Every time government policies are challenged, the coalition ripostes that we are living in ‘unprecedented times’. Thirteen years of profligate spending by Labour, so they say, means the government is obliged to tighten the nation’s purse strings. And for ‘uncharted waters’, read: we will consider doing anything, to anyone, never mind the consequences. This attitude is akin to a child sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting: ‘I’m not listening’!

Just 12 months ago, the political discourse in Britain was far more nuanced than it is today. Like many people, I considered my political views to be fluid. They could not be classified by me ticking a box. Perhaps a French philosopher keen on wearing polo necks expressed this idea best when he once said:

Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same … Let us leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order.

But now it feels like we have all become big-state-loving lefties. We are on the defensive. We ride around from protest to protest in the name of preserving the status quo. We want to keep libraries open, stop our forests being sold off to private companies and keep the cap on tuition fees. In short, we defend the role of the state wherever we can.

This is not a surprising reaction to the plight we find ourselves in. The government’s attacks on the poor, the sick, the vulnerable, the young and the old have jolted many Labour voters into taking a leap of faith forward and joining the party. The natural reaction of the party, founded to give representation to working people in parliament, is to channel the energy that new members bring to oppose cuts that hit our ‘base’ hardest.

The trouble with this approach is that it comes across as cynical. Everybody knows that if Labour was in government, it too would have had to make substantial reductions to public services – albeit at a slower and more manageable rate – to bring down the deficit. A bigger problem with the current approach, however, is that it is entirely reactive. Activists and cabinet members alike seem to be defining the party in terms of what it is against, not what it is for.

This is a big mistake, in my opinion. If we think back to early 2010, David Cameron was still pushing the idea that we live in a ‘broken society’. Although this struck a chord with some, it came across to many others as navel-gazing. If Britain was broken, what was Cameron’s solution? He didn’t seem to offer one. This was a fatal flaw in the Tories’ pre-election strategy – they had a lot to say but had no vision for the future. ‘Broken Britain’ was quietly sidelined and replaced with an energetic manifesto launch centred on people power.

Labour must also begin to set out a vision for the future. Simply reacting to the government’s cuts in the negative will not suffice.

Of course, there are some figures in the Labour party who are already offering alternatives to the austerity discourse that currently prevails. Tessa Jowell and Jon Cruddas are two names that spring to mind. Jowell has been particularly vocal in making the case for mutualism and cooperative ownership. By reorienting public services and institutions, so that they serve local communities, she argues that mutualism delivers what the state and private companies so often lack – accountability. Cruddas has been equally rigorous in championing a return to the idea of ‘common life’ and has called for Labour to reengage with the ‘politics of belonging’. Critics of these and other similar ideas may claim they are rather abstract and difficult to translate into concrete policies, but they certainly contrast favourably with the Conservative efforts to promote the ‘big society’.

A ComRes poll from earlier this month showed that half of those interviewed thought the ‘big society’ was a ‘gimmick’. I don’t think this should be cause for celebration. Where the ‘big society’ falls short, it will be the neediest who are hit hardest.

I believe we should have welcomed Cameron’s embrace of the ‘big society’ right from the outset. It showed that 13 years of Labour government had in fact changed the discourse in British politics. In embracing the ‘big society’, Cameron was in fact endorsing Labour’s record. Less than a year after the Conservative manifesto launch, which championed the ‘big society’, we should now be in the position to ‘call out’ their rank hypocrisy. Instead of having dispersed power away from the state and empowered local communities, the government has in fact presided over damaging spending cuts to many important voluntary groups. Rather than denounce the ‘big society’ as a ‘gimmick’, I think we should be proactive and willing to defend our record when required and also to articulate our vision for the future.

We have a rich and fruitful history that we should be proud of and able to draw upon. We cannot allow our detractors to define us and set the terms of debate. My humble message to 39 Victoria Street would be this then: less about ‘them’ and more about ‘us’.

For more on the ‘big society’…

Big Soc = Weak Soc. Rob Higson reviews this week’s event, and Tom Levitt gives his view

Tessa Jowell MP says the ‘big society’ has failed as a political message: it’s time for Labour to try a ‘good society’

If the government is willing to be bold a ‘big philanthropy’ could fill the gaps in the ‘big society’ says Hazel Blears MP

A ‘good society’ would see social pressure exerted to make Britain a fairer place argues Richard Angell

Anas Sarwar MP on Labour’s answer to the ‘big society’

The unreliable big society – Tom Levitt in his Third Sector column

Dave Roberts says the ‘big society’ could, with some changes, be a Labour idea

People overwhelmingly prefer to be consulted, rather than involved, in community decisions says Alan Middleton

Richard Darlington says even if the ‘big society’ isn’t the right answer Labour shouldn’t cede the ground it’s built on to the Tories

As an example of Labour’s ‘good society’ in action David Miliband and Tessa Jowell suggest that the BBC is turned into a co-operative

Paul Harvey thinks parts of the ‘big society’ can find roots in Labour revisionist thinking from the mid-twentieth century

Photo: Victoria Peckham