There’s only one thing harder than remembering a 65-minute speech by heart: writing the policies to go with it.

As Labour ministers stepped out of their government cars for the last time in June 2010, escorted from their plush departmental offices with their armies of civil servants to manage every care and need, most were unprepared for the dire conditions under which British opposition parties operate: few people or resources; almost no access to civil servants; and a government that can either swipe good ideas or make them irrelevant at the drop of a press release.

In these conditions, the opposition looks down the barrel of five very long and very short years in which it must both regain the trust of the public and develop a set of actionable ideas for a possible return to power. This week, as pundits digested Ed Miliband’s ‘look mum – no hands!’ conference speech, Progress and the Institute for Government brought together a senior group of wonks, politicos and powers behind the throne to tackle the question of how, when and in what way oppositions can make effective policy.

The panel, a star-studded cast including former cabinet ministers James Purnell and Andy Burnham, Catherine Haddon from the IfG, and adviser to Ed Miliband Stewart Wood, were able to agree on one clear objective for policy in opposition: it’s about the winning, stupid. Winning is the difference between a manifesto that becomes law of the land, and one that becomes the next Argos catalogue after a long and tortuous spin through the recycling grinders.

Winning, of course, is not the same as governing. A clear direction of travel, along with a couple of killer ideas to lend credibility, may be sufficient for an election victory. As Wood highlighted, Tony Blair’s ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ slogan was enough to make the electorate comfortable with Labour’s stance on justice without binding the party to a detailed set of reforms.

On the other hand, where a party is forced into a strong commitment, it can quickly turn from campaigning lasso into governing noose. A Nick Clegg-style musical post-election apology for a promise not kept may be worthy of chart status, but it’s hardly a desirable outcome of the policymaking process.

That particular U-turn, like so many others, arose from the apparent surprise the coalition discovered when it opened the safe to find the family silver replaced by IKEA flatpack crockery, Allen wrench not included. In many other cases, it is the limited resources of opposition frontbenchers that trip them up, making it near impossible to accurately cost new initiatives or estimate their collateral impact. As Miliband stepped off his podium, no doubt the Coalition set to work a small army of Treasury officials to cost up the (admirably few) new pledges made, aiming to cast doubt on their feasibility and affordability.

To be credible, therefore, oppositions need time to work through the details, talk to interested parties, and build a consensus around change. Catherine Haddon’s IfG report on the topic shows that policies like the minimum wage and devolution in 1997, and the universal credit or – dare I say – NHS reform in 2010 all took over three years to ‘get right’, at least to get to the point of attempted implementation.

Aside from the final policy output, there is another way that oppositions can use their time of involuntary reflection to prepare for government. That is to rethink their style of policymaking. According to Purnell, Blair’s pre-1997 period of opposition took a Tawney-esque approach, which is to say bottom-up and community-based, versus its post-1997 Croslandite manner of driven-from-the-centre rationalism. Once safely restored to their red boxes and chauffeur-driven cars, it is hard for ministers to continue to involve outsiders and trust local groups when developing policy. Yet if there is any chance for them to do so, it will be because of habits formed in the dark depths of opposition.

Halfway through the parliament and the clamour is growing louder: ‘Where are the policies? Show us the policies.’ Miliband’s speech this week has wowed the crowd into temporary submission. But he will need to satisfy the public that he has mapped out the path he wants to take us along, and charted some of the key landmarks we will pass on the way. If he can do that, and lead his party to victory, then our trusty civil service will fill in the details.

—————————————————————————————

Adam Swersky is a member of Progress. He tweets @adamswersky