The work eventually became a Fabian Society pamphlet entitled Southern Discomfort.

1992 – The party most likely to clobber people

The voters’ feedback made grim listening. Their mood was anxious and insecure, especially about the economy, but there was no sense at all that Labour was the party to rescue them, instead they told me that, ‘Labour would help the poor, not the likes of us’ and ‘I just felt I couldn’t do it [vote Labour] – things have been bad enough for us as it is.’

As Giles Radice, the pamphlet’s author, concluded, ‘They do not consider that it [Labour] understands, respects or rewards those who want to get on. Far from encouraging talent and opportunity, Labour is seen as the party most likely to clobber people.’

1997 – Making a difference to ‘me and my family’

Five years later, similar swing voters regaled a post-election focus group with tales of how, on the night, they had hired a mini cab to the South Bank to watch the sun come up and cheer Tony Blair’s arrival at the Festival Hall:

‘It was a fantastic atmosphere, like a pop concert or something. Hundreds of people were there all cheering and waving. We’re all New Labour now!’

How many items from the voters’ checklist had to be ticked to achieve this mind shift?

Top priority had been the need to build economic trust. The 1992 exit poll confirmed that half thought they would be worse off under Labour. Shadow chancellor Gordon Brown worked at this tirelessly, risking personal unpopularity with his party as he enforced a new economic discipline banning unaffordable spending commitments and taking difficult decisions about work and welfare. Policy on taxation was also crucial, given Labour’s reputation as the ‘clobbering party’.

In my book, Talking to a Brick Wall, I explain this transformation through the voters’ eyes. In my first work for Gordon Brown, I was briefed to challenge the recommendation of Blair’s pollster, Philip Gould, that a higher tax rate levied on those earning more than £100k would be damaging. But I concluded that Gould was right. My own focus groups agreed that putting taxes up, even at £100k – a level that most people could only dream of earning, was deeply unpopular.

Income tax increases were abandoned, giving a vital reassurance to voters like these, enabling them to look again at Labour, and ultimately entrust the party with their vote.

Labour won with expectations of a competently run economy, of better-funded health and education, and of a bright young family man who seemed to share their values and aspirations in No 10.

May 2010 – a fresh approach to the country’s problems?

In 2010, I set up a panel of swing voters in Harlow, by then the country’s fifth most marginal seat. I recruited only those who had voted Labour in 2005, the very people Labour needed to keep if electoral success was to be a possibility. In the end, the panel’s voting patterns perfectly predicted the Conservatives’ comfortable local win and the national hung parliament.

Labour, personified by Gordon Brown, was simply never in the frame. As one panellist put it:‘In modern times you need a modern politician. He should be able to speak to people like me who haven’t the attention to listen.’

When the hung result became apparent it was inconceivable to these voters that Labour might work out an agreement with the Lib Dems. This was not because of ideological or policy differences – there was felt to be little to choose between all the main parties, especially on dealing with the economic crisis. Instead, the rationale was that Labour was tired and had run out of steam and new ideas, while the Lib Dems were thought to match the Conservatives positioning: fresh new and energetic.

A post-election session with the panel after the Cameron-Clegg Rose Garden double act showed its novelty value winning through: ‘I’m quite excited by it – it could be the chance of something new,’ said one voter. ‘Really good and positive outcome – young, fresh and promising,’ Remarked another.

August 2010 – Who will pay the price?

Three months in, in late August 2010, I reconvened the Harlow panel. That first rush of enthusiasm had dissipated, replaced by growing anxiety. Panellists acknowledged that there had been a flurry of activity and an admirable, if unsettling willingness to take risks, but confessed to a lack of clarity about the government’s destination.

‘They don’t mind taking risks do they? Not scared of upsetting people,’ Suggested one panellist. ‘It all feels a bit confused – lacks direction,’ worried another.

David Cameron himself was seen as strong and energetic, but something about him needled at an underlying concern, with people commenting that,‘He just doesn’t know what it’s like for ordinary people’ and asking, ‘Will the Conservatives really look after everyone?’

The VAT hike, tough public service cuts and perceived backtracking on promises like winter fuel allowances left many nervous about who exactly was going to pay the price for fixing the economic deficit – and this session took place the day before publication of the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ conclusion that low-income working families would be the hardest hit.

New, new Labour

Three months after election defeat the list of adjectives used by these swing voters to describe Labour were depressing: ‘Disarray’, ‘defeated’, ‘tired’, ‘rudderless’, ‘confused’, ‘sad’, or, simply,‘who?’

The leadership contest had made little impact beyond the knowledge that two brothers named Miliband were involved. No one was able to name all five candidates, and there was no awareness at all of any of the ideas for Labour’s future under discussion.

That said, there was some warmth towards Harriet Harman for the holding operation that she was running. I set the focus group members a task: what would they recommend that Labour do to get back on track?

It was clear that the greatest barrier to electoral credibility lies more in the gloomy list of adjectives above than in debates about left or right or old or new. Instead, the party was urged to take the opportunity of a dynamic, youthful leader to put themselves back on the map.

‘Get people noticing them again – be recognised in the public eye’;

‘We’ve forgotten about them – they have to make us look at them again’;

‘It’s more than likeability, it’s almost a celebrity thing. That’s the world we’re living in’.

And then to hit the ground running with a no holds barred radical review. The sheer scale of the task, in voters’ minds, was impressive, reminiscent of the root and branch rethink that began with Neil Kinnock’s Policy Review and became the New Labour project. Yet, there is an irony here. Truly evoking the spirit of New Labour means no sacred cows, everything up for grabs. Just as voters in 1992 proposed a name change to symbolise the transformation, so they did again in August 2010:

‘Drop the new tag’

‘Have new people, new policies and new structures but stop calling it new – it makes it seem anything but‘

Paradoxically, the established ‘newness’ of New Labour is what makes it seem old fashioned, stuck in a rut and out of touch.

Although Labour is no longer the ‘clobber-you’ party, voters simply don’t know what it has become instead. Only by listening to them, understanding them and engaging with them can the new leader win them back. They demand a new offer that clarifies Labour’s values and makes them relevant again before they’ll even take another look. That’s the brief for Labour’s new leader on 25 September.