The number of open goals the government has invited Labour to knock the ball into since the turn of the year continues to mount.

Exhibit A – the coalition’s spectacular U-turn over its attempt to sell off, at a loss, the nation’s forests – has been swiftly followed by many more: the botched evacuation of Britons from Libya; a deputy prime minister who forgets he’s in charge and heads abroad for a holiday; the capture of SAS soldiers in Libya; Prince Andrew both backed, and briefed against, by the No 10 media operation; and a prime minister who’s got a somewhat tenuous grip on the contents of his own government’s flagship NHS reforms. To name but a few.

It’s not surprising, then, that Labour strategists have, in the words of one, decided to paint the government as combining ‘the ideology of Margaret Thatcher with the competence of John Major’. The ‘incompetence’ charge worked spectacularly well for Labour in the mid-1990s when John Smith so successfully labelled Major ‘the man with the non-Midas touch’.

And Gordon Brown’s government – buoyed initially by its deft handling of attempted terror attacks, floods and foot and mouth outbreaks – was never truly able to recover from the woes – symbolised by the election that never was and the loss of discs containing the personal data of millions of Britons – which overwhelmed it soon after.

But although tagging the government with the charge of incompetence may be necessary for Labour’s political recovery, it is nowhere near sufficient. ‘This election’, declared the little-remembered Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988, ‘is about competence, not ideology’. Weeks later, he found that it wasn’t. By painting him as outside the political mainstream and portraying themselves as the guardian of middle American values, the Republicans subjected Dukakis to a humiliating defeat. Labour’s recovery in the 1990s didn’t rest simply on portraying Major’s administration as incompetent. It was built on a positive, modernising policy agenda underpinned by the core values which the new Clause IV encapsulated.

Ed Miliband’s task is not to repeat policy prescriptions which will be some 20 years old by the likely time of the next general election, but to find new ones which capture the spirit of the times and are consistent with the progressive values which allowed Labour to win three general elections. We believe that the redistribution of power should be at the heart of Labour’s new agenda. And, as we will set out in the coming months, that should encompass redistributing power in the economy, society, the state and public services.

It is, of course, true that with a policy review in place and a general election still most likely four years away, Miliband should not rush to lay all of this agenda out too early. However, developing the narrative and beginning to illustrate it with policy ideas need not wait. And, most importantly at this point, ensuring that Labour’s response to the government’s agenda is not at odds with this is crucial.

That’s why, as Alan Milburn argues on page four, Labour must not allow its – entirely justified – opposition to the health reform bill to become seen as opposition to reform per se. Labour should, therefore, support foundation hospitals – introduced by the party and based on mutual principles of local ownership and accountability – becoming universal, while insisting that the national standards to which they work remain in place. Similarly, it should champion the notion of local authorities having a greater say over commissioning, making clear that the government’s proposals for a national commissioning board and GP consortia will lead to a total lack of accountability to taxpayers, patients and local communities. And it should, of course, resolutely oppose any move towards allowing providers to compete on price, not quality.

On education, Labour is right to oppose the abolition of education maintenance allowance precisely because it reduces the ability for disadvantaged young people to exercise power in deciding whether to remain in full-time education. It should, not, however, oppose the principle – placing greater power in the hands of local communities and parents – that lies behind the expansion of academies and the creation of ‘free schools’. Under Labour, the former drove up standards in the most disadvantaged areas, while the latter are simply a poorly regulated version of the ‘parent promoted’ schools which the previous government introduced. And, Labour should champion the cooperative trust schools it also introduced.

Labour’s attack on the government’s competence has been effective and well-timed. If sustained, it can create a climate in which voters pause for thought before voting Conservative or Liberal Democrat. But, in that pause, they must be able to envisage a reforming Labour government with a progressive vision for the future. Without that vision, many of those voters will feel themselves forced to cast a vote for the status quo. And blame Labour for failing to offer them something better.