Debate about the future of the left has a feverish quality to it at the moment. New coalitions are advocated, campaigns to create a ‘new politics’ are launched and the ‘new socialism’ is coined. But to underestimate the importance of this debate for the Labour party would be a mistake. The decisions the progressive left, and the government, take now will not only determine the outcome of the next election, but also the likelihood of a progressive century. It’s crucial that we don’t throw away our achievements thus far because of a momentary crisis of confidence.

Which is why we need a bit of sobriety in the discourse about what New Labour is and is not. First, New Labour was not a ‘takeover’ of the Labour party. It sprang from sensible reforms started by Neil Kinnock, pursued by John Smith and brought to a head by Tony Blair in the clause IV campaign. In 1997, 95 per cent of Labour party members voted to support the manifesto – not exactly a small clique which pulled the wool over people’s eyes. The accusations of betrayal once in government were inevitable, but the arc of the last three terms has not differed dramatically from New Labour’s original precepts. Labour has governed in the main in accordance with its 1997 manifesto, as ‘a party of ideas and ideals but not of outdated ideology. What counts is what works. The objectives are radical. The means will be modern.’

The second claim is that New Labour used to be bold but lost its sense of purpose because of an obsession with ‘market fundamentalism’. The charge is that Labour’s lack of hostility to the use of the private sector in providing and funding public services – including city academies, diagnostic treatment centres and the like – has reduced the party to nothing more than the human face of Thatcherism. But surely the whole point of being non-ideological about the use of the private sector in public services and positive about wealth creation is precisely the opposite of fundamentalism?

Furthermore, is it really credible to argue that a government which introduced the minimum wage, extended maternity leave and introduced paternity leave, increased paid holiday and created new measures to stop discrimination in the workplace, has been genuflecting to ‘big business’? A sometimes understandable desire to push the party in a more radical direction should not lead to a false and dangerous revision of the last 11 years.

Finally, there is an argument which suggests New Labour pandered to the interests of the middle class and the Daily Mail to the exclusion of the poorest in society and those with liberal sensibilities. It’s true that the last three elections were secured by winning over Basildon man, Worcester woman and building a coalition with our core vote communities who had stuck with Labour through the dark years of opposition. It was a successful coalition, and one which we would be foolish to dump – those who suggest that Obama won solely with a rainbow alliance of greens, trade unions and liberals are indulging in deep wishful thinking. But it is not true that this led to policies which merely focused on the first two constituencies to the detriment of the others. Labour’s record in reducing poverty has been one of the best in the OECD countries, health equalities have substantially improved, as have educational opportunities among working-class young people. In government Labour has remained strong on gay rights, human rights and health and safety. All bashed on a Daily Mail basis.

The real risk, therefore, is that by turning our back on Labour’s achievements, and the principles and purpose which lie behind them, parts of the left are making the Tories’ case for them. It is political suicide to expect the public to support a progressive platform if you’ve abandoned the one party which comes closest to what you stand for. The turning back we have to worry about is the public voting for a Conservative government at the next election. This is not to say that Labour should simply stand on its record either of the past 11 years, or its handling of the economic crisis. The next election will only be won with a positive vision for a fourth term in which power and funding is devolved to a level much closer to people in their locality, where a culture of ambition and aspiration is embedded in our most deprived communities, and where being green becomes the easy and everyday choice for the public. This may sound familiar, but there is no need to reach for thinktank buzzwords such as the Good Society, not least because no one can agree on the content of it.

So it is right that we should not walk away from difficult decisions such as reform of the Royal Mail. Nor should we turn our back on plans to improve quality in public services or welfare because the money is tight. This is not a ploy to unnecessarily take on those in the party who disagree with the government, but the real business of governing in the interest of the public. Now is not the time to create a new party, it’s our chance to stand up for New Labour and win the case for a fourth term.