From London’s clown mayor to the tongue-in-cheek social policy of the Cameron/Osborne inner circle, the braying awfulness of the social milieu the New Etonian’s represent makes Labour stomachs turn. This is because a true commitment to social justice, equity and the importance of human capital rests at Labour’s heart. The fact that we agree on these fundamentals shows how instinctive bonds remain strong across the Labour movement and that essential unity remains tight. Debate about direction or tactics must never blind us to this.

But how should Team GB tackle the coming difficult months? Labour’s internal dialogue on this often focuses on how so-called ‘core’ and ‘soft’ prospective Labour voters will respond to policies.

At Crewe and Nantwich, Labour did a fine job of bringing out the core vote, but lost aspirational swing voters to the Tories. So the crude distinction does have meaning. Yet Glasgow East showed how this can be opaque at best. There, it was aspirational ‘core’ voters who protest voted in large numbers against worldwide increases in the prices of food, fuel and money.

Since both results reflected national polling trends, it is reasonable to generalise from each. Two lessons stare us in the face. First, the argument that a broad move leftward would counter this rightward shift of many potential Labour voters is both counterintuitive and miscast. It no doubt extends from the heart for those who propound it, but not the mind.

Ken Livingstone, decent mayor that he was, lost the outer London boroughs – and his day job – because too often he chose heart over mind. For instance, while the proposed £25 congestion was presented as a greening measure, it seemed to hit too many decent folk in Croydon and Ealing. Another example of ‘heart over mind’ is the popular idea that foreign policy – on the Middle East or Africa – will move the core vote.

The mind should tell us that people now have broad confidence in the NHS to deal with serious health threats, so they focus more on less clinically imperative matters of convenience and choice. It tells us that the uneasiness many people feel about their families’ future is partly caused by their worry about the environment. But it also tells us that for the moment their ‘security’ imperatives revolve around the rising cost of daily living and the safety of their families from crime and antisocial behaviour. It tells us that poverty reduction is of fundamental importance to what we do, but also that, for many voters, aspiration is more about upward mobility from wherever they happen to be.

Simply put, poverty reduction, international development and protecting the environment are central to Labour’s purpose. But our electoral success will rest upon our ability to guarantee people’s security in the widest sense and enable them to aspire to a better life for their families. The success of Team GB in the coming months will rest on our ability to be led by the mind, and not simply the heart.

So what of the burning issue of the moment – a proposed levy on high energy prices to help the very people who can enable a Labour victory?

At one level, there appears to be a strong moral case for a one-off levy to help those burdened by high fuel costs. There’s also a respectable intellectual case that this principle should extend to those who benefit personally from very high bonuses. But the political case for a windfall tax must factor in the risk of disinvestment and that is very real, albeit insidiously and over time. Only the foolish would not have already made contingencies for new fiscal measures aimed at helping hard working families and most people would surely view such redistribution as the epitome of fairness. But if we tax at the wrong level or in the wrong way, Labour will suffer at the ballot box. It’s a tough call for ministers but here, as across the policy agenda, Labour must be led by the mind.