For some time, there has been a feeling that the Labour policy review could not come soon enough. Whilst there have been early attempts such as ‘Refounding Labour’, there has been little in the way of actual progress in discovering what the strategic planks of Labour policy are. This has left members perplexed, even frustrated, whilst Ed Miliband has been gifted open goals such as the phone hacking scandal or the double-dip recession, and Nick Clegg has seen the Liberal Democrat party virtually implode. Labour has its eye on the prize in 2015, in winning an election following one-term opposition; virtually unheard of, though François Hollande’s victory in France has been an inspiration for many socialists in the UK too. The think tanks are in each other’s knickers wondering whether to embrace ‘a progressive left’, when the plain truth is that many Labour voters just wish to get the LibDems obliterated electorally altogether. Tribal instincts amongst Labour voters have been at all time high, worsened by the baiting by Nick Clegg and Simon Hughes, but exacerbated by many Labour members directly voting LibDem MPs enacting the death of social law centres in the high street, the privatisation of the NHS, and the swift deeply unpopular welfare reforms.

For much time, Ed Miliband has been apologising about ‘mistakes’ in the past has been painful. This has not been reciprocated by George Osborne for reversing the progress of the economy since May 2010, for example. In a way, Labour now has to mount a radical agenda paradoxically to win back its lost core voters. This is counter-intuitive, as it does still for many bring back unpleasant memories of Michael Foot’s 1983 ‘longest suicide in history’. However, this approach might be necessary, not least because there is little to distinguish between Labour and the Conservatives any more. Voters are genuinely confused, as, particularly, rightly or wrongly, they both attribute both parties for not handling the economy well. Labour failed to explain how the deficit increased due to public spending on schools or hospitals (or at least the media muzzled this message), and the case for putting capital into the banks during the recession has also been badly made. The Tories and LibDems fraudulently tried to minimise the ‘global’ nature of this recession in 2009,  while equally fraudulently, together with Sir Mervyn King, overemphasise the contribution of the ‘Eurozone crisis’ to our economic woes in 2012.

The basic issue is that there is, as such, a lack of distinction between left and right, as we are mostly in the centre now. Mostly, apart from the socialist core voters of Labour, who wish to see their employment rights strengthened not demonised through Union membership. Miliband’s ultimate challenge must be to explain how the Unions are relevant to society. There are two ideological attacks on Labour which must be addressed too. One is ‘recklessness’ – in this case the recklessness of presumed Labour fiscal incompetence in managing the economy. Actually, to blame are the countless employees of multinational City institutions which recklessly gambled with our money, through for example hedge fund management of pension funds. The other big mantra to be attacked is the ‘overpowerful State’, which costs too much money and delivers no profit. The aspect of the State which must be pursued now is how the State is essential for a comprehensive security mechanism for all the UK citizens, whether this be for disabled citizens with welfare benefit problems in high street law centres, or whether this be for NHS patients with rare disorders who will not necessarily benefit from a NHS run by private entities dealing with common conditions for profit.

This will unfortunately, or fortunately, require a massive U turn or ‘volte face’ by Labour. This is possible to do amongst Labour leadership, as New Labour as an experiment has been judged by many to have had mixed success. People might be willing to give Labour ‘a go’ in 2015, but the difficulty comes from Labour if Labour is perceived as ‘just another Tory party’. I don’t feel that Labour should get sidetracked into attacks on the ‘Big Society’, with thousands of charities falling off the Register, or get too engrossed with human rights, when it admits already that mistakes were made in an illiberal and authoritarian approach to civil liberties by Labour before the 2010 election. Radical but possibly even populist, Labour’s secret weapon may come from addressing market failures through a socialist approach. Take for example, a handful of GCSE boards which offer qualifications for competing customers, which end up maximising shareholder profit which they have to do under law, laying claim to ‘grade inflation’. Take for example a handful of utility companies which offer the same product but prices aren’t that competitive and the customer doesn’t have much choice either. Take for example, a handful of privatised rail companies, again whose  prices aren’t that competitive, and there isn’t actually that much choice either. The previously unpalatable option of national rail privatisation to address specific market failures of privatisation might be a useful test case for Labour to explore with the electorate.

The battle is, in part, an ideological one, even if not framed as one for the electorate. Going back to the issue about the State, it is impossible for David Cameron to deliver a ‘smaller state’ in that the same duties have to be done by someone somewhere. What the public fundamentally object to, I suspect, is companies running public services such as prisons and A&E departments for maximisation of shareholder dividend, even partly owned by venture capital funds from abroad who take the ultimate business decisions. With such an outsourced State, there is loss of control, diminished transparency, accountability, and responsibility. However, New Labour have directly contributed to this situation. For example, it was extremely hard to criticise the branding of the NHS logo abroad when Andy Burnham MP was the guy who had set up ‘NHS Global’. Similarly, it’s been hard to criticise A4e, when it was Labour who awarded the contract to A4e in the first place.

The Tories have made mistakes, but so indeed have we. But this is not a case about ‘admitting mistakes’ about our cumulative past over decades, but having a strategic rethink about our values and priorities in Labour. We may never be the party of big business; if anything, we believe in an immaculated regulated City, not the ‘light touch’ regulation of the Tories, and this I believe is what multinational corporates want anyway – a reputation of London for being a safe and legal place to do business anyway. Time spent schmoozing with the City is a waste, given that many of their employees will benefit from the tax cut from this Government (yet another example of actual ‘recklessness’). The employment figures are getting ‘better’, despite the UK flatlining, as more people are becoming self-employed or independent, with little in the way of job protection. This is not a ‘Big Society’, but an ‘isolated members of Society’. It is time for Labour to become a party that people turn to if they wish to feel secure, but also if they don’t wish to become disenfranchised.