How the Labour party's next leader can unite the richest and poorest

The next leader of the Labour party faces a mountainous task, and an opportunity too. For now, only the intimidating mountain is visible. Last week Labour was defeated heavily in a winnable election, much more winnable than those contested by a series of doomed Conservative leaders after 1997 or the ones Neil Kinnock fought in 1987 and 1992. The party made its pitch in a hung parliament, against a background of economic insecurities, an uneasy Conservative party and Liberal Democrats heading for slaughter. Still it lost badly.

If Labour’s next leader is to succeed they must have the capacity to frame and project arguments that are both substantial and have wide appeal. Ed Miliband was ahead of the zeitgeist when highlighting his passionate concerns about inequality. Over recent years authors have topped best-seller lists with books on the topic. But arguments about inequality have to be made carefully. If voters sense they are being asked to act altruistically, to make financial sacrifices in order to help vaguely defined “others”, most will be understandably wary. The key is the framing of arguments. Perceived self-interest can take many forms.

The capacity to project, to engage with voters in a way that appears to be genuine, is not an added extra but an essential demand of leadership. All candidates this time must be tested extensively. Are they wholly at ease as public figures or are they playing at being public figures? Are they compelling political teachers like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair? Labour must elect a political teacher, one who can make voters view politics and the choices they face in a different way.

So how should the successful candidate pitch themselves to a disillusioned electorate and a hostile media? There is one issue that unites voters across the UK, from Cornwall to the north of Scotland. All worry, with good cause, about public services: the NHS, schools, transport and the rest. The worries transcend class and region.

Recently I was in a car with a multimillionaire as his driver sought to take us from central to north London. To the frustration of the multimillionaire, the short journey took more than an hour. In spite of his wealth he was powerless, raging about the hopeless roads and inadequate public transport. The multimillionaire was at one with the poorest in being dependent on government or an elected authority to make his quality of life more tolerable. The CBI’s next submission before the budget will cry out for investment in transport and other infrastructure projects. Meanwhile, listen to the concerns of an ardent SNP supporter in Scotland or a Tory supporter in St Ives in Cornwall. They want to see a GP when they need one or be treated with the best medical options available.

In aiming high in the delivery of public services, the next Labour leader can unite the multimillionaire with the poorest citizen, the Cornish patient with the one worrying up in Scotland.

But voters want to know that their money is being spent efficiently, every penny of it. They do not want to pay higher taxes if it seems their cash will disappear in a vacuum or for it to be wasted on a surplus of overpaid managers in ill-defined jobs. Miliband was right to identify inefficiencies in private monopolies, even if he failed to develop the theme. The next leader must be equally forensic about the inefficiencies in the public sector, as part of a five-year long campaign to prove that he or she can be trusted to invest fruitfully and not wastefully.

Potential Labour leaders are already getting into painful contortions about whether they should apologise for the Labour government’s alleged overspending prior to the financial crash, an echo of the election campaign. As Peter Mandelson spelt out very clearly on Sunday, overspending did not cause the crash. The government also had to mount up debt to prevent the entire economy from falling over a cliff. But in seeking distance and contrition, the next Labour leader should acknowledge that not all the cash was spent wisely. The contrition must come with a detailed commitment on how every halfpenny will be deployed efficiently next time, with unprecedented levels of scrutiny and accountability of spending made possible by the internet. Clear structures in public services, highlighting who is accountable to whom, are similarly vital.

That will mean loosening the relationship with the trade unions. The link suggests Labour represents the producers of services rather than the users. The distinction is absurd. Producers are also users of services. The train drivers are users of the NHS and send their kids to schools. The hospital cleaner is dependent on public transport. The next Labour leader must show clearly and convincingly that he or she seeks to provide the best public services in Europe, and in doing so look well beyond the unions that have the separate task of representing their members.

Labour avoided the old “tax bombshell” traps at the election but fell into new ones. Even the focus-group-tested “mansion tax” was wrongly presented with the emphasis on its punitive nature rather than on how the money might help public services. “No taxation without explanation” must be part of a new leader’s repertoire. He or she must also appoint an office that is willing and able to make constructive criticism of their leader, ensure others in the parliamentary party and well beyond feel part of a project, and puts the Labour case around the clock rather than once or twice a year at set-piece events.

The mountain is steep, but not insurmountable. Oddly the result of the 2015 election makes Tony Blair’s aim of realignment on the centre left through a revived Labour party more possible than it was in 1994. The Lib Dems are almost wiped out and will take decades to recover. Meanwhile, the Conservatives face another split over Europe. Is there anyone in Labour’s ranks who can make the most of this opportunity as the mountain is climbed? In a fixed-term five-year parliament there is no need to decide quickly which candidate is best qualified to perform the second most difficult job in British politics.