Our response is not to carry on as before, but to adapt and change

When I last wrote for LabourList, in the wake of the Heywood and Middleton result, someone suggested that my position was that “no change of tack was needed”. Even the headline of that article “the overnight results only underline the nature of the challenge we all face” makes it clear that this is untrue.

But I wanted to explore this challenge further – which is why I gave a speech recently on this topic. We owe it to ourselves as a Party to look beyond the day to day headlines about UKIP and really try and understand what is going on.

I believe that our generation is living through a period of profound transition. The politics of the 20th century was largely defined by questions about how we organise modern industrial societies to cope with a newly industrialised world. The character of 21st century politics is still emerging, but undoubtedly it is already defined by contests about both identity and insecurity, rather than simply economic interests.

The 2008 crash undermined trust in the competence and motives of the powerful – including politicians around the world – who were seen as failing to prevent the crisis or judged unable to resolve its effects. That loss of confidence in the competence and probity of the powerful has precipitated an unprecedented fall in levels of trust in mainstream politics. Too often, commentators and politicians alike are too ready to claim that this is manifesting itself in a rise in voter apathy. But this is simply not the case.

More than a decade ago I worked with my friend, the late Philip Gould, to develop a concept about which we were both troubled. We spoke often about politics being played like a game in a stadium. The ball keeps getting kicked around. One side scores, and then the other side does. But while the players keep playing, the stadium is slowly emptying.

A decade on, the issue is not apathy, but anger. A decade on, the issue is not that the stadium is emptying, but that other teams are winning support by playing a different type of game.

Across the UK we are witnessing the emergence of parties with what you could call a different kind of business model.

The business model of mainstream parties – of all sides – have, at their best, sought to practice politics with responsibility. To level with people about the causes of their grievances. And to offer credible, practical solutions that could help improve people’s lives.

Today a very different kind of political business model is taking hold in some parts of the UK. It sees grievance as a commodity to be quarried for electoral profit. It sells cries of protest to people who feel voiceless. And it claims to be ‘authentic’ by amplifying voters grievances, too often at the expense of any pretence that they will actually be resolved.

But the question for progressive parties – and for Labour across the UK – is how should we respond to these trendlines? Simply amplifying anger is not enough – we need to offer answers.

Our most urgent task is to restate the task of progressive politics as one that enables our constituents to harness real power and control to achieve what they set out to achieve. As a party that seeks to liberate and empower people, our politics must be based on helping people achieve greater control over their own lives: as agents of change, not recipients of benevolence.

That must start with the task of finding new ways of putting down roots in the societies of which we are a part. That involves how we recruit candidates and how those candidates campaign. We need to work more like a movement than a machine – with campaigns fought doorstep by doorstep, conversation by conversation and street by street.

That is why Labour’s campaign will be built on three key pillars, setting out a shared task for every Labour MP, candidate and activist across the country:

First, acknowledge and engage with the depth of the anger and concern among so many voters today. That means getting outside Westminster and engaging directly with the public; it means opening up the campaigning, meetings and formats we use to ensure in a real dialogue with the public.

But we know that acknowledging the public’s anger isn’t enough.

Second, Labour will tell a deeper national story about our country, our common life and our shared future. That is what Ed’s speech last week did – articulate Labour’s plan to build a country that works for everyday people, and not just a privileged few. A recovery that works for you and your family, where the next generation do better than the last, and the NHS is there when you need it.

Third, Labour must match public anger with policy answers that address voters’ concerns. The choices on policy in May 2015 will be clear. That is why Labour has already set out how we would raise £2.5 billion for more doctors and nurses in the NHS. It is why we have been clear that we would reverse the millionaires tax cut and reinstate the 10p tax band.

Labour’s priorities for government – from raising the minimum wage, ending zero-hour contracts, and a compulsory job guarantee to balancing the books and getting debt falling – will be key to winning back support, but also trust in 2015.

Our response is not to carry on as before, but to adapt and change. That is what today’s circumstances demand. That is what the people who need a Labour government deserve. And that is what we are determined to do.

Douglas Alexander is the Shadow Foreign Secretary and Labour’s Chair of General Election Strategy