One of New Labour’s greatest political achievements has been to make the south winnable territory. This was key to Labour’s electoral success in 1997, 2001, and even in 2005 when the Tories began to win back seats in the southern part of England. It remains vital to the party now. Without holding on to our seats in the south, Labour will lose the next election. This is an obvious point which we ignore at our peril.

In 1992, after Labour’s fourth successive election defeat, I wrote a Fabian pamphlet, Southern Discomfort. Based on qualitative research by GMA Monitor research, it highlighted Labour’s weakness in the south and its failure to win over key voters there. To my surprise, it caused something of a sensation among Labour MPs. Many of them had not yet woken up to the importance of winning seats in the south nor how the party was perceived by crucial wavering voters among the white-collar and skilled manual workers, who make up the majority of the electorate.

In 1992, Labour won only 10 seats outside London and south of a line of the Wash to the Bristol Channel. Even including London, it won a mere 45 out of 261 seats in southern England. Although Labour did relatively well in Scotland, Wales and the north of England, there were not enough winnable seats in the northern half of the country to give Labour victory. The message was simple: Labour could not win an election without doing better in the south.

My research also showed that the marginal seats outside the south where Labour also did badly tended to have ‘southern’ characteristics – that is to say they had a suburban location, high home ownership, and an above average proportion of white-collar and skilled manual workers. This suggested that Labour’s ‘southern discomfort’ in the early 1990s was more than just geographical; it was also associated with social change. I wrote that ‘if there is ever to be another Labour victory, the party must respond to underlying shifts in popular attitudes which have already taken place in the south but are now also beginning to occur elsewhere.’

The qualitative research on the attitudes of ‘wavering voters’ in five of Labour’s target south-east marginals (Gravesham, Harlow, Luton South, Slough, Stevenage) showed that many skilled and white-collar workers were deeply concerned about the recession of the early 1990s, fearful of losing their jobs and homes and believed that the NHS and education were seriously underfunded. But, despite their fears and insecurities, they voted Conservative in 1992, because they did not trust the Labour party. While they perceived Labour as ‘caring and fair’, they did not believe that the party was capable of running the country. They thought that Labour would mismanage the economy, increase taxes and waste public spending, and be at the beck and call of the unions.

Even more important, they did not consider that Labour understood, respected or rewarded those who wanted to get on. Far from encouraging talent and opportunity Labour was seen as the party which was likely to ‘clobber’ people. From the perspective of the ‘aspiring groups’, voting Labour was not seen as in their interests.

The pamphlet argued that, if Labour was to win the next election, it would have to make radical changes in image, policy and organisation, and become, as in 1945 and 1964, the party of genuine opportunity, ready to break down barriers to social mobility and promote individual life chances. It also said that the symbolic act of rewriting the outdated Clause IV, part four of the party’s constitution, would assist Labour to criticise more effectively the market economy’s shortcomings and develop a credible economic policy of its own. I concluded that ‘if we are to achieve a Labour victory at the next election we have to be prepared to adopt a new identity, which is in tune with the times. In short, we have to become a new Labour party.’

The rest is history. Under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the Labour party did become a New Labour party. It did rewrite Clause IV. It did change its policies, in light of changing circumstances. And, crucially, it assembled a governing majority, adding to Labour’s northern heartlands vital backing from aspirant voters in the south and elsewhere who had previously withheld their support because they did not trust Neil Kinnock’s Labour party. Labour won many seats in the south, including such unlikely targets as Hastings, Hove and Wimbledon.

The adoption of a revisionist approach resulted in the party winning, for the first time in its history, three successive elections. The government has a substantial record of economic and social achievement to its credit. However, Labour cannot win on its record alone. Voters increasingly take for granted what has been achieved in the past and want to know how the government will deal with the problems they now face and will be facing in the future.

Ominously for Labour, there are warning signs that southern discomfort is re-emerging in a new and more complex form. From 2004 onwards, the party has been steadily losing ground to the Conservatives in the southern part of the country. Only two of the 89 district and unitary authorities in southern England outside London are held by Labour.

At the next election, Labour will have to win back aspirant families in the south and elsewhere who have been feeling the impact of high interest rates over a number of years, and also experiencing the relative insecurity and low pay of many service and manufacturing jobs. Despite the usual grumbles, these voters are prepared to pay taxes for public services. But they need to know that they are tailored to their needs and represent value for money.

First-time buyers are still facing acute difficulties in the housing market, despite the recent slowing in house price increases. Almost half need a gift or loan from relatives in order to be able to buy a house. Many voters also blame immigration for pressure on housing, public services and wages. The economic case for immigration is strong, but for social and political reasons there have to be strict limits, as well as help for areas with high levels of immigration.

Above all, in a period of financial and economic turbulence, Labour must retain its well-deserved reputation for economic competence. The long drawn-out drama over Northern Rock, and the eventual decision to nationalise the troubled bank for a temporary period, has potential implications for southern as well as northern voters. The government will have to handle the fallout with care if it is to avoid political damage from the issue, although the Tory position of outright opposition is hardly credible.

The next election will be won or lost in southern England. Labour must show that it understands the concerns of aspirant voters and has answers to their problems. The prime minister’s recent speech to the Policy Network conference, in which he called for personalised public services, shows that he is well aware of the dangers. The challenge for the government will be to produce credible solutions.