It is very encouraging that even at this early stage all leadership contenders seem to have recognised that if Labour is to remain relevant and win again we must address our failure at the last election to convince the majority in Britain that we were on their side. In particular, they have understood that the matter of welfare needs to be tackled head-on within the party and voters at large.

Like so many others, I lost track of the number of people on the doorstep who said that they worked hard, played by the rules, and felt they didn’t get the recognition they deserved from their government.

Labour won in Barrow and Furness with an increased majority, partly thanks to people believing that the Tories certainly didn’t speak for them either, and because they saw that the other parties were a risk to the 5,000 jobs in Barrow shipyard. Some voted Labour with their heads when weighing up the difference between Labour’s economic handling and risk from the Conservatives. But many weren’t with us in their hearts.

It is almost impossible to under-estimate the importance of regaining the trust of those people in the months and years ahead. Not simply for the electoral maths – though anyone looking at what has happened to Labour in the south of England will immediately see how critical that is. But also because we can only ever truly claim to represent fairness in Britain if that fairness extends, and is felt, up the income scale to those in the middle who currently believe they aren’t being championed by any of the parties.

There are so many things we have to address, and that is why the prospect of a thorough and constructive leadership debate is so welcome. What I want to flag up today is welfare.

The tensions between targeting resources and universal entitlements in the welfare system will always be there, and the position of Labour and the Tories has criss-crossed through history. The 1997 Labour government broke new ground in its robust targeting through the likes of tax credits and the pension credit, and the Tories airbrushed their own history of spreading means-testing by opposing what we were doing.

Now, with the Tories losing all coherence by proposing to spread the means-test to key universal planks of the welfare system like child benefit, we should be prepared to take the bold step of fundamentally reassessing what has worked and what hasn’t over the last decade – and listening to those advocating that Labour return to full-throated support for universal entitlements.

This must be much deeper than simply allying ourselves with middle class
voters annoyed that they risk losing their tax credits, right though we are to take that stand. We should debate and recast the balance between targeting resources and giving everyone an equal share, extra help who need it most versus the sense of unfairness from those just above the line which that so often generates. And – critically – we must properly acknowledge the inevitable disincentives to work or save created by any targeted system, no matter how sophisticated (and complicated) you make it.

Critical to retaining the support of taxpayers is retaining people’s confidence that they are getting something back for the money that is being taken off them. Partly, that must mean making the case far more strongly for public services, and being more responsive to demands of those who use them.

But it also means being prepared to change social security so a much broader spectrum of people feel it can offer security for them too, not just those at the bottom. For example, it is a recipe for lasting resentment to tell people who are busting a gut to provide a decent life for their family that they should quietly pay more in tax but should no longer expect basic things like child benefit in return – as the Tories seem to be paving the way to do.

Ditching the principle that the most vulnerable need more help to succeed would of course be absurd – it would weaken our country, as well as being a betrayal of our progressive Labour values and of the British sense of decency from which our welfare state was forged.

But it would also be a dereliction of our duty if we failed to recognise now that the benefits system as it stands, for all the increased obligations and support to work over the last few years, still too often ends up either trapping people in deprivation or gives too much leeway to those who seek to avoid providing for themselves.

A system that was designed to guarantee everyone a fair deal is losing the confidence of the people on middle and modest incomes who by and large pay for it. If we are to regain the trust of the British people, we have to show we understand that and have the gumption to tackle the problem head on.

Doing so will be a crucial part of showing we can remain a party that stands up for the majority in Britain, and can deserve to succeed again.