There are certainly myths to be busted, such as the private sector ‘taking the slack’ of the public sector loss of jobs, the idea that only the Coalition are concerned about borrowing (when the borrowing requirement has shot up since 2010 due to lack of cumulative growth), and the fantasy that the deficit has gone down by 25% already. A key myth to bust would also to be explain that there may be a maximal number of people in work, but the tragedy is that there is now a maximal number of people at work with little or no basic employment rights. It doesn’t matter to a shareholder that workers or employees can be ‘hired and fired’ at will, but this sort of economy is deeply divisive, leading to a deeply divisive society, and is of course what Ed Miliband is talking about in his ‘One Nation’ narrative. That George Osborne can gather modest credit for taking us out of recession he put us in in the first place is obvious, but it is less obvious that persistent problems still exist in the UK economy such as dead consumer confidence and no factors encouraging growth masked by a one-off Jubilee and Olympics bounce. This is a marathon and not a sprint, but it is clear to me that many Labour floating voters do not necessarily want an elegantly titled brand of Labour. They do want something to believe in strongly, however. At the moment, they don’t have that, but please let us not despair (yet)!