The king over the water is an alluring concept. Over the water the grass is greener. Hopes and aspirations are nurtured, castles built in the air.

Rarely does the inconvenience of reality intrude on the floating possibility or what might be, if only the king could return.

Followers of faraway kings tend to assume away questions on what their leader would actually do with power and fixate on removing the undeserving incumbent.

For all those years in the early 2000s, legions of Brownites (back in the days when such a grouping existed) didn’t give a second thought to tricky details like an alternative policy programme. All would be fine. Plans were bound to have been made by pointy headed wonks in backrooms somewhere. What mattered most was removing Blair. That was the business of politics.

And so the wheel turns and now its bonnie prince Davy who awaits with a promise of a better tomorrow.

The reaction across the media to David Miliband’s article in the New Statesman is defined by lost leader syndrome. All the reporting has been entirely through the prism of a leadership challenge, nothing on the substance of what he’s saying.

In one sense, the focus on personalities is understandable. The fraternal schism is compelling, and despite the “100% denial” from friends of David Miliband that it was an attack on Ed, number one son’s words in the New Statesman are quite pointed.

David Miliband is clear in the piece that Labour is now seen as the party of “fiscal incontinence”.

He highlights the dangers of going into an election again without a single major business supporting the party and castigates the rising influence of “reassurance Labour” – statist, leftish, vaguely old Labour, we-got-our-party-back types that remain his brother’s strongest advocates.

After a year and a half of Ed’s leadership, it’s difficult to see how in his brother’s eyes, Ed Miliband is not at least partially culpable for this sorry state of affairs.

It’s fair game to report this. But the coverage all ends there.

Nothing is written about the alternate vision that David Miliband sets out. As with Gordon Brown before he ascended to the top job, any analysis of how this potential leader would wield power is deemed insufficiently relevant to report.

This is a shame. The New Statesman piece is long and expansive and gives a good flavour of why David Miliband didn’t win the leadership of the Labour party.

As with so many of his policy speeches during the leadership election, Miliband’s case is characterised by hastily assembled straw men that are then summarily burned.

First on the bonfire are those who view state action as the sole panacea to the evils of inequality. “The public won’t vote for the prescription that central government is the cure for all ills” states David confidently.

Presumably one of the reasons he can be so certain is that no party or politician actually believes this.

Then there’s a discussion about internationalism that extends as far as saying Labour needs to find a way to make it work, without offering a single idea on how. The nearest Miliband comes to an answer is to call for “globalisation to be shaped for mass benefit”. What an insight from the former Foreign Secretary.

And a discourse about equality concludes that Labour needs to tackle inequality while “embracing notions of merit, reward and responsibility”. Yet again the precision and solutions needed by Labour in opposition.

But perhaps the most telling section sets out the elder Miliband’s economic analysis. Economic competence after all is where Labour has been grievously injured and where electoral trust must be most urgently rebuilt.

The title to this section says everything, “We need a politics of economic growth, not just redistribution and regulation.”

Hmm.

What does that mean? Answers on a postcard please, or in the comments section.

I’m not sure what a “politics of economic anything” is, but assuming this is a point about economic priorities, is any party on the ballot at the next election espousing an anti-growth economic strategy? Not even the Greens are advocating a longer, deeper recession as the way forward.

The economic review ends with the piercing insight that what is required is “responsible capitalism” and “productive capitalism”.

Well it’s lucky that’s all settled then. No need for any more fears about casino capitalism or the global economy. Everyone just needs to be a bit more responsible. And productive.

David Miliband is not a daft politician. On camera he has that quality which separates the best from the rest. But when he writes like this and is lauded for his vision, something has gone wrong. The piece wouldn’t pass muster as an A-level essay. There’s no argument, no evidence and little conclusion.

This isn’t a contribution to the battle of ideas it’s just a series of platitudes.

The danger for followers of kings over the water is that they become so resentful of the incumbent and desperate for their leader to return, they will overlook almost all failings in their desire for salvation.

For the sake of David Miliband’s own leadership ambitions, his followers should demand a lot more. Everything about him suggests he could be capable. But, he needs to show it. Otherwise, like Gordon Brown, his reputation and memory might ultimately be better served if he were to stay right where he is, over the water.

Atul Hatwal is associate editor at Uncut

If you are the Tories then you know that in general voters are wary of what you might do with the NHS, given half-a-chance. It is a political weakness for them. No matter what they say many people assume that their instincts are anti that most beloved of national institutions.

It is why David Cameron invested so much time and effort in trying to persuade people that his intentions towards the NHS were honourable in the run up to the general election. It is why he pledged, ridiculously, to protect NHS budgets when all others were being cut. He knew he couldn’t win on the NHS, but he hoped he could stop it being a negative for him. Now of course all of this has been blown out of the water by Lansley’s ineptitude, and the NHS is once again an electoral vulnerability for the government. A degree of trust so hard fought for so easily lost.

In contrast, the Labour Party is trusted by voters on the NHS.  It means that they could get away with reforming the NHS, maybe even make mistakes, and would still on balance be trusted.

What the Tories are trusted with is money. They are seen as being safer with other people’s money than Labour. They are seen as being pro-business and enterprise and being mates with city types. Labour is not trusted, is seen as not being close to business and to not understand the City. Which takes us to the present furore of bankers. The Tories know that their reputation for economic competence can withstand a bit of banker bashing. They also know that Labour is vulnerable on the issue but instinctively likes a bit of bashing rich types.

There is no doubt that bankers are unpopular with voters. Quite frankly you would be more popular saying that you worked in the illicit narcotics trade than in a bank with most people. But that doesn’t mean that banks aren’t important. They employ thousands of people. They are vital for trade and commerce. Financial institutions are a vital export and the City of London is trusted worldwide. So they are not just important, they are in fact a vital part of our economy. And on top of that, we currently have billions of taxpayers pounds invested in several of them. Their continued success is essential if we are to get a return on our investment. And people know this.

Which is why the recent epidemic of banker bashing by politicians on all sides is so incredibly irresponsible. How so? Well just look at what happened to the price of RBS shares after Stephen Hester was shafted. We might find the size of his salary unimaginable and the notion of his bonus off the scale. But in banking circles it was normal. And he was persuaded to take on the role of chief executive of a failing bank that had just become mostly owned by the state. He signed a contract with the expectation that if he did his job well the board would award him a further bonus. And the bonus that he was awarded was in shares that would increase in value if he continued to do his job well. A good example of the sort of measure that Ed Miliband has been calling for, that rewards a long term attitude to the running of business. Now, the governments’ shares in RBS are administered on their behalf by UK financial investments limited whose aim is to:

“protect and create value for the taxpayer as shareholder, with due regard to financial stability and acting in a way that promotes competition”.

And by having the shares administered at arm’s length, the government hoped to ensure independence for the boards of the institutions that it held shares in. And yet, having rightly established this precedent in government, the Labour party has lead a politically expedient witch hunt against Stephen Hester.

The government decided not to resist too hard and not surprisingly Hester had to agree not to take his bonus. Brilliant. I bet all of those Chinese and Indian financiers are queuing up to invest in UK banks with political interference in the running of the system suddenly popular. I mean, if the bonus was wrong, why not start putting pressure on directors’ salaries or investment decisions? Perhaps we should have political appointments on boards. I am sure that will do wonders for the value of nationalised bank shares. But still, at least we bashed some bankers. Well done us.

And the government has clearly decided that it doesn’t want Labour to have all of the fun, so it started a witch hunt all of its own. Fred Goodwin has broken no law, was feted by the FSA, by (Labour) politicians and was supported by his board. Ultimately he was a disaster for RBS, but does that justify his tasteless and unedifying public humiliation?  But what the hell, he wasn’t just a banker – he was a bad banker. He had it coming. Let’s not talk about anyone else involved in the RBS debacle, as long as the pin-up boy for all that went wrong gets publicly flogged. The public need a bit of distraction, so let’s throw them some meat. The Tories can look popular, goad Labour for their role in the decision to knight him and no one gets hurt. Of course Labour secretly love it as well and have welcomed the decision. Well personally I don’t, I have found it distasteful.

But, aside from the bad taste left in the mouth, there are political consequences of all this. The Tories can get away with some minor skirmishing with the City. They may well benefit in popularity by calling on Stephen Hester to give up his bonus despite the impact on the share price and worldwide reputation of the City. De-frocking Fred the shred may well gain them plaudits. After all they are absolutely seen as being pro-business and the City. Labour though is not seen as pro-business and cannot get away with it for long.  Labour was tempted by the Tories to indulge in attacking bankers and they couldn’t help themselves. But in contrast it looks like they are playing up to their anti-business and anti-City rhetoric. In chasing short term popularity they have simply further undermined their economic credibility for the long term.

But worse than that, many have rediscovered their inner class warrior; and they liked it.  They will not be able to resist temptation again.  Andrew Lansley must be very relieved.

Peter Watt was general secretary of the Labour party.

Labour will win the welfare debate when we reassure the public that we believe in the responsibility to work and convince them that the government is too incompetent to secure the right to work.

Labour’s approach to rights is anathema to Tories, and goes beyond the legalism of liberalism. The right to work is fundamental to us – we’re Labour, after all. Tories see no such right. Unemployment is a price worth paying. And work is, of course, a relational and lived experience, which can’t be distilled to the system of legal rights that defines liberalism.

All have a right to dignity, which the welfare state that Labour created must ensure. This right, more associated with Labour than other parties, is, however, abused when it subsidises the unwillingness of some who could work to fulfil their responsibility to actually work. That Labour has a stronger emphasis on rights than other parties, can leave us vulnerable to attacks predicated upon appeals to responsibility.

Iain Duncan Smith has launched such an attack. The principle driving his benefits cap is that all who are able have responsibilities to look for and take up work. Where there is more to be gained by staying at home, welfare incentivises the violation of responsibilities to seek and undertake work.

The common sense of fairness, which says that work, not welfare, should pay, is consistent with the best traditions of the left. Liam Byrne recently recalled the famous 1940s words from Labour leader Clement Attlee, that called for a Britain where: “all may have the duty and the opportunity of rendering service to the nation”.

Our welfare system should reinforce the duty to look for work and provide opportunities to work. This duties and opportunities pairing again came together in Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign theme of opportunity for all and responsibility from all, which inspired the stress of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown upon rights and responsibilities. Which thinking later resulted, as Byrne has noted, in Labour’s 2010 general election manifesto commitment to limit housing benefit payments to what working families can afford.

While Labour supports the cap, and this backing is consistent with our traditional emphasis upon duty and responsibility, Atul Hatwal is justified in worrying that Labour’s role in last week’s Lords rebellion resulted in us appearing to oppose the cap. No matter what the merits of the concerns raised in the Lords – and these concerns were not without merit – they had the effect of dulling our message that we support the cap.

To quibble over details is, in the minds of the hardly-paying-any-attention public, to bring into doubt our commitment to the underlying principle. This equivocation underscores the winning position on responsibilities to look for and take up work that Duncan Smith created.

It is Labour’s need to salvage a draw on this front that makes Byrne’s call for the regionalisation of the cap so important. In policy terms, he’s right to say that the same cap in London and Yorkshire will do less to stimulate these responsibilities in Yorkshire than in London. In political terms, by going further than Duncan Smith in sharpening incentives, he is seeking to recover the ground lost in the public’s mind by so questioning details of the cap in the Lords as to obscure our commitment to it. This commitment cannot be in doubt, which is the political purpose of calling for the regionalisation of the cap.

Taking the lead on this regionalisation debate has the potential to strengthen Labour’s position on the responsibility to work dimension of the welfare debate. Reassuring the public of our commitment to this responsibility will make them more receptive to claims from us that the incompetence of the government is to blame for the right to work being empty for many. Neutralising the responsibility dimension of the welfare debate will make it harder for the government to evade their complicity in the right to work dimension.

Here the government is vulnerable. Unemployment is at its highest since 1994. Female unemployment hasn’t been this high since 1987. Youth unemployment never has. The right to work will only be created for many by more competent economic management than this government is capable of providing.

The government is presently evading culpability for this failure. The more we can move the welfare debate onto their incompetency at creating jobs, the more likely we are to win it. And the more we can dovetail policy in this area with a broader narrative about the future of our economy. Then we begin to colonise that most valuable piece of political real estate: the future.

Jonathan Todd is Labour Uncut’s economic columnist.

Localism is one of those annoyingly wispy catch-alls in British politics that never actually takes corporeal form. Like the big society, deciphering its linguistic mysteries would keep an abbeyful of medieval monks busy.

But things are getting clearer. As of last week, localism now means big city mayors.

Local government minister Greg Clark’s confirmation that we could see powerful elected mayors running Manchester, Liverpool, Bradford, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield, Nottingham, Wakefield, Bristol, Birmingham and Coventry as early as this November is nothing short of landmark.

Look at it this way: the prospect of a dozen big city mayors (Leicester was due to hold a referendum with the rest but opted to switch early) represents the biggest potential transfer of political power since Scottish and Welsh devolution in 1998.

Actually, forget the Welsh, so to speak; the joint population of England’s eleven largest cities and conurbations dwarfs that of the principality. While Birmingham and Leeds combined are more populous than Northern Ireland.

This new version of localism represents a real tilting of power away from Whitehall and towards our other great cities and conurbations. A moment where powerful new political voices with huge mandates emerge in new centres of power and influence.

Unfortunately, many in the Labour tribe remain unconvinced there is such a prize to be had. The party issued no press release heralding last week’s news that mayors are now within sight and no offer to form cross-party yes campaigns to win the referendums was forthcoming.

In fact Labour MPs were busy in parliament voting against the orders that paved the way for May’s referendums. Despite the last Labour manifesto’s support for city mayors, it remains a cause unloved by many who should be its staunchest advocates.

Yet last Thursday, Salford – that impregnable citadel of Labourism – saw 56% of voting Salfordians choose an elected mayor in a referendum, ignoring the local Labour council and the city’s MPs who campaigned against the proposal.

Labour risks being similarly out of tune with voters in May. What is the problem? With additional executive powers – currently under review – mayors could be utterly transformative figures.

But even without them they are still roles worth having. At the very least mayors will provide high-visibility municipal leadership. Bring innovation to local policy-making. Ensure direct accountability. Set clearer priorities. Sharpen up decision-making.

What is more, a college of big city mayors would become a compelling new voice in British politics. A counterweight to central government with a huge democratic mandate that any government would have to take seriously.

Instead of reading endless reports about Boris Johnson’s plans for an island airport in the Thames, we might just hear a bit more about what’s happening in Bristol, Leeds or Liverpool instead.

So, illogically, frustratingly, disappointingly, localism is, it seems, what the Tory party does. And Labour does not.

This is the party at its pig-headed worst. Councillors make up the officer class in any political party and we are in hock, it seems, to ours.  Many loathe the prospect of elected mayors. Theirs is an emotional attachment to the desiccated status quo where they do not seem to accept the current system can be improved upon.

Usually, it has to be said, for the most myopic reasons. Unlike council leaders, they fear elected mayors would no longer be primus inter pares with backbenchers, instead using their huge direct mandate to get their way every time.

The prize on offer outweighs such a puny calculation.

Of course in government we talked the localist talk. At times, enthusiastically. David Miliband even wanted “double devolution”, with power dispersing from Whitehall to councils, down to communities. But ministers never really converted the rhetoric of localism into reality.

We created regional development agencies with the flaky promise that they might turn into small, strategic elected bodies. Yet those of us who fought the fight for elected regional assemblies back in 2004 were left on the beach like Cuban irregulars at the Bay of Pigs, without the air cover we were promised when the government wobbled and finally pulled the plug on the idea. Unlike the Cubans, it has to be said, we had a decent cause worth fighting for.

And an issue that is not going to go away. In government, we never gave any serious thought to what our response to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolution should be. What we should have done as a supplement to national devolution was to create English länder instead; powerful regions with real political heft.

The redistribution of power is an opportunity Labour missed. It is something Blairites, Brownites, New Labour and Old Labour alike failed to grasp with necessary gusto. Labour’s instinct to horde power at the centre triumphed.

What we should have been doing was making sure that no government could ever again decimate our regional economies the way Mrs Thatcher did in the early 1980s. To do that we should have dispersed power from the centre, creating a bulwark against ideological policy-making in Whitehall.

Although we may have coined the term localism our reluctance to act on it saw us fail to permanently alter the balance of power in Britain. We have a chance to rectify that mistake by supporting elected mayors now.

But will we take it?

Kevin Meagher is associate editor of Labour Uncut.

By sitting on his hands while Ed Miliband spoke for the public over Stephen Hester’s bonus, David Cameron has failed an important test over fairness at the top.

As the welfare reform bill returns to the House of Commons, Labour has an opportunity to show that we are the party best placed to deliver fairness at the bottom too.

To start at the top. The prime minister ought to be worried by the way he has allowed himself to seem out of touch and evasive on an issue that has symbolised people’s resentment of unjustified rewards for the highest paid. As an opposition leader, Cameron was adept at understanding and reflecting the public mood. He often moved swiftly on emerging issues, leaving the then Labour government struggling to catch up. Yet on banker’s bonuses he has shown both a flat foot and tin ear – failing to show leadership over the specific issue of the Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive, and refusing Labour’s call for a repeat of the bank bonus tax to get more young people into work.

Were it not for shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna revealing the element of discretion over bonus payments in the Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive’s contract, the government might still be effectively hoodwinking people by suggesting that its hands were tied. Ed made the point last week that Cameron has left himself vulnerable by talking big on the subject of excessive pay while shirking the necessary action to tackle it. The PM’s failure to speak up over the scale of rewards at the top of a troubled state-owned bank is a prime example of that; it may linger in the public’s mind.

Ed has been clear from the outset, though, that leading the way in calling for action against unfair rewards at the top must be matched by a determination to address unfairness at the bottom too. When we stood on their doorsteps at the last election, voters were unsurprisingly angry about the way irresponsible bankers had inflicted so much damage on the British economy. But while the practices of the City of London were alien to their lives, many expressed a sharper resentment at the sense that people in their own neighbourhood who could be paying their way were able to get something for nothing from the benefit system.

We forget that at our peril. The Conservative-led government is set to lock in a nationwide maximum annual benefit level of £26,000 – a figure that seems incomprehensibly high to many working families struggling on modest incomes in parts of the country with lower housing costs than the capital.

Many MPs are finding that the reaction from their constituents to the proposed benefit cap is not full throated praise that ministers are acting; rather, many working people cannot believe that the cap is being set so far above the wage level that they work their socks off to earn.

That is why shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne is right to suggest independently set local variations on any benefit cap this week. Determination to confront this issue head on is a necessary part of our commitment to fairness at all levels. It is equally necessary if we wish to remain in touch with the working majority who we were elected to represent.

John Woodcock is Labour and Cooperative MP for Barrow and Furness and a shadow transport minister.

After months of agonised internal debate about how to deal with David Cameron, Labour finally decided its strategy and unleashed the much-anticipated attack.

David the chameleon made his first appearance in a Labour broadcast in April 2006. This version of David Cameron was clearly intended to display a creature that was willing to turn any colour in order to win votes.

Labour revealed it would use the theme relentlessly, even after polling day. It was to be followed up with mobile phone ringtones, pod casts and downloads for iPods. Labour had finally found the attack that would destroy this young upstart, who was the first Tory leader in a decade to move the polls in favour of the Conservatives.

Sadly for Labour, the attack failed to chime with the electorate. The party went on to lose over 300 seats, whilst the Conservatives had their best set of local election results since 1992.

Thus began Labour’s convoluted attempts to develop a line of attack that actually inflicts damage upon David Cameron. The chameleon attack failed because Cameron was desperate to emphasise that the Tories had changed, and Labour pushed the message for him.

Contempt no doubt drove much of Labour’s early attempts to tarnish the now-prime minister. Who was this hitherto-largely-unheard-of Tory to take on the might of New Labour?

While Blair rightly recognised that Cameron was by far the most dangerous opponent he had yet faced, the brooding Brownites harboured more sinister ideas. The then-prevailing consensus within their camp was that Brown held a deeper, more relevant understanding of the challenges facing Britain than a young man who seemed to think he could glide to power on a mix of media spin and personal charm.

This isn’t to say that only the Brownites got it wrong. The then-rising stars of New Labour included such future cabinet ministers as James Purnell, Liam Byrne and Jim Murphy.

They released (amid much fanfare and backed to the hilt by the Labour pressure group Progress) a somewhat spurious attack on Cameron linking him to George W Bush. The publication of the document revealed a deep nervousness among senior Blairite figures over Cameron’s confident leadership and an awkward desire to smear him.

Ultimately, Brown won the argument over how to tackle Cameron, though this may be due more to the fact that Blair was off the political scene than any overwhelming political acumen.

His line of attack was clear; Cameron was to be tarred as a “public relations man” with policies that favoured his “rich friends”.

It was late 2009 in a Commons exchange when Brown explicitly mentioned Cameron’s education, his “playing fields of Eton” jibe opening up a debate about whether or not a politician’s background is ripe for ridicule. Many Labour strategists, and indeed ordinary Labour party members, believed the disastrous Crewe and Nantwich by-election the year before ought to have put paid to these attempts at class warfare.

Fast forward to the Miliband era and the confusion is self-evident. The leak of Shaun Woodward’s strategy document highlighted a desire among Labour’s top brass to paint Cameron as a traditional Tory. This misses a key observation; namely that being seen as right wing isn’t necessarily a negative for the prime minister. Indeed, he has come under a barrage of criticism from his own side for not being conservative enough.

The document, released around the time of the summer riots, when much of the prime minister’s hard-line rhetoric chimed with the public, displayed a startling lack of insight. There has got to be an acceptance on the left that the right wing rhetoric employed by the Conservatives, or inanely labelling them “right wing”, is not damaging in itself.

What happened to the Labour machine that was brutally effective at sniffing out the weaknesses in a Tory leader? John Major, William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard were all dispatched with minimal or no fuss, though it is fair to say that their many inadequacies certainly smoothed the process. But this early success was possible because Blair, the party and Gordon Brown were united in their ruthlessness. This is no longer the case and there ought to be serious concern that there is no coherent strategy.

Blair wanted to treat Cameron with respect, Brown was dismissive and Miliband is confused. As a party we have to concede that we have struggled to land a blow on Cameron, in almost seven years of his leadership, and recognise that he is a skilful manipulator of his image.

This is another test for Ed Miliband and it is one he must pass. It will be interesting to see if he resists the temptation to disappear into the party’s ancient refuges, or genuinely lands a blow on his political foe. There is a strong indication that the Labour movement is still searching for leadership and direction on just how to attack David Cameron.

David Talbot is a political consultant.

Atul Hatwal on the need for a coherent message

John Spellar stands up for the link

Peter Watt wants the Ed’s to stick to a script – any script

Jonathan Todd’s lessons from America

Jonathan Ashworth reports on the Government’s falling work rate

Rob Marchant says smart people learn from their enemies

Back in the mists of late 1996 I remember trotting along to Labour’s HQ, Millbank, for a meeting on first time voters.

I was a minor staffer working on the strategy for attracting the youth vote at the election. In amidst the usual sage pronouncements from assorted authority figures on the critical importance of this group, was an interesting nugget.

Based on Labour’s internal polling since the previous election, it had taken four years from when Tony Blair, as shadow home secretary, had started using the phrase, “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” for the public to connect these words with Labour policy.

Four years.

It’s remained with me all these years as a measure of how long it takes to make a political message stick in the real world.

Long after politicians, journalists and those interested in Westminster dramas have become tired of the same dowdy old position and moved on to newer more exciting political looks, the public are only just starting to take notice.

So why the flashback now?

Two weeks ago Ed Miliband and Ed Balls took a brave decision to shift Labour’s stance on the deficit. The policy might not have changed substantively, but as Peter Watt said this week, the emphasis certainly did.

It was the start of a long road, but at least one that is headed in the right direction. And into my head it popped – four years for Labour to be seen as the party that was tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.

Although we are only three and a quarter years off a general election campaign, with a bit of discipline and today’s more rapid news cycle, maybe, just maybe, there was a chance I thought.

Fast forward 14 days, to this week with the Lords revolt on the benefits cap and Labour’s line on the dreadful economic figures.

Despite the new financial realism, and our actual support for the benefits cap, we appear to be in favour of spending more on benefits. Yes, I know it’s all about how the cap implemented, but to the barely interested public, Labour is now defined as being against a very popular cap.

And in the face of the figures showing a contracting economy, the attack was back to “too far, too fast”.

Peter Watt called it the script, Dan Hodges, the narrative: either way Labour needs a coherent story.

There’s no point giving a nudge about embracing financial realism one week, and a completely contradictory wink, a few days later, that Labour would pay more out in benefits and increased spending would have saved the economy.

When Ed Miliband and Ed Balls took their first step, two weeks ago, that was clearly all that was marked on their route map back to power – one step.

If there had been anything more, they would have known something extra was needed beyond the standard “too far, too fast” as an explanation of Tory failure.

If the answer is about pump priming the economy, the party needs to be specific about where the funds are coming from and what they will be spent on.

Otherwise, not only will Labour remain trapped in the prism of trying to spend its way out of a debt crisis, after the shift in emphasis a fortnight a go, it will be caught flip-flopping harder than a pair of Romney sandals at a summer camp disco.

Three grim lessons stand out from this confusing episode.

First, there’s a perspective problem at the top of the party. No-one has a sense of how the public perceives what’s happening. If they did, then the absurdity of tacking one way then the other within days would be obvious.

What seems a measured and nuanced path to the inner circle is a crazy zig zag to the public.

Second, there is no strategy to what Labour is doing. Not looking up at the road ahead to see “too far, too fast” would not cut it as Labour’s story on the Tories following the two Ed’s shift a fortnight ago, speaks volumes about what is not happening.

Third, the absence of perspective and strategy is destroying discipline. One of the under-reported features of the benefits revolt was that Labour had put down its own Lords amendment.

But no one was interested. Not the cross-benchers, not the bishops and certainly not Labour’s own peers.

Labour’s representation in the Lords could not be marshalled to abstain on the bishop’s amendment and only back Labour’s. So there was no line. Just a parliamentary free for all.

The saying goes that a week is a long time in politics. It was never truer than when applied now to Labour’s leaders. The last time that the party held a line that was consistent and coherent for any period of time is hard to recall.

Four years.

Seems longer and longer every day.

Atul Hatwal is associate editor at Uncut.

John Healy has produced an excellent article on the unpleasant Tory group launching an attack on trade union rights and their ability to represent their members.  Also this week, Jim Sheridan, chair of the Unite group, rightly expressed his concern at what he sees as “some within the party constantly looking for ways to break the link”.  So the trade union movement and its links with the Labour party are once again under serious attack. It’s déjà vu all over again.

My only difference with Jim’s analysis is that there are also those on the ultra left who are looking at ways of weakening the link, and they always have. Both they and the latter day Jenkinsites have a very weak grasp of the realities of progressive politics, and not only in Britain. The Jenkins heresy always lamented the breach between Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the beginning of the last century.  He harkened back to what he saw as a “progressive century” in the nineteenth century.  Actually looking at the years in government of the two parties that century, and even regarding Palmerston as a progressive, he was wrong, but the most important error in his analysis is that it implied that the creation of the Labour party as a sovereign party, was a critical mistake.

On the other side, the ultra left, excepting their entryist phases, have always regarded the Labour party and the trade union bureaucracies as obstacles to their Leninist fantasies.  The reality for working people today is that under a major onslaught from an economic tsunami and a vindictive and incompetent government, it is now more than ever that they need effective unions at the workplace, strong union campaigning in national issues and a Labour party in, or preparing for, government; and they very much need them working together.

The reality is that  in every country with a successful Labour, Social Democratic or even Democrat Party is that there are strong longstanding links with the unions.  They are founded on our shared history, values and interests.

There may be nuances in the detailed constitutional arrangements, but they are far less relevant than the community of Labour. So it is right for us to make clear the indissoluble relationship between us. After all, the clue is in our name. So let’s have done with the delusions of both these groups and reaffirm our determination to “keep the link”.

John Spellar is Labour MP for Warley and a shadow foreign office minister.

In government it can be difficult to keep telling a coherent story about what the common purpose of the administration is. You start off with “New Labour, new Britain”, and end up, well who knows quite where we ended up? But that is the point; events, complexity and the sheer relentlessness of governing gets in the way of the message.

You try and stick to the script, “tough on crime” say, but then someone lets a load of foreign criminals out of prison and you don’t look so tough. Or you start talking about going “back to basics”, and then members of your top team get caught with their trousers down or lining their pockets. And lots of things that sounded so simple in opposition suddenly look complicated and undeliverable in government. Just think about the promises to reverse immigration trends by the Tories. They look laughable now.

But in opposition you have no such problems. In fact the opposite is true. The monotony of being responsible for nothing means that you are fighting for attention. It’s not sticking to the story that is the problem, it’s anyone listening to the story at all. You have such limited opportunity to tell your story that you can’t afford subtlety or nuance. Such luxuries get in the way. You need to paint in big bright colours so that people notice.  This can also be a strategic advantage. Whilst you can draw clear and unambiguous lines, government ministers are forced to fudge under pressure from advice from civil servants and the reality of unintended consequences. And there aren’t many aspects of being in opposition that can be described as advantageous.

Well maybe it’s just me, but Labour seems a bit all over the place at the moment on the opposition front. In fact they seem all over the place a lot at the moment. So how can they have got things so wrong recently?

Let’s take the deficit. For months they appeared to refuse to acknowledge the full harsh reality of the deficit and the scale of the cuts required to deal with this. Instead there was a complex series of explanations and justifications that involved banks, lack of a growth strategy, world recession and the generally unpleasant nature of Tories. Anyone and anything except Labour in fact. Not surprisingly this was not particularly successful as far as voters were concerned.

And then recently Ed and Ed appeared to clarify and simplify this. It was an important moment; not a change per se, but a change in emphasis certainly. Labour now accepted that they would unable to reverse the Tory cuts after the next election. The deficit was such that it would be impossible to promise this. Good so far. Clear, simple and unambiguous. And we would support a public sector pay freeze over investment in jobs. Even better; we now had a crystal clear story. We are fiscally responsible and will take the tough steps needed to reduce the deficit and promote job creation.

And the icing on the cake was being attacked for this change by “Red” Len McCluskey, a good old fashioned trade union firebrand. It couldn’t get much better. All we had to do was keep telling people our clear and unambiguous story that reiterated our fiscal responsibility. But oh no; we had to start being clever and playing to the left of centre gallery. You see (clarification coming) Labour doesn’t actually support the Tories cuts, even though we would also have had to cut under the Darling plan. No, because the Tory cuts are ideological and bad, while Labour’s would be reluctant and in the national interest. The Tories are cutting too far and too fast, and we would cut less and slower – well at least until after the next election.

It risks convincing no one and we will keep getting stuck every time we are asked which of the Tory cuts Labour will keep. Our clear and unambiguous message is watered down at best.

And then there is the welfare reform bill. It is massively popular with the public that the government is proposing to cap at £26,000 per annum the amount of welfare payments that any one family can receive. It’s not surprising that people feel this way, and in fact for many people the fact that the cap needs to be set at all confirms their view that Labour had been over generous with tax payer’s money in the first place. And Liam Byrne was crystal clear and unambiguous that Labour supported a cap.

Our story was clear; we did not support welfare dependency for those who could work and we were absolutely on the side of working families. Fantastic; and then we fudged it again by trying to be all nuanced. Labour sided with the bishops in the Lords to try and argue that the cap should be effectively raised beyond the £26,000. Brilliant. David Cameron wandered off to talk to some Asda workers and asked if they thought that it should be raised as Labour wanted. What do you think they thought? Well I would suspect that they thought that £26,000 was too high not too low. Labour’s clear and unambiguous message is watered down.

So far from enjoying one of the few benefits of opposition, the ability to be unrealistically strident and paint policy in big bold and unambiguous colours, Labour seems intent on confusion. Ed and Ed need to decide whether their primary audience is a Labour faithful one or a sceptical public. You can’t play to both successfully. The Labour faithful love nuance and detail. A sceptical public need to know clearly and unambiguously what we stand for. Ed Miliband should remember that for all the talk of leadership threats it is the sceptical public that holds his fate in their hands.

Peter Watt was general secretary of the Labour party.