The new Labour leader’s first problem : the big idea

Almost five years ago a thirty nine year old former PR executive who had spent most of his career as a political backroom boy and who had written the previous, failed, Tory manifesto, won the leadership of the Conservative Party promising hope, change and return to office.

David Cameron didn’t offer much in terms of detail. He understood that taking over a political party was about big, simple messages.

It was clear to him that the three previous leaders (two of whom now have jobs in the current cabinet) had not shown that they understood why the party was rejected at the polls. He knew he had to transform the image of the Conservative Party quite fundamentally.

So in his victory speech the young Cameron promised “a more compassionate Conservatism right for our times and right for our country”, adding “We needed to change in order to win. Now that I have won, we will change,” before throwing in a modern promise to fight the “scandalous” under-representation of women in the party.

It was a very simple rebranding of the party as caring, compassionate and modern. And as a speech : a largely policy-free zone.

Of course as things turned out the Cameron Conservatives didn’t quite win the election, which was not fought in any case upon the ground of who could spend public money the best in a compassionate way, but on the deficit, cuts, competence and people being sick of Labour.

And the under-representation of women continues to be a problem for the Conservatives. None of these minor details need get in the way of this story.

For the question facing whichever Miliband wins is what should he learn from Cameron’s early moments as leader?

On Saturday afternoon as the realisation sinks in and he turns to the cameras to address the nation in the certain knowledge that the nation isn’t really paying much attention (Saturday afternoons are busy times…children, sport, shopping, etc) should he go big, or detailed?

Does Labour need a new “feel” or a whole new policy direction? And does it need an admission of guilt, somewhere along the line as Cameron’s “compassion” inherently did.

David Miliband has tried hard not to jetison the record – essentially sticking to Labour’s last economic policy on the deficit, but grafting on his idea of a “moral economy” and a party rooted in the community it serves so it doesn’t get out of touch.

Ed Miliband says he is more prepared to ditch the past and his refrain is that much over-used idea of “change” – but it is not absolutely clear what his equivalent of Cameron’s compassion is.  He talks of being more in touch with Labour values, but do we know what he really means?

There is only one issue in British politics right now : the economy. But should the Labour leader say the last government got things wrong at all?  Can he demonstrate economic credibility without finding some things to admit were mistaken?

The Tory/Lib Dem coalition, and many in the media, will argue that Labour not only made a mess of the economy, but caused the deficit through profligate spending. So Labour’s leader needs to convince voters that is the wrong analysis, which will be hard when people are being told the cuts are down to Labour’s record.

But he needs to do much more than that. Because while the government makes cuts and reorganises services if Labour’s new leader opposes every move he will risk looking out of touch with reality.

When he took over in 2005 David Cameron was clear that he would only make progress as a Tory leader if he picked his arguments carefully, thought about what was winnable and provided alternative plans. That meant telling the Labour government it was right on some things.

The stakes are extraordinarily high. For if Saturday’s winner fails to nail the economic argument he could find himself with a heavy medallion of incompetence hung around his neck, just as his predecessors did in the 1980’s.

It would mean the next election almost certainly lost, and one day another Labour leader finding themselves forced into the equivalent of David Cameron’s “compassionate Conservatism” with talk of economic prudence and responsibility. Now, does that bring back any memories…?