Labour modernisers must focus on answers rather than ideology as we tackle dementia, diseases, poverty and loneliness

Children, Parents, Grandkids. Neighbourhood, clubs, home. Career, relationships, travel. Dreams, hopes, grief, love and fear.

These are the realms in which people live their lives. Neil Kinnock famously warned against a politics irrelevant to the real needs. As party conference starts this week, Labour should listen to his message, and begin a new modernisation focused on what actually matters to those it seeks to represent.

For the next modernisers, the best way to start is to have a much simpler idea of what a relevant Labour Party seeks to do. The current discussion over-complicates it. Arguments centre too much on the old revisionism of Tony Crosland, taken now to be a focus on social equality rather than public ownership, and an updated version of what he argued against – that one could not happen without the other.

But the best basis for new thinking should be focused neither on means, like nationalisation or public control, nor ends, like an equal society or fair opportunity. Those may well be useful concepts or very good things, but aim for only one or all of them and you risk distraction from so many problems that would still go unsolved. Equality doesn’t stop Alzheimer’s, nationalisation won’t end sexism, fair opportunity doesn’t promise good neighbours, and public control won’t guarantee good bosses.

That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a framework to judge ideas. There should be. But it needs to be a simple one. If at least some party members can settle on a much simpler idea of their motivations are and agree on very basic beliefs, then it’ll be possible again to have a more factual discussion about how to help. Through rejecting ideas that clash with a much more simple idea of what Labour should be for, a new modernising tendency can find the answers much easier that most members might think.

That means we need answers for the old man alone at home, confused, and the young migrant caring for him, stressed. His daughter rushed off her feet at work, caught between paying the bills and finding the time to visit. Answers for the neighbour who stops by to check. Answers for the young couple moving in together quickly to try and buy. The depressed younger man. The 50-year-old facing a long poor retirement or learning a new career, and the new mother left out returning to work.

When it comes to motivations, simple really does mean simple: A choice to help people, and to respect at least 65 million sets of dreams and real lives. These motivations should be framed within a set of good but very basic beliefs: that we can often achieve more together than we can alone; that no one is as an island, and no society, country or community too; that government can help, though not always; that solutions must be driven by facts, and change accordingly when more is learnt or the facts change. That we’re democrats who respect the views of the people.

Simple doesn’t mean uncontroversial. There are plenty of ministers in government who clearly value other things more than these. Whether by accident or intent, that’s true for some on the left as well. But there are good answers to be found. If at least some in Labour can stick to those motivations and beliefs they’ll be able to address people’s real hopes and fears – about the world and about Labour. That means being honest and discarding what doesn’t match up to those simple ideas, or doesn’t meet the test voters will set.

None of this is to say that there aren’t people doing that in Labour already. But a lot of the language is out of date. Some of it the old modernising language no longer literally means what it says. “What matters is what works” now sounds like only privatisation, even if it didn’t before. Talk of values is now indistinct, lacking so much clarity it’s claimed by everyone. Using too much old language holds back reasonable debate, makes it harder to renew thinking or to have reasonable convesations with people new to Labour. Refocusing thinking by being clear on motivating principles and basic beliefs will help old modernisers as well as new to renew the party and focus on the host of good things that Labour could do.

Investment in understanding the cruellest diseases, as the Democrats are doing in the US. Sustained and deliberate action to make it easier for everyone to work, following the Nordic countries who still lead the way.  Proper reforms so we can all protect ourselves from the cost of care and have carers fairly rewarded, as the Conservatives have dodged. Consistent and speedy retraining to keep people in good jobs, as Finland excels at. Housebuilding funded by the financial gains that come with permission to build, as the Dutch have already done. Mental health support when it’s asked for, in line with what charities like Together for Mental Wellbeing have called for.

All these are examples of what Labour can deliver if it keeps its motivations simple and focuses on the substance of people’s real lives. The new car, the rent, the bus home. The sports club, the prayer group, and the pub. Redundancy, divorce, holidays, plans for the future and trips to the park.  All of these things matter to a great many people. If new modernisers can make these people’s priorities matter again to Labour, than the Labour Party will matter again to those people, and to the real needs.

David Hale is a Labour member from the West Midlands.