The politics of the seminar room is costing Labour

Labour’s message isn’t cutting through. The announcement last week that the party could not promise to reverse every cut immediately was clearly sensible. No other position is viable. The direction of travel is right. But it didn’t work. Instead of talking about what Labour would do, we focused on what we wouldn’t.

Ed Miliband’s comments on responsible capitalism are clearly setting the political agenda. Cameron and Clegg are quick to follow with pale imitations. But in the same way that the stance against Murdoch only really impressed the Westminster bubble, Ed’s attack this week on Fred Goodwin and RBS boss Stephen Hester will only please Compass and the High Pay commission. Real people have shown no signs of particularly caring. “Responsible capitalism” means nothing to families struggling with below inflation pay increases, people who’ve been made redundant or young people priced out of further education.

The problem isn’t the guiding philosophy behind Labour’s agenda. The general thrust of social democrats making use of the state to challenge unfair structures, not to just as an instrument of spending (asStewartWoodoutlineshere), is correct . The problem is that we’re hearing too much about the guiding philosophy and not enough about the practicalities of policies and ideas that would change people’s lives for the better. Trying to run opposition via Guardian columns simply isn’t going to work.

Who can imagine voters in marginal constituencies having this conversation?:

“Have you seen Liam Byrne’s new interpretation of Beveridge’s approach to a contributory principle in the benefit system?”

“Yes, I thought really challenged my preconceptions towards Labour’s attitude to the welfare state- as well as giving me new insight on the much loved 1940s intellectual.”

How about this one?

“Have you seen the way Ed Miliband is leading political debate on moral markets? It’s a really fresh perspective that challenges the cross party neo-liberal consensus that frankly dominated the last half of the twentieth century?. “

Both pieces of positioning are right. But they are just that. Positioning. Hot air to Mondeo man and Worcester woman. Meaningless to ordinary people. By talking in nebulous terms we are tying ourselves in knots. Our inability to come up with a clear line on the benefit cap is a classic example. We are too frightened to forcefully oppose a dreadfully thought through policy; and too timid to suggest an alternative, like properly regulating buy-to-let landlords to bring the cost of private sector housing down.

Tony Blair’s observation in “A Journey” that ordinary voters don’t care about politics is spot on. People care about their families, their friends, their communities and their country, not about grandiose theories of social democracy. We are at the beginning of 2012, halfway through the Parliament. So far Labour has comprehensively failed to set out anything that looks like a coherent alternative to the government’s disastrous agenda.

In the leadership race Ed got noticed because the detailed policy positions he set out were worth noticing. If Labour wants people to start listening again, the party must give people something to listen to.